Call it the curious incident of the forgotten cricketers. After nearly
two hours of a keenly watched auction on Jan. 19, the Indian Premier
League's eight cricket teams bought 11 of the 66 players from 11
countries on offer. But not one Pakistani player was picked.
India and Pakistan have long been enemies on the pitch, but such a
public rejection of some of Pakistan's best players (who are also some
of the region's best players) represents a dangerous new low. The
auction process is an important part of the Premier League's "Twenty20
cricket," an entertaining, made-for-television, abbreviated form of
the sport played in 16 countries.
Twenty20 cricket is not the traditional, seemingly endless version
where men in white take a break for tea. Here a match lasts around
three hours, with each team playing only 20 overs, trying to amass as
many runs as possible and using unconventional techniques. Busty
cheerleaders encourage them. And international players are traded just
like they are in Major League Baseball or the English Premier League.
The changes have drawn new, younger crowds and attracted millions of
dollars of television advertising and a recent deal with YouTube.
But all the hype over Twenty20 has only served to sharpen Pakistan's
rejection at the auction block. India is cricket's most lucrative
market and many cricketers want to play there. This year 97 cricketers
from 12 countries offered themselves to Twenty20 teams, of which 66
made it to the auction block after team owners expressed interest in
recruiting them—11 of those from Pakistan.
Pakistanis are stunned and hurt that none of their own made the final
cut. Shahid Afridi, a spectacular player who was the first on the
auction block but fetched no bid, told a cricket Web site that, "The
IPL and India have made fun of us and our country." Pakistani media
speculate that Indian team owners were acting under government
pressure.
Indian owners, who include prominent companies like Reliance
Industries and the UB Group as well as Bollywood stars like Shah Rukh
Khan and Preity Zinta, have strenuously denied political interference.
They cited concerns about the availability of Pakistani players during
the tournament (a questionable claim, since Pakistan's national team
has no international commitments at that time); and possible visa
problems (again odd, because India says it issued visas to all
Pakistani players who had applied). They eventually fell back on the
argument that it didn't make cricketing sense to have Pakistani
players on their teams. Presumably this was based on the assumption
that because their other players already had identical skills.
The latter is preposterous. Pakistan is the current world champion in
Twenty20 cricket. When the Rajasthan Royals, team based in Jaipur, won
the inaugural championship in 2008 their star performer was Pakistani
Sohail Tanvir. The Lahore Badshahs, a Pakistani team, took top
position in the rival Indian Cricket League in 2008. And the Pakistani
players who were rejected at the auction this year included some of
the very best: Cricketers like Rana Naved-ul Hasan and Umar Gul, who
are known for their fast bowling, and Abdul Razzaq, a strong
all-rounder.
The most likely reason for the snub is political. Since Independence
in 1947, Pakistan and India have fought three wars and nearly came to
blows in 1999 over the Kashmiri district of Kargil. American writer
Mike Marqusee titled his 1996 book on subcontinental cricket "War
Minus the Shooting," and little has changed since then.
The November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai—carried out by
Pakistanis—further increased tensions. Since the 2009 IPL championship
coincided with India's general elections, the Indian government could
not ensure security for the matches since the security personnel were
needed to maintain the smooth running of elections. The government
told the IPL to postpone the tournament. The Pakistani Cricket Board
decided not to send its cricketers to the Championship because the
mood was tense over the Mumbai attacks, and in the end the tournament
was relocated to South Africa.
Political tensions aside, Indian team owners are probably also worried
about the reaction of Hindu nationalists to the presence of
Pakistanis, not to mention the possibility of a terrorist attack on a
team, a tournament or a stadium. The terror threat is not negligible.
In March last year, terrorists attacked the bus carrying Sri Lankan
cricketers in Lahore, killing eight people and injuring six team
members. And Hindu nationalists have long opposed cultural ties with
Pakistan. They've called for banning sporting contacts, vandalized a
cricket pitch in 1991 to prevent an India-Pakistan match from taking
place, objected to bookshops selling novels by Pakistani authors, and
threatened to disrupt performances by Pakistani musicians in India.
Given these risks, not selecting a Pakistani player may have seemed
like a rational choice. But the overall result is disastrous. The fact
that not a single owner bid for a Pakistani player is not good for
cricket, or for transparency. The tournament loses good players;
Pakistanis lose the opportunity to play in a competitive tournament;
the owners aren't fielding the best possible teams; the advertisers
may lose audiences in Pakistan; and the fans lose the opportunity of
seeing top stars in action.
While fundamentalists represent a real threat and an India-Pakistan
series does bring out nationalist passions, cricket fans are not so
prejudiced against individual players. Perhaps next year team owners
will be a little braver.
0 comments:
Post a Comment