The dangers of paranoia

Countries in the third world aren't strangers to demonstrations and hartals. Disturbances, in fact, are more or less a part of the backdrop of life in the major cities. They follow a set pattern - a few tyres burned, a few cars stoned, some teargas. But when the world's media choose to read these as symptoms of a greater turmoil, the picture is distorted.

The perception now is that Pakistan has become a dangerous place, so dangerous, in fact, that it is not safe to even play cricket there. New Zealand cancelled their tour of Pakistan even before the bombing in Afghanistan had started, citing security concerns and forgetting that if the New Zealand players were in any kind of danger, so too were the Pakistan players. The cancellation of the tour was a setback - one that hurt the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) financially. Prior to this latest cancellation, India too pulled out from a scheduled tour of Pakistan, but for different reasons. Two international tours cancelled in the same year have not only left the coffers of the Pakistan Cricket Board empty, they have also left Pakistan's public without any international cricket to watch on its home soil.

An attempt was made to invite Sri Lanka to play a series of one-dayers but the mini-tour did not materialise, again for security reasons. Ironically, the Sri Lanka Under-19 team is presently touring Pakistan and there appears to be no danger to the lives and limbs of these young players. The West Indies are due to tour Pakistan early next year but they appear to be hemming and hawing - though they are presently touring Sri Lanka where a civil war has been raging for many years.

The ICC's response has been to suggest that Pakistan play their matches at neutral venues which the cash-strapped PCB has agreed to. It is a highly unsatisfactory solution to say the least; it deprives Pakistan of the home advantage and the public of the chance of watching its own team. We don't need to be so faint-hearted. In 1996, Australia refused to play their World Cup match in Colombo and the West Indies followed suit. The reason? Security fears. Then a combined team from the subcontinent, including Mohammed Azharuddin and Wasim Akram, played a match in Colombo, underlining just how baseless these fears were.

`Security concerns' is a catchall and an easy way of getting out of a tour. England's current tour of India was in jeopardy for some time until wiser counsel prevailed, though the England Cricket Board did take the extraordinary step of leaving it to the players to decide for themselves whether they wanted to go to India or not, with the proviso that there would be no penalties if any player (or players) decided not to go - a tacit affirmation that there is indeed some danger in touring India at this time.

The cancellation of tours does more than cause huge financial losses. It hurts the careers of senior players. Players like Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis who are on the margins of their playing days suddenly find that they have lost a whole year and that their careers have been shortened. These are players who have targeted the 2003 World Cup as possibly their last hurrah. They need to keep themselves match-fit by playing as much international cricket as possible.

It should not be made easy for a tour to be cancelled, there should be compelling reasons for doing so. To cite imaginary security concerns is not good enough. The ICC must show some muscle. It should carry out its own investigations about the security environment. No country would be foolish enough to allow a cricket tour to go ahead if there is any danger to the visiting team. Pakistan went ahead with its tour of India despite specific threats from the Shiv Sena. The Indian cricket board guaranteed the safety of the Pakistan players and that was deemed good enough. Despite tight security, the players said that it was one of their happiest tours. I think New Zealand could easily have toured Pakistan. Whoever advised them against it led them up the garden path. But the real loser is international cricket, because a precedent has been set and England's tour of India was very nearly a casualty.