Comment: Terrorising cricket
The robust attitude exhibited by the England team by returning to India, whatever their motives, must represent the right way to fight the evils of all terrorism.
The two comments credited to the ICC President on Terrorism need attention; ‘Pakistan is another country,’ obviously with reference to India, and ‘security in India is different!’ Undoubtedly, considerable security risks do exist in Pakistan but incidents show that risks are prevalent to varying degrees in India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh.
It appears that different standards are used to judge these risks by visiting occidental teams and the ICC. A cynic might even conclude that the dangers from terrorism reduce directly in proportion to the rise of financial benefits. Is it possible that financial rewards are driving the reactions of cricket boards and professional cricketers? Cricket must not be allowed to become a game for mercenaries.
Terrorism must now be treated like any criminal activity as is match fixing. It has become essential for ICC to liaise with cricket boards and their authorities to plan and execute active safeguards for player safety. Terrorism is a communicable disease and needs to be fought actively if it is to be stopped. India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and, indeed, even England have all been the victims of this disease. The path of least resistance beng adopted by Pakistan’s neighbour and the ICC is in fact harming cricket.
In taking the World Cup away from Pakistan, the ICC suggests that terrorism is limited to Pakistan. This is not supported by the IPL move to South Africa, the cancellation of Pakistan’s tour to Bangladesh or the Australian Davis Cup team’s refusal to play their matches in India. The robust attitude exhibited by the England team by returning to India, whatever their motives, must represent the right way to fight the evils of all terrorism. The ban by the Indian government on their team from playing cricket in or against Pakistan also suggests the awful possibility that ‘terrorism’ is being used politically. Options of neutral venues or, even better, of playing the series in India were available. The ICC should also have made visible efforts to ensure that their tour programme was maintained.
The vile attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team has highlighted terrorism in Pakistan. However, it is beyond doubt that a very thorough protocol was defined in writing by the PCB and the authorities to guard against terrorism. It has been proven that the extent of security planned and assured in writing by the law enforcers was not provided. This major lapse is, I am sure, being examined at the highest level. But, and importantly, the PCB must not hide behind this lapse. It was their bounden duty to ensure that the planned security was provided or to visibly protest if it was not. It is in this critical area that the ICC should have also been visible.
Consequent to this awful lapse, the PCB should have taken forceful action against its own staff responsible for overseeing security protocols along with those responsible for day to day operations. The incident occurred on the third day of the match and thus the lack of proper security should have been noticed. This also required that the teams should not have been permitted to leave their hotel even if this resulted in a late start. This was within the control of PCB and could have prevented the tragedy. In subsequently not taking action against its own staff, the PCB appears to be shirking responsibility. Stern and swift action would have indicated to the cricket world that corrective action within the PCB control was being taken and could have encouraged discussions for seeking future solutions. It merits mention that the ICC representatives, though not directly responsible, should have also volubly protested the lessened security being provided.
Whilst there can be no such thing as complete security, surely the ICC should be able to take on the responsibility of ensuring that acceptable security is identified, planned and assured by the respective countries which should subsequently be monitored. The ICC should also examine the possibility of sourcing affordable insurance which could provide comfort to the cricketers and their families. Cricketers must also remember that being professionals, they will need to accept the hardships that added security might impose on some tours, for the greater good of cricket.
The Pakistani nation has a deep love for this great game. Its team has provided great competition and entertainment to the cricket world. It will be grossly unfair if such a people are indefinitely deprived of seeing their team play ‘at home’ against other great teams. If the cricket world does not cooperate to return international cricket to Pakistan it will also send the wrong message to the terrorists of the world.
Let us all heed those meaningful words; ‘There but for the grace of God go I’.
Comments