Risky business

Englishness of the stiff-upper-lip variety has triumphed. Nasser's boys were sensible to think twice before committing to this Indian tour. No one should believe otherwise.

The tour-at-all-costs lobby falls into three camps: Indians who cannot bear to see their country rubbished; Englishmen fearful of the financial loss, and apparent dishonour, of pulling out over a war; and fans salivating at every picture and word that the winter promises. All may be worthy souls but I would not follow them into battle.

If truth is the first casualty of war, the troubles over this tour offer no contradiction. It is imaginative, and misleading, to suggest that Mumbai is safer than London. Salman Rushdie's The Moor's Last Sigh vividly captures the spectacular bombing campaign that lit up Mumbai in 1993. This was internal warfare borne of a religious conflict and executed by Mumbai's mafia. London has never seen its like.

Nor does it make sense to argue that the war poses no increased risk of unrest in India. Separatist struggles have caused the deaths of India's last two ruling Gandhis: Indira even perished at the hands of her own security guards. Guarantees of safety in south Asia are empty promises. The ongoing separatist conflict in Kashmir has flared up hand in glove with the Afghan war. Many parts of India might be farther from Kabul than London is from Kosovo but India's 100 million Muslims are culturally neighbours of the Afghans, and national borders have never stopped Muslims uniting in common cause.

Expect some disorder in India if the war in Afghanistan is prolonged or if it intensifies during England's tour. And expect some of that trouble to be beyond the control of the Indian authorities. On that basis, England's cricketers did well to consider their options. They were within their rights to refuse to fly, however far Bangalore is from the frontline.

But talking about risk is itself a risky business. This is a world of relatives and absolutes. In relative terms the risk to England players from a terrorist act may well have increased over a hundred fold compared with what it was before the war. But in absolute terms that risk remains negligible compared with other possible causes of injury, such as being run over by a rickshaw or a horse and cart.

There are other factors. While the chance of violence will have increased in Indian Kashmir it will be unchanged in a southern state such as Kerala. Anti-war demonstrators might be risking their lives but those who sit at home instead of taking to the streets are as unlikely as they ever were of making the acquaintance of a stray police bullet.

What does all this mean for a lion of England seeking another Asian quarry? Not much, I suspect, although you can never rule out that an England player will be harmed. Anything is possible, more so since bombs started dropping on Afghanistan. But I doubt if it is a big enough risk to stay at home for. There is more chance of developing deep vein thrombosis on a long-haul flight, as Steve Waugh did, or taking a direct hit at short leg.

For a start, players have not been attacked before. Even when Hindu militants protested over Pakistan tours, grounds and offices were vandalised but players remained safe. Most Muslims are as fanatical about cricket as anything else - even, dare I say it, religion. Militants must know that a sure way of alienating public opinion would be to attack England's cricketers.

Besides, England have a secret weapon or two. Muslims loathe nothing more than spilling the blood of their brothers in religion. Usman Afzaal's faith and his captain's name make it even less likely that England's tour will be sabotaged.

At least four religions will compete in cricket's clash of civilisations. Team England can only benefit from this skirmish - as will India - although some England bowlers might never recover from their treatment at the hands of Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman. Others might make their careers. It has to be a risk worth taking.