Lahore attack just erased the line between sports and politics

One of the most heated and ongoing debates across the planet has been the dividing line between sports and politics. Though most of the major sports governing bodies such as Fifa, ICC and the IOC preclude government interference in local sports organisations this has not deterred politicians from trying to meddle in team selections, tours and even the choice of emblems.

Ordinarily this issue gets highlighted when a cricket or rugby team is about to tour countries like Zimbabwe (sanctions) or Pakistan (security issues). Though most sports people claim that politics should have no place in sport, politicians argue that normal sporting ties cannot exist in an abnormal society.

The terrorist attack on the Sri Lankan team bus in Lahore has finally destroyed the argument that sports and politics should be kept totally separate. It is unfortunately a luxury that can no longer be justified. In future, in order to decide whether a tour can take place or not any number of political and other factors are going to have to be weighed up before the kit bags are packed.

As cricket lovers will know tours to Pakistan have been turned down by Australia, South Africa and India based upon security concerns. It even led to the cancellation of the ICC tournament last October. As a result Sri Lanka, with the best intentions, agreed to play peacemaker and took India’s place. The result has been the devastation of the Sri Lankan test team with a number of players wounded and Pakistan’s hopes of future tours being wiped out for at least the next 5 to 10 years.

Far worse for all sports lovers is the fact that though it has always been at the back of most people’s minds that terrorists might attack stadiums, the chances of it actually happening were adjudged to be remote because sport is very popular among the masses. As such the murder of sports heroes would be a severe case of terrorists shooting themselves in the foot and reducing their popularity dramatically. Yesterday those theories died the same death as the others cited above.

Just when we were starting to believe that there are some things that even extremists won’t do, we discover that the only reason they haven’t done them yet, is because either they haven’t thought of them or they just haven’t got around to them yet. Apparently nothing is sacred.

Amid the recriminations and accusations that are going to start flying over the next few weeks and months try and spare a thought for those who are going to be making the decisions on whether tours should take place or not in the future. As an example try and imagine how those who decided on the Sri Lankan tour arrived at their decision. This tour took place against the backdrop of a Pakistan that looks something like this:

Less than a year after Pakistan’s return to civilian rule the country’s future seems to be wholly uncertain with a number of forces pulling in different directions.
In the crucial province of Punjab, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz chief Nawaz Sharif is accusing president Asif Ali Zardari of being exactly the same as deposed military leader and former president Pervez Musharraf. He claims that the ruling Pakistan People’s Party and the president are behind the supreme court’s decision to declare the Sharif brothers — who are the opposition leaders — ineligible to contest elections. In Punjab, Zardari has declared the victory of Sharif’s younger brother Shahbaz in last year’s by-election null and void and replaced him as chief minister and the provincial government in the province with a governor. This is, to say the least, creating enormous tension between the parties.
Though the Obama administration is still formulating its policies and goals in respect of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with one eye focused on the Taliban and al-Qaeda, its efforts received a major setback, as far as they are concerned, with the Taliban assuming control of vast areas of the Swat Valley, which is situated less than 161km from Islamabad. This means that a new safe haven some distance from the Afghanistan border has been created. This on top of the fact that there are accusations being levied against the Pakistan government that they are not doing enough to oppose extremists who are taking refuge in the area. With the US military launching attacks against insurgents into Pakistan from Afghanistan and the Pakistan military claiming violation of their airspace the relationship between the two has seen better days.
Of course we also have to factor in the attack on Mumbai by Lashkar-e-taiba, an extremist group operating in Pakistan. They were formed in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan but have been redirected, and some say protected, by the military in order to take on the Indian army in respect of the disputed territory of Kashmir. It is noteworthy that the Pakistani government has accepted the group’s involvement in Mumbai and that the attacks were planned and launched from Pakistan. Within Pakistan, Zardari is considered by many to be too pro-West and not hard-line enough on India. As with Musharraf the debate remains over the military numbers deployed against the Taliban and area bordering Afghanistan as opposed to those dealing with the dispute with India over Kashmir.

In terms of the Sri Lankan attack early suggestions are that it bears all the hallmarks of Mumbai. Well-trained terrorists with information, indicates support from the military or Pakistani intelligence. According to police sources the team bus amended its route as a result of a warning received that an attack would be made on the tour bus. If that be so and is added to the fact that the terrorists were highly trained and were able to hit the bus from all four sides then the only conclusion you can draw is that inside information had to be available to the terrorists. It is inconceivable that an ambush could have been set from all 4 sides if the terrorists were searching for the bus and did not know the route.

If we then have regard to a Pakistani economy wherein financial collapse has only been averted through IMF intervention and assistance is being sought from the US against the backdrop described above then the situation becomes even more bleak and the future direction this is going to take somewhat more obscure. It is going to be difficult for the US to justify assisting Pakistan financially where Zardari is unable to give any assurances on the Taliban and incredibly seems more pre-occupied with running vendettas against the Sharif brothers than the myriad of other problems facing Pakistan right now.

We must of course factor in that Pakistan is now a nuclear power, which if governed by the Taliban, could make for a very “interesting” region and planet as well as the fact that the military might soon decide that they have seen enough and repeat the coups of days gone by.

If that is a brief overview of some of the problems facing Pakistan right now and in light of South Africa, Australia and India having declined to tour before, would you like to be the party responsible for having made the decision that Sri Lanka tour Pakistan?