India’s cricket in the World Cup so far has been excellent. Things are falling into place with a rapidity that must worry the other teams, although one hopes that New Zealand get a fair tilt. They were denied in 2019 when they lost the final to England through a combination of bad luck, bad rules and bad umpiring.
However, in denying visas for fans from Pakistan, India have displayed a churlishness that sits badly on a nation of its size and influence. The Board of Control for Cricket in India has been acting like an arm of the government since the Home Minister’s son took over as its secretary. In India, sport is politics.
The most telling comment after the much-hyped but ultimately one-sided India-Pakistan encounter came from Pakistan’s team director Mickey Arthur. “It didn’t seem like an International Cricket Council (ICC) event; it seemed like a (domestic) BCCI event,” he said referring to the lack of Pakistan supporters in the vast Narendra Modi stadium in Ahmedabad.
The website ESPNcricinfo calculated there were just four American-Pakistanis to cheer the team. Only a handful of journalists got visas. In 2011, about 6500 visas were issued for fans from Pakistan for the semifinal in Mohali where India and Pakistan met.
Sport can divide peoples just as easily as it can bring them together if that is what the government of the day wants.
Pakistan has been painted as India’s ‘other’, the enemy who encourages terrorism. As a political entity, Pakistan have lived up to this image often enough, with the attacks in Mumbai in 2008 and the wars fought between the two countries a matter of historical record.
The worst insult a politician (and the trolling fraternity) can deliver to a dissenting citizen is: “Go live in Pakistan!” Nuance is not a quality either possesses. You can, however, cheer for an India win while bemoaning that fans of the other side were not allowed into the country. Once it was decided that the cricket team was welcome, visas for fans should have followed.
That the visas for the team were delayed, as was the visa for the Pakistan-born Australian opener Usman Khwaja when that country toured earlier points to a pattern.
Sporting competition is not just about two teams facing each other. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need big stadiums. Supporters play a role too, cheering and living vicariously through the feats of those actually performing.
Whenever Indian and Pakistani fans have got together to watch their teams, they have been grateful for the chance. Many wear outfits with half the colours of one team and half the other’s. Some carry flags stitched together to emphasise oneness. Each group has supported its own team. Some sections from both groups have tended to overdo things, but that is not unusual.
Player-taunting
Pakistani players were taunted with religious chants in Ahmedabad. This is in keeping with the attitude of the visa-denying authorities. Pakistani fans have taunted Indian players too in the past. In fact, player-taunting is a traditional sport in stadiums around the world. There are rules in place to handle racism in the chants, but none that deal with religion or gender identity.
It is ironical that for all their animosity towards Pakistan, the authorities love an India-Pakistan cricket match. It is a huge money-spinner, it gives politicians an opportunity to be seen by millions on television (the Home Minister was seen waving the victory sign once it became clear India were winning), and there is the feel-good factor which distracts from political, social and economic issues. It is the same in Pakistan too.
The fond hope now is that the two clash in the final at the same venue. It will be interesting to see politicians appear or disappear depending on how their team is faring. There is a chance that the teams might meet earlier, in the semifinal; if they do, then obviously only one will play the final.
Now with India hoping to bid for the 2036 Olympics, they will have to work on ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ (the world is one family), the theme that was given yet another airing at the G20 meeting recently. The International Olympic Committee may not take kindly to selective hosting.
