The Gentleman's Game

Running Head: GENTLEMAN’S GAME

The Gentleman’s Game

Kathy Burton

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

I, Kathy Burton, have familiarized myself with the official Academic Integrity Policy of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and I am aware of the university's philosophy and procedures on Academic Integrity. I confirm that I am the author of this assignment/paper and I have cited all sources and included a reference page stating these sources.

Student Signature: Kathy Burton

Introduction

The game of cricket can be traced back to the early 16th century, most likely beginning as a children’s game and later gaining popularity with adults. By the 18th century it had become the national sport of England and by the 20th century, cricket had spread as far as India and Pakistan. Recognizing the increasing popularity of the sport, the International Cricket Council arranged for the first Cricket World Cup in 1975 (War of Cricket, 2008).

Cricket is the second most popular sport in the world (although this is debated in some circles), with soccer claiming the number one spot. Although cricket has been dubbed “The Gentleman’s Game” due to the fact that it involves no physical contact, the game invokes fierce competition and rivalry on the cricket field (War of Cricket, 2008). It has been said that the most intense sports rivalry in history exists between India and Pakistan (Brett, 2004). The cricket rivalry between these two nations extends far beyond the field and into the socio-political realm, creating a passionate fan base numbering in the billions. In an effort to understand the India-Pakistan cricket rivalry a historical perspective of the conflict involving the two countries will be offered, the rivalry as a manifestation of the conflict will be explored, efforts to diffuse the conflict will be considered and strategies for the future of the rivalry will be recommended.

Historical Perspectives

When India and Pakistan both gained independence from Britain in 1947, conflict immediately ensued over the Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) region which was ruled by a Hindu Maharaja, Hari Singh. The Maharaja was urged to decide if Kashmir, the majority of which was Muslim, would become part of India, the majority of which was Hindu, or Pakistan, the majority of which was Muslim. Failing to make that decision has resulted in one of the longest running territorial disputes in history. Pakistan expected Kashmir to be annexed to it since it had a strong Muslim population; however, in October 1947 the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession which resulted in Kashmir becoming part of India (Das, 2011). This created a conflict that continues to be unresolved after more than six decades, bleeding the economies of both India and Pakistan as well as churning the embers of their nuclear arms race. The two countries have engaged in war two times over the Kashmir region (Das, 2011). Given that both countries possess nuclear weapons, this presents a frightening scenario for the immediate region as well as the rest of the world.

The first war in 1949 resulted in the division of J & K into two zones, divided by the Line of Control (LOC). One zone is under Indian control and is viewed as an integral part of India. However, Pakistanis see it as occupied Kashmir. The other zone is under Pakistani control and known in Pakistan as Azad Jammu and Kashmir, or "free", "liberated" Jammu and Kashmir. The Indians call this region Pak-occupied Kashmir (POK) (Das, 2011).

Kashmir continues to be at the heart of the conflict between India and Pakistan, with each side insisting their perspective is the correct one. India insists the accession of Kashmir is final and legal and that Kashmir is not a disputed territory. Kashmir has become an integral part of India and everything would be fine if Pakistan would stop its terrorist movement which India says is an attempt to disrupt the region. Pakistan also spreads anti-India propaganda throughout the region. In addition, although reports of human rights abuses are reported, India claims these violations are minimal at best. Furthermore, any attempts to engage in dialogue with Pakistan or Kashmir should only include the condition that Kashmir is a part of India (Bose, 2011).

Pakistan, on the other hand, insists that Kashmir is a disputed territory. They say that the Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession while under duress and did not consider the wishes of his people when making his decision. Furthermore, India accepted the Accession provisionally until a plebiscite, or a vote by the people, could be held. The Pakistanis insist this plebiscite is critical to settling the dispute. They feel Kashmir is at the core of this political dispute and that it courses through their veins, while their Muslim brothers in Kashmir suffer. They also insist that they only provide moral and diplomatic support, not terrorism, for the freedom struggle in Kashmir (Bose, 2011).

Although India and Pakistan stand by their convictions on Kashmir, it cannot be denied that human rights violations are committed by both sides which have been documented by human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and PUCL (People's Union for Civil Liberties). These violations stem from insurgency of the people of Kashmir concerning the plebiscite, self-determination, rigged elections and unemployment. Indian security forces respond with brutal attacks and pro-Pakistan militants continue to cause upheaval in the region. Rape, ethnic cleansing and torture are among the atrocities the Kashmir people are forced to endure at the hands of the State (Anonymous, 2011).

That is the beginning and crux of the dispute over Kashmir; both India and Pakistan have control over parts of J & K maintaining control of their respective territories, while also maintaining the “other side” is illegally occupied territory. Further disputes center on events such as the attack in 2008 in Mumbai which resulted in the deaths of more than 170 people and was blamed on a Pakistan based militant group (Biswas, 2011). Although religion, ethnicity and a various host of other issues are at play, the issues have been greatly politicized to the detriment of the people of J & K as well as India and Pakistan. These issues come to bear when India and Pakistan meet on the cricket field.

Sport Rivalry as a Manifestation of the Conflict

. The Indian public is inundated with the “official version” of rhetoric or propaganda on Kashmir and it is the same for Pakistanis. The Kashmir dispute has soured political relations between the two countries and this has tended to transfer to the cricket field. Defeat is unacceptable and with television audiences estimated at close to one billion people, the pressure on the players is immense. Instances of players' homes being pelted with rocks after losing a match are not uncommon, while over-zealous supporters have been known to burn effigies of players whose game was not up to par.