Cricket: Terrorism Threatens India’s Hegemony

Any discussion on whether England should continue their tour to India needs to consider the following points: the team had been staying in the Taj Mahal hotel the week before.

All the white kit, including blazers and caps, was locked away in a room there when the fanatics attacked.

The Middlesex team were due to check into the same hotel a day after the siege started, and the England high performance squad were meant to be staying in Mumbai last week, but for some reason had their training camp switched at the last minute.

During 2008, India has witnessed blasts in Jaipur (during the IPL games), Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Delhi, Guwahati (during Australia’s tour), and now in Mumbai.

If this was Pakistan or Sri Lanka, of course, there would be no discussion; the tour would have been cancelled straight away.

However, India is an economic powerhouse, has a grip on the international game, and has the England players falling over themselves to express their desire to play in the lucrative Indian Premier League.

Now, the Champions League, in which Middlesex were about to set out to join, has been temporarily postponed, whilst the rival Indian Cricket League has been cancelled.

If these are troubled times for India, it is only natural that the sport many consider akin to a religion will share in any grief.

This would not be the first time that England has been unable to fulfill its obligations in India.

They were due in the autumn of 1930, but plans were scuppered following a nationalist revival in which Congress issued an Independence Pledge that denounced the British for having “ruined India economically, politically, culturally, and spiritually.”

To submit further to their rule was “a crime against man and God.”

England was also due to set sail in the autumn of 1939 but was prevented by the outbreak of war.

Within three hours of the England team landing in 1984, India’s Prime Minister Indira Ghandi was assassinated and the tour was immediately under threat.

Most of the players wanted to abort, but were at the behest of a cricket board that negotiated an amended itinerary that was played against a country in mourning.

The next visit was due for 1988-89, but was cancelled because of the connections of a number of English players, notably newly named captain Graham Gooch, to racist South African cricket.

The Indian government took a firm stand against racism in sport and were thanked by their South African counterparts by being the first country they visited on their reintroduction to the international arena.

War and politics provided interruptions to relations between India and England; terrorism threatens something far more sinister.

Already Lalit Modi, the Indian Board vice-president and head of the IPL, has professed his fears of India going the way of Pakistan, who play very little home international cricket, if attacks continue.

This has much wider repercussions than just India. Cricket Australia, for example, has lost millions of dollars from the postponement of the Champions League.

The Pakistan Board has now said that the situation regarding India’s visit to their country in January 2009 has changed considerably, following the attacks in Mumbai.

The Indians in return are under pressure from their government to cancel their tour to Pakistan, as they look to the neighbours for someone to blame for the atrocities.

As for England, by opting to return home, you feel that the decision not to carry on with the tour has already been taken. In 1984, by contrast, the side retired to Sri Lanka whilst the situation calmed down.

Where does all this put India’s dominance of world cricket? It may generate nine-tenths of the sport’s income, but if the likes of Australia, England, and South Africa refuse to play there, their plan for the direction of the sport, notably the commercial potential of Twenty20, could be jeopardised.

Maybe more than just the spirit of a city died last week.