In an ideal world, sport and politics should remain completely separate, as they represent the two spheres of power and play. Unfortunately for sportsmen, this is never the case and their activities often have to be determined by the state of politics rather than by the state of play. Thus, it will surprise no one that India’s tour of Pakistan, which was scheduled to begin early in 2009, has been called off. This is a direct outcome of the circumstances that have arisen after the terrorist strike on Mumbai. The government of India and even sections of the Pakistan establishment are convinced that the terrorists were Pakistani nationals or came from there, and were trained by terrorist outfits that find safe haven in Pakistan. India, the United States of America and other countries have prevailed upon the Pakistan government to take action against the terrorists; there is also the suspicion that the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI, may have been behind the attacks. But the Pakistan government, at least in its public statements, seems unconvinced about the allegations and is clearly dragging its feet on the matter. The immediate result is a heightening of tension within the two countries: the situation is best described by that Cold War phrase, eyeball to eyeball. Neither side has blinked to date.

These are the circumstances that have led to the cancellation. Sport has famously been described by George Orwell as war minus the shooting. This might appear as somewhat of an exaggeration from a writer who was not particularly fond of sport from his schooldays. But nothing could be a better description of the atmosphere when India plays Pakistan in cricket. On both sides of the border, despite the bonhomie among the people of the two countries, a cricket match suddenly becomes a battle of national egos. A victory in a cricket match becomes a surrogate for a triumph in a passage of arms. Even in the best of times, when relations between India and Pakistan have been on a relatively even keel, a cricket match between the two countries has always spilled over from the cricket field and has influenced completely unsporting activities.

There is no point lamenting this or in criticizing India for cancelling the tour. The state of play cannot escape the state of reality. Two countries that are issuing letters of protest and démarches to their respective ambassadors stationed in New Delhi and Islamabad, two countries that are poised on the brink of war, cannot be expected to play cricket. Playing cricket has many connotations, and none of those connotations — not even the minimal act of wielding bat and ball to the best of a player’s ability — can be fulfilled under the present circumstances. Those who know only play without an acknowledgment of power cannot even play the game.