I hope none of the sports editors think I'm invading their turf in this article! Let me assure you all, my intentions were and always will remain political.
After the Pakistan cricket team's expectedly tedious performance in the quadrangular tournament that "celebrated" our golden jubilee year, Munnoo Bhai cited a loaded parallel between Shahid Afridi and Premier Sharif. Both, he said, have an identical style of play. In the irrepressible desire to hit a "six," they expose their stumps and do their damnedest to get out. They feel not the slightest need to apply lessons learnt from one match to the other. The PM, however, consults his elders during "play" while the impetuous Afridi listens to no one. Both are surviving, but barely.
He widens the comparison to cricket and politics. If test matches require staying power, one-day games demand quick runs. Choosing the right strategy for each and the right ball/stroke to bowl/play, in awareness of situational demand, are tests of temperament and good sense. These attributes are equally absent from our cricket and politics. So, all governments and cricketers play test matches in a hurry and waste crucial overs in one-dayers. In the end, panic sets in and their "stumps" are shattered in the frenetic desire to hit a "six" of every ball. (Jang, 8 Nov. 1997).
If disarray in politics and society reflect each other, their combined essence is indeed visible in the sporting microcosm. The dismal performance of our cricket team since the 1992 World Cup is, thus, entirely in keeping with the state of national affairs. In fact, the triumph of 1992 was a stunning surprise — much like a truthful utterance by politician, an honourable act by a bureaucrat or a wise decision by a government. Expecting the worst is the norm.
Politics is a sport, and sport is politics.
Go To Page: 1
