Metro Plus
Bangalore
Chennai
Coimbatore
Delhi
Hyderabad
Kochi
Pages for PEACE
|
No talk on the Indo-Pak the cricket scene is without political overtones. The release of Rahul Bhattacharya's book, Pundits from Pakistan, had all this and more
|
The panelists: Mike Marqusee, Ramachandra Guha, Sanjay Manjrekar and Rahul Bhattacharya. — Photo: Murali Kumar K.
RAHUL BHATTACHARYA could not have had a better launch of his first book on cricket, Pundits from Pakistan. Memories, anecdotes, humour and serious thought that surround the world of cricket. Historian Ramachandra Guha's superb anchoring of the panel discussion on Cricket and Indo-Pak Peace Prospects, and social historian Mike Marqusee's forthright interventions helped carry fine impressions of the launch at Landmark.
In a lighter vein
Mike started off on a lighter note. "Only India attracts such a large audience for a cricket book launch. Back in England, it may have been me and four people older than me." On a serious note, he said cricket without South Asia was like a hole in the heart. And so it was moving to see India-Pakistan flags fluttering together in 2004, because the 1990s saw cricket between the two countries carrying communal implications. "But cricket is not a substitute for hard political decisions. You cannot resolve issues of Kashmir and nukes on a cricket field."
Guha then pointed to a change in sentiment recalling the "stunned silence" at Saeed Anwar's knock in the 1996 World Cup match and the applause for Inzamam's hundred now. Commentator Sanjay Manjrekar thought the 2004 tour was "all about people". At this Guha wondered aloud: was the 2004 tour distinctive?
Mike felt "one-off matches" wouldn't work. "There are slow, painful but discernible peace moves. Cricket may pressure powers-that-be. But cricket should be trivial, an end in itself. It is played with identities. Loaded with expectations of politics, it may contribute to peace, but it may crush the beauty of the game."
Shahid Hashmi, AFP correspondent from Pakistan, thought the tour would foster peace. He recalled positive experiences from the past: "My father on the 1960-61 tour met his "match" in Mumbai. I met mine in 1991 in Mumbai too. Only, my mother and wife both hate cricket!"
Rahul saw the 2004 tour as a special event. Some 12,000 people went to Pakistan and that it was a mass event. "Cricket is central to the peace process. Frank Worrell's team had millions saluting him in Australia and that changed immigration laws there."
For a few moments, the conversation veered towards Saurav Ganguly. "He's a good captain but not getting runs," someone said. Ganguly was apparently asked if he would agree to have a combined team of both India and Pakistan players. "Oh, no! I wouldn't have a place in that case," came the reply.
"Maybe he should turn a coach because he is a good captain," someone suggested to loud laughter.
"We can have him as captain and batsman at number 11!"
Money power
Two interesting questions. Was money driving cricket in South Asia? Mike believed it was to an extent. Excess sponsorship comes with vested interest, he said. "I was witness to the same MNC championing national interests of two countries for the money."
Guha quickly threw in a Wisden line to laughter again: "International cricket is run through the briefcase of Dalmiya."
Adding to the mood someone remarked: "Isn't watching cricket like going to a pizza outlet? Just live it, enjoy it?"
Guha, who obviously doesn't think much of the Italian dish, remarked: "Then the taste of the pizza may have to be elevated."
After those brief moments of fun, the conversation took a turn to the serious. Did racial politics affect cricket in England? Mike captured it beautifully. "Football has already taken precedence over cricket in England. The base of cricket in England today is provided by young third-generation Asians. Lords has to take steps to restore the status of the game. Incorporate the Asians or suffer."
Unwinding
How can a discussion, and that too on cricket, be complete without anecdotes? The panellists were bound to have enough anecdotes to bring out a book each. Mike came up a good one. "I was this neutral man. Opportunist. I was with these arrogant West Indians. I saw Indians low in faith at Lords in 1983. The West Indians were gloating that it would all be over. Until Kapil's catch. And then I saw them go really down, particularly an old man, like everything was over. It was like letting air out of a bag. I was an American watching it all!"
Guha, taking off on the American bit, chipped in rather tongue-in-cheek, quoting a thinker, that had the French played cricket, there would have been no revolution. Likewise, if Americans played cricket, there would have been no war in Iraq!
Manjrekar recalled Sehwag not playing Shoaib's bowling three times in row. Shoaib apparently provoked him. "Maarke dikhao". An angry Sehwag shot back: "Beekh mang raha hai kya?"
That sound
Guha then came up with a fine one. "I have to speak about a great cricketer I have admired. It is also appropriate because I was lucky to be with him today. Hanif Mohammed was here in 1960-61. When he brought his bat to the ball, tuk, the sound would be heard at the Churchgate Railway Station from the Brabourne Stadium. Gavaskar was inspired by this original Little Master. In '57-58 in Barbados, the second day was through. The crowd was overflowing on the third day with people sitting on palm trees. Everyone thought Sobers, Hall and company would run through the side. Hanif kept batting. And people would hear that sound, tuk, at the Bridgetown Railway Station. Now this guy on the tree, the heat got him, the palm wine too. Maybe even the batting. He fell down 80 feet, lost consciousness, and was taken to the ICU. He regained consciousness 48 hours later. And the first thing he asks is: `Is Hanif still batting?' Hanif had batted 970 minutes."
Contesting jingoism
Rahul Bhattacharya: `I received special treatment everywhere I went.' — Photo: Murali Kumar K.
RAHUL BHATTACHARYA, all of 26, has been writing on cricket from 2000. He now works as contributing editor to the monthly cricket magazine, Wisden Asia Cricket. He covered the 2004 tour of India to Pakistan for The Guardian and Wisden. His book, Pundits from Pakistan, captures cricket, the everyday ambience of Pakistan cities, modes of thinking of the people of Pakistan, their warmth and hospitality, and it does so in a lucid, easy and relaxed mode.
In spirit however, Pundits from Pakistan is a critique of Orwell's worldview that sport is warfare minus the shooting, a contest of all that is animal in the human, an exercise of jealousy, hatred, bigotry even, if not an extreme self-obsession with one's own identity — the national identity. Sport, in this view, turns out to be a play of nationalism. Rahul contests this view in the book by citing empirical instances of cricket in the sub-continent being a site of harmony. To just cite one instance, domestic tournaments in pre-Independent India had Parsis, Europeans, Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Buddhists playing with each other, although the contests were later appropriated by political agencies.
The book offers this overview and contends that a game need not be driven by religious faith.
Rahul believes cricket can be a vehicle of peace and that there has been no other significant series than the one in 2004.
He responds to a few queries on his experiences in Pakistan and his new book.
It was your first visit to Pakistan. Was there a sense of anticipation?
People told me there would be animosity, not to make myself obvious as an Indian, to be quiet. But nothing of this was true. Wherever I went, I received special treatment. Their hospitality was indeed obvious. And Karachi is beautiful.
What is the feel of cricket travelling?
Very hard and packed. There would be very few days to travel outside the cricketing schedules. Not much rest. But I would make notes about cities, cricketers and my feelings about people.
How did the book come about?
It was a personal desire. I had done a lot of features and interviews and reporting on cricket for The Guardian and Wisden. And I felt I needed to do something better. Luckily, the tour presented itself. I consider it a special tour. I consider myself fortunate to have been able to write the book.
Your book has George Orwell in it. Why go back to him now to say cricket need not have anything to do with conflict, faith, identity?
I needed to first explain that sport could be seen as war, possibly conflict. Orwell saw it that way and I have offered a rebuttal of that view. I needed to provide a context to say what I am saying. I needed to explain Orwell's metaphor.
Don't you think C.L.R. James would have offered clarity?
Well it is difficult to understand him. I have read him, but I am re-reading him. Every time I read, I get new things. I will read him again.
PRASHANTH G.N.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Metro Plus
Bangalore
Chennai
Coimbatore
Delhi
Hyderabad
Kochi
|
