If cricket had to interact with politics at all, it should have ideally been done in a positive way

At the very least, cricket is a common sport between India and Pakistan, and people there like working together. It’s a contest that elicits strong emotions and in which achievement is determined not only by the number of runs or wickets taken but also by a nation’s sense of pride.
Cricket fans anxiously await the matchups between their teams. Unfortunately, that now only occurs occasionally, maybe once or twice a year. A few decades ago, when the Pakistan cricket team visited India and vice versa, fans could see the competitive yet entertaining rivalry, sometimes a series every year.
In the past, each match was accompanied by powerful feelings. Even in small villages, televisions were crammed into barbershops, chai stands, and cafes to watch the matches live. It used to be a thrill to watch the ball-by-ball commentary and the enthusiastic roars of cricket fans as they watched swings uproot stumps and the ball bounce to the boundaries. Why was this taken away from fans of cricket? Politics now holds the sport captive.
The rivalry between India and Pakistan on the field is one of the fiercest in the turbulent world of international sports. This rivalry has a long history, is intensely passionate, and is deeply ingrained in the hearts of millions of people. However, beneath the deafening cheers of the crowd and the exhilaration of each boundary and wicket, a complicated tapestry woven with strands of politics and power can be found. Politics always enters the game as bat and ball come together in these high-stakes matches, having an impact on the game that is as nuanced as the sport itself.
Since their first meeting in 1952, the rivalry between these two cricketing titans has been nothing less than legendary. Their cricketing past is rife with nail-biting last-over victories, legendary battles under duress, and ferocious moments that will live on in the collective memory of viewers.
Much like the sun-kissed grounds of Lords and the beautiful cricket stadiums of Sydney bear evidence to the mythical Ashes history, the cricketing crucible between India and Pakistan has its own epic plot where the echoes of rivalry resonate through the annals of history. With contrast to Ashes, Pakistan-India contests are engulfed with political controversy.
The Ashes are an argumentative but sportsmanlike contest between Australia and England. Sport has a sacredness to it, and politics should ideally stay out of this space. The field should be an atmosphere devoid of political turbulence, where sporting competitiveness rules supreme. Sports should serve as a symbol of unity, where disputes are settled via the use of balls and referees rather than the pressure of geopolitical obligations. Because nations unite in the name of sports when politics is set aside to focus on the game of cricket, admiring the game’s beauty without being distracted by political wrangling.
Between the two neighbours, traditional (Test) cricket is all but vanished. They haven’t played one another in a Test match since December 2007. As the cricketing world hurriedly rushed towards shorter forms with searing boundaries and high-octane showdowns, the treasured history of Test cricket stands as a testament to the sport’s beginnings and a symbol of perseverance. Focusing on the long-standing rivalry between India and Pakistan, however, reveals a gap that laments the paucity of Test matches between these two cricketing foes. The absence of Test matches in this long-running rivalry, which is ostensibly due to political considerations, is a poignant illustration of the tumultuous history between the two countries.
In order to overcome the gap and usher in a new era of persistent cricketing competition between these two powerhouses, the ethos of Test cricket, with its focus on tenacity and patience, may just be the key. Recently, neither India nor Pakistan have made an effort to resolve their shared political problems with regard to cricket. In a situation when even the Indian Premier League (IPL) eliminates the cricket stars of a country based on political squabbles, there isn’t much hope for the future in the short term. On the Pakistani side, the issues run deeper still and extend beyond just international politics to include domestic politics as well. Even the chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board is chosen based on their political affinities. Cricket has never benefited from political polarization.
If cricket had to interact with politics at all, it should have ideally been done in a positive way. Its core is cricket diplomacy, a modestly effective tactic that can still be crucial in bringing down tensions. In India and Pakistan’s turbulent history, which has been marked by intermittent conflicts, there have been notable instances of cricket serving as a bridge for peace. In 1987, state leaders’ attendance at a cricket match between the two nations in Jaipur was all it took to start relations warming up.
More recently, the 2011 Cricket World Cup semifinal game offered a hint as to the possibilities of cricket diplomacy in fostering dialogue and understanding between the leaders of the two countries. These episodes show, in powerful ways, how cricket, a game that millions of people enjoy, can cross political divides and offer a glimmer of hope for peaceful coexistence. Millions of people watching them online are sent strong messages by the cameras blinking in the direction of the crowd. If there is a desire, watching state officials interact on stage can undoubtedly open the door for constructive political discussions. There is a unique opportunity for cricket diplomacy to repair the hostile political relations between India and Pakistan. National boundaries dissolve within the boundaries of the cricket arena, and the spirit of competition is tinged with an undercurrent wish for unity. It becomes a place where residents of the two nations may communicate, not as adversaries but as fans with shared interests.
More importantly, cricket diplomacy serves as an illustration of social interaction in which relationships can form between spectators and athletes and antagonism can give way to empathy. Political leaders need to be aware of this phenomenon’s potential since, in the arena of cricket diplomacy, they have a potent means of mending strained relations. Leaders may clear the way for not only runs and wickets but also for peace and goodwill to flourish between these neighbouring countries, whose on-field rivalry is arguably the greatest of all sporting rivalries.
The writer can be reached at [email protected]

  Kashmir 370

Eyram Hamid Khan