Time to tread carefully on India-Pakistan cricket series

Is it necessary to shoehorn this commitment against Pakistan into the middle of an England tour to India?

India and Pakistan’s cricketing ties have served as a plank for diplomacy between the two countries.
Powered by automated translation

If, this December, Pakistan and India do resume bilateral ties, it will be their fourth such resumption since ties began back in the winter of 1952.

That sounds terribly like the preamble to some political discourse but that is how it is. When we talk of India and Pakistan we cannot keep it to the level of sports, in which the word rivalry should be enough: it is "bilateral ties", with its deliberate politicisation.

It may pay to be far more cautious in negotiating this restart than earlier ones in 1978, then 1999, and finally in 2004, not least because until and unless the first ball is actually delivered, in Kolkata probably sometime near Christmas, we cannot assume that it is actually happening.

This is not cynicism.

It is merely accepting that ties, and moods, at every level between the two turn not only on major pivots, such as the Mumbai attacks, but on infinite minor ones, such as a misplaced word, a bruised ego, a hoax call, diplomatic indiscretion. Things are that fragile.

At a level above and beyond only cricket, the invitation by the Indian board would appear to be one logical component in a greater thaw. The governments of the two countries are in the midst of their deepest engagement in some years.

They stand on the verge of significant breakthroughs, affecting the two constituencies with greatest potential for a deeper change in the relationship: civilians and businesses.

In all this, cricket, as it always is, is another plank. If seen as a gradual second step towards normalcy – after the invitation to a Pakistan domestic side, finally, to this year's Champions League – this series makes sense.

And it means that Pakistani players could be taking part in the Indian Premier League next season, before, presumably the final step of a full tour.

Through a narrower gaze, though, there is reason to wonder at the timing of the decision and the nature of the scheduling.

Is it necessary – or even advisable – to shoehorn this commitment into the middle of an England tour to India?

Maybe, you know, the idea was to downplay it, to generate less heat around the contests. Cram it into a packed calendar and de-passion it as just another quickie Sri Lanka series?

That might be to imagine more sense in administrators than they possess: there were likely more pragmatic compulsions, a vote in waiting perhaps for the next time an important decision goes to the ICC table?

The scheduling was the part of Sunil Gavaskar's reaction that most people ignored: what about, Gavaskar asked, the free time India's players may have expected and needed between Tests and ODIs against England?

What everybody heard was the addendum: "Being a Mumbaikar, I would say 'yes'. What is the urgency [for the resumption] when there is no co-operation from the other side. When you get away with something you tend to do it again."

Trying to claim ownership over the outrage and hurt solely as a Mumbaikar is offensive logic to the rest of India – physically Mumbai was the target, but spiritually the whole country was - but it represents a body of opinion.

Mumbai, 26/11 is a deep wound still and that will have to be accounted for with utmost care and delicacy. Not giddily diving into a full series just now is not the worst idea.

Otherwise, for Pakistan more than India it is a triumph of sorts (if only for the value just the prospect of an India-Pakistan series adds to Pakistan's next broadcast deal). There should be no illusion about the fact that Pakistan needed this series more; their board, their government has been making the moves for this all along.

They do not need it as much as everyone might imagine. One of the lesser celebrated facts of Pakistan's revival has been that, financially, they have managed the fall-out from two most catastrophic developments modern-day cricket can conjure: not playing India and not playing at home.

They have not thrived, but they have survived. Few boards in world cricket could pull that off and if for nothing else then the next time the two sides spat, this is important to remember.

It does not feel as long as the five years it will be since they last played a bilateral series.

Partly it could be because they have played at least one high-octane ODI per year since. But also, maybe they just haven't missed each other that much?

Follow us

& Osman Samiuddin