From handshakes to hard lines — and no laddoos

THE conduct of the Indian and Pakistani players during the recently held Asia Cup and the two countries' women's teams in the World Cup match, either on their own or on instructions of those who control cricket in the two countries, reveals a change in the public culture in India and Pakistan.

The decision of Mohsin Naqvi, head of the Asian Cricket Council and Pakistan's Interior Minister, that the victorious Indian team could receive that championship trophy from his hands alone confirms that these cultural changes impact cricket too — a game that occupies a massive place in the psyche of the two countries.

The days of the old elites steeped in the civilities of the Indo-Persianate culture have long gone. The norms that both countries had inherited from the public culture of the British — stretching from parliamentary practices and the neutrality of constitutional institutions to the sports arena — have all undergone changes.

Of course, the British public culture is also not static —no public culture is. The end of the empire and Britain’s struggle to find a place in the world with a society rapidly becoming multi-racial is changing Britain’s public culture. At the same time, some people in that country still yearn for the era of imperial Britain.

In Pakistan, the military takeover in 1958 and the evolution of the country founded on the two-nation theory dealt a body blow to parliamentary processes and control, from which it has not recovered. Its shift to more extreme Islamic interpretations (mazhabs), especially beginning with Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and going forward with greater vigour under General Zia-ul-Haq, required a public adherence to austere Islamic norms derived from the Arabian peninsula.

In India, while the constitutional system has endured, its practices have undergone vast changes. Indeed, there is a disdain for keeping to the norms of the old elites. Interestingly, the erudite Minister of External Affairs, S Jaishankar, who is ironically a part of the old elites (or in the vocabulary of the Sangh Parivar, of which he is now a part, 'Macaulay's child' himself) considers them as not fully authentic Indians.

The emphasis of the present governing class is on the glories of ancient India and the pursuit of pure Indian culture, whatever that may be. Naturally, cultural purity increases proportionately with the practice of Hindutva ideals.

If there was one area where universal norms were generally followed hitherto, it was sports, including cricket. In the Asia Cup and the Women's World Cup, they were abandoned in matches against Pakistan.

Pakistan has pursued terrorism against India for over three decades, but in the past, the bitterness generated by its terrorist actions was not allowed to come into the arena of sports. India had decided to stop all bilateral sports engagement with Pakistan over the past few years, but the teams of the two countries played against each other in multilateral competitions. And, in these, the mores of the particular sport were observed by the Indian players.

Before the beginning of the Asia Cup, there was a demand in some quarters that the communal and barbaric nature of the Pahalgam attack warranted India's refusal to play against Pakistan in multilateral cricket tournaments like the Asia Cup.

However, the government allowed the BCCI to continue with the tradition of not playing Pakistan bilaterally while playing against it in multilateral tournaments. Clearly, its decision was not liked by a vast number of Sangh Parivar supporters.

This can be discerned from their reaction to the normal gesture shown by T20 team captain Suryakumar Yadav in shaking Mohsin Naqvi's hand after a photograph was taken of Naqvi along with all the captains of the participating teams. Naqvi shook every captain's hand and Yadav went along with them. He cannot be faulted for having done so.

The response to the Yadav-Naqvi handshake led to the decision to move away from the traditional handshake of the captains at the time of the toss in all three games and at the end of the three matches.

After India's victory in the first match, Yadav expressed his solidarity with the families of the victims of the Pahalgam terrorist attack and dedicated it to the Indian armed forces.

The Pakistanis were furious at his remarks, for, according to them, it violated the ICC rule of keeping politics out of cricket. Instead of seeking to calm the matter, they decided to complain against the match referee and Yadav. They also decided to respond aggressively against the Indian team on the field.

As if all this was not enough, Naqvi insisted that he alone had the right to give the trophy to the Indian captain. But Yadav was refusing to accept it from him.

There was an alternative, though it may have been too subtle in these 'in-your-face times'. While accepting the trophy, Yadav could have told Naqvi that he felt a special joy in the Pakistani minister giving it to him and that it had made India's victory all the sweeter. Perhaps, the team could have kept a box of 'laddoos' and offering one to Naqvi, Yadav could have said "Aap bhi mooh mitha kariye."

What would have Naqvi done if this tactic was employed? Refused the 'laddoos' by making excuses or been forced to eat one? In either case, the photographs would have gone viral across the two countries and in many parts of the world. And, the Indian team would have made its point!

A 'laddoo' gesture would have been the response — if one was considered necessary — in keeping with the traditions of the old public culture. These days, adhering to it cannot be considered, for the responses have to be muscular, not understated. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's tweet congratulating the Indian team was in keeping with the temper of our times and the present public culture.

Vivek Katju is former Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs.