One of the "spoils of partition" - I borrow the term from Cambridge historian Joya Chatterji - of 1947 is the deep-rooted animosity and suspicion between the neighbours. The two republics carved out of an undivided country may have fought at least four proclaimed wars, but every time India takes on Pakistan on the cricket turf it is a battle of sorts. On both sides of the Line of Actual Control, and extending till the furthest point of their geographical territories, citizens are taught, "play the game in the spirit of the game but when it is up against Pakistan (and India) bring out the choicest of ammunition to fight a war."
"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play," once observed George Orwell and both the Indians and the Pakistanis resort to this Orwellian belief when it comes to playing cricket against each other. I wonder if the same madness is prevalent when the two sides taken on each other in hockey. The media often describes them as arch-rivals, probably mindful of the fact that it is not only a cliché but also too simplistic a term to encapsulate the complexities that engulf the neighbourly relationship.
Social historian Ramchandra Guha in a lecture delivered at the London School of Economics a couple of years ago had blamed India's lack of unimpeachable leadership in South Asia as the biggest detriment to making her way to the high table of global diplomacy. Over six decades after emerging as a nation in its present form, India may quite rightfully aspire to be a global leader, but when it comes to Pakistan she can hardly keep herself away from the provocation and the cacophony of the slanging match. Fighting and trouncing Pakistan in every game is still alike the brawl between two warring children.
During the regime of Atal Behari Vajpayee, when India was publicly cosying-up with the US, the dominant discourse of Indian diplomacy was one of moving beyond Pakistan. There were visible signs of India not getting entrapped in each and every action of its unfriendly neighbour, but when it came to crunch time the Indian leadership either succumbed to the Pakistani pressure or crumbled because of internal compulsions or used Pakistan as a tool to sensationalise domestic politics for short term gains.
The Pakistani leadership on its part has failed its people and lived to the tradition of a rogue state born out of a "flawed ideology". Export of terror, the inability to look beyond India and trying to jeopardise each and every of her moves have tied the very existence of Pakistan to the specifications of India.
More than a decade and half ago, thanks to my former colleague Manab Majumder - a cricket aficionado himself all his life till he passed away a couple of years ago, I had a chance to share my thoughts on the India-Pakistan animosity with former Pakistani cricket captain Asif Iqbal at Lord's - the altar of cricket. He couldn't see any reason apart from stating history as the basis behind the relationship based on suspicion. I remember Asif Iqbal ending his conversation, in the glass-walled life members' enclosure of the MCC, by stating that "at the individual level we are still friends. The Indian and Pakistani cricketers are good friends."
I heard similar reaffirmation of friendship from people on both sides of the border, ranging from diplomats, journalists, politicians, writers, the civil society and above all the ordinary citizens. If nation is a collective of its people, how come individual friendships do not add up to national friendliness!
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
No comments:
Post a Comment