Questions on cricket and national interest

■ Just like the Shiv Sena succeeded in stalling the Indo- Pak series by storming the BCCI office to stall the meeting with the PCB, what if other fundamental parties use the same template to stall issues that they believe are against the national interest

There was uproar at the BCCI office and even as the possibility of an Indo- Pak series went up in flames, one question remained unanswered; be it the PCB chief or ICC president Zaheer Abbas, or any other voice from Pakistan, why didn’t someone stand up and state that they empathise with India’s stance, and that they accept that there can be no cricket between the two countries as long as one country indulges in cross- border terrorism, especially as people continue to die. Further, they could take up the matter with the powers in Pakistan to put a stop to such heedless killing. India would then have viewed Pakistan’s request to play cricket with compassion, and cricket could then have been used as a tool to further a constructive dialogue, a crucial tool in implementing any solution. The fact that no such words emanated from Pakistan meant that our neighbors were only interested in enriching the coffers of the PCB, little else. This is unacceptable even to a cricketer like me.

The Shiv Sena storming the BCCI office to stall the discussion between the PCB and the BCCI has sent tremors across the country. This time it was not what they were fighting over but how. Was hooliganism going to be the language and medium for a resurging India? If the Shiv Sena succeeded in stalling the series between India and Pakistan, would other fundamental parties use the same template to stall issues that they believed were against national interest? This would lead to anarchy, for who is to decide what this national interest is, the elected government or the fundamental wing of some self- proclaimed party? Finally, it becomes a chicken or the egg story, which came first and who is to blame, the democratically elected people or the voters who elect criminals, hooligans and politicians who divide India along communal lines? Once elected, these unscrupulous keepers of democracy are forced to play to the crowd that gave them their respectability, acceptance and disgusting amount of wealth. As far as I am concerned, it’s time to stop voting such delinquents to power.

Today, the BCCI tangle and the issue of celebrating Nathuram Godse for killing Mahatma Gandhi, was disturbing to say the least. The fact is that history will be re- written. Be it Lord Mountbatten’s papers or Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s files being declassified, fresh information is emanating and with it, we are being forced to revisit the partition and question our once unshakeable heroes.

I, for one, condemn the killing of any Indian, be it Mahatma Gandhi or the man who was killed for supposedly eating beef, unless the Supreme Court orders it. With quality literature on the shelf in our bookstores, much information has come to light. This answers questions that did not have satisfactory answers before.

One disturbing fact that arises from such writing, which till date has not been challenged thereby giving it authenticity, is a certain act that laid the very foundation for the Kashmir conflict for which we suffer till date.

Indian Summer, by Alex von Tunzelmann, states, “Around September and October 1947, Maharaja’s Dogra- led troops carried out a campaign of sustained harassment, arson, physical violence and genocide against Muslim Kashmiris...” this was done with a view to drive them out of Kashmir.

The Muslims fled to Pakistan where they man- aged to organise a reversal. They successfully called for jihad, rallied with the Pakhtuns and won over parts of Kashmir.

By the time Maharaj Hari Singh managed to get the Indian Army in, a large part of his state had been lost. The disturbing question is did Hari Singh have the power to sign on behalf of a land that he had lost to the jihadis, to a cause for which he was solely responsible?

The resolution of the Kashmir problem is not easy. Whatever be the solution, it will certainly have to relook at history from 1947. Whether jihad is mandatorily against the Pakistan army for forcefully usurping parts of Kashmir is another matter. The displaced Muslims fought a battle with the Pakhtun jihadis and Pakistan had no right to take over the lands whatsoever.

Jihad here, if ordained, will need to be fought by the Kashmiris against Pakistan. India will be well within her right to support such jihadis, if it so chooses.