Safety issues are the politicians' way out

India's deputy PM Lal Krishna Advani: prepared to use sport to manipulate the government's public rating? © AFP

India's desire to be the world's leading cricket nation - both in terms of rankings and economics - has been blindingly obvious for over a decade. Hands up - the rest of the world admits defeat when it comes to the economic argument. But despite a stunning Test performance against Australia, a big question remains over how India's bowling will develop and how its regal batting line-up fares when it is under pressure. Still, Indians are rightly optimistic about their team and these doubts may evaporate over the next few years.

Yet true leadership takes more than being the wealthiest or the best. Great leadership, the theory goes, is based on values. Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela are fine examples. On the cricket field, Steven Waugh and Imran Khan have been inspirational leaders, and Stephen Fleming and Sourav Ganguly have both galvanised their teams.

But what values does Indian cricket espouse? One, at least, is that domestic political power comes before all else. And why not? Politics is a get-rich-quick business in Asia, who would want to give it up? In recent years, domestic political considerations have ruled out bilateral cricket ties with Pakistan, and now the noise from India is that an impending election will mean that the tour is postponed. Whatever spin is put on this - and I believe safety to be a smokescreen here - the reality is that no self-serving politician would want to go to the polls with India losing to Pakistan across the border. Messrs Blair and Bush have enjoyed the Baghdad Bounce and Mr Advani does not wish to risk the Lahore Lathi or Karachi Crash. A risk-free approach is not a value associated with great leadership.

Hypocrisy also has few bedfellows. On the one hand we have the spectacle of various bilateral sporting encounters, yet international cricket is criminalised. On the one hand we have the Indian board in Zimbabwe's corner over England's tour - espousing the virtue of keeping politics out of sport - while India's government has no hesitation in using sport to manipulate its public rating.

The safety issue, too, is a sham. Risk assessment is a complex business but what it all boils down to for India's tour to Pakistan - or any other tour for that matter - is whether or not there is a chance that a player will be killed or seriously injured? Clearly that is an impossible question to answer, partly because it has never happened before. While India are right to insist on the highest level of security for their players, and doubly right to check out the security arrangements in Pakistan, there is little justification to cancel the tour, unless relations between the two countries rapidly deteriorate - which seems unlikely.

It is understandable that players want assurances about safety, but they must know that no assurance can ever be absolute - that would be a fantasy. They must retain some sense of proportion. It is also understandable that friends and relatives are concerned about loved ones. But they should understand that every time their loved one goes for a drive in a car or has an operation to repair an injury, the risk of calamity is far, far higher than on a cricket tour. It seems that international cricketers have a delusional sense of their own mortality, and that the ICC and cricket boards are inept at allaying those genuine but inflated concerns.

Cricketers, like the rest of us, spend their lives juggling risk. Should I fasten my seat belt on the team coach or shouldn't I? Should I drink a bottle of vodka and smoke a fat cigar to celebrate victory or should I stick to water and a salad sandwich? Should I have unprotected sex with this gorgeous cricket groupie or should I think of my wife changing nappies back at home? Should I go to Pakistan and stand tall for my country or should I cower in my Mumbai mansion? They make choices - we all do - every twist and turn of life.

The answer to this protracted crisis is simple. The Indian board should ensure that every precaution is taken for the tour. It should then clearly present the risks and benefits of touring Pakistan to its players. The players should then, as Sambit Bal argued sensibly, be at perfect liberty to decide to tour or not, without any recrimination or censure for those who decide to stay away. It is a matter of individual choice.

But, most importantly, the Indian government should show the value of true democracy by putting its policies to the test instead of index-linking its popularity to the success of India's cricketers. That is the route to true leadership of the cricket world and India could seize the moment, making a bold statement about the modern, vibrant India that is becoming a world superpower. Cancelling the tour should not even be an issue.

Read in App

Elevate your reading experience on ESPNcricinfo App.

Download App Now