Cricket diplomacy is an oxymoron

The morning after is always the best time to take stock of the mess that has been created. The mess needn’t really have to be of the night before, and neither does it have to be one that is part of the progression towards a climax. That there is a mess in this part of the world is reason enough to take stock of things. And now that a cricket tournament that calls itself the World Cup is over and done with, it is time to take stock, a reality check on things. For a large minority, albeit silenced, that is cricket challenged; some contradictions are plain to the eye.

Cricket diplomacy is an oxymoron fabricated by a desi political class that is neck deep in the hole. It is a contradiction in every sense of the phenomenon, but one that the desi political leadership pulls out of the hat once the fixtures permit. It is not a South Asian phenomenon so the reuse of desi is deliberate and not coincidental. For the likeable Sri Lankans and the amiable Bangladeshis leave the cricket match to what it is, a match. And the rest of the South Asians prefer a game that is faster, takes less time, and doesn’t have accent problems. But it is the desi political leadership and an ever hyperventilating media that plays out this fantasy every once in a while, when the leaders are in a jam. The posh and the plebian media are equal partners in this delinquency, whatever their accents may suggest.

Cricket, like all such contests, is a game that requires a result. There has to be a winner and a loser. That is the nature of sport, for it is based on the principle of winner takes all. In sport, individuals or teams are in the field to win their matches and take home all the trophies that come with the victory. The more the merrier. All sport strives to win, no matter what. The only proviso that may be permitted is that some victories are sweeter than others. A win at Old Trafford will always be the talking point of the Liverpool season, for that contest is about history, memory and bragging rights. Anfield rocks for every match, but rocks that wee bit more when the Mancs visit, and lose.

Which, it appears, is replicated by the desi phenomenon of besting the other in cricket. For it isn’t simply a match to be won, but one that has history and bragging rights as permanent attachments, viruses and all that. It gets elevated to something more than merely a long, boring game. A Nawaz Sharif cabinet minister did draw a connection between the then ongoing battles in Kargil and a desi match during the 1999 World Cup. A shabby comment, but one which is best replicated by what my friend Aakar Patel has deconstructed in these pages. The fans that come for this type of match then want victory, and they want to smell it, strong and putrid. If they don’t get it, then heavens help the players who get accused of match-fixing more often than Italian footballers. Diplomacy, on the other hand, is about dialogue, sharing, thoughts, principles, notions of peace and arriving at a decent result that satisfies both sides. It is not based on winner takes all. And brags. So to reduce diplomacy to a desi match is a sign of desperation and an evasion of reality. The two prime ministers share a common language, literally, so communication doesn’t require much more. But then the reality is that both are neck deep in the hole. Even as the desi match and dialogue proceeded in Mohali, a Pakistani High Commission driver was picked up by Indian intelligence agencies. Pakistan responded likewise and the predictable pattern reappeared. Cricket certainly couldn’t change the game. And it can’t let them escape reality. For the CBI in India has filed a charge sheet in the 2G scam and that apparently required trunk loads of paper to be submitted in court. Cricket and diplomacy notwithstanding, that’s the reality and it weighs a lot, and it stinks.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 6^th,  2011.