THREE years ago, when Kenya beat the West Indies in the World Cup, Brian Lara reportedly tried to play down the defeat while spending some time in the Kenyan dressing rooms after the West Indies had been bowled out for 93. Lara is said to have told the Kenyans that being beaten by them was not as bad as losing to South Africa; he did not specify why but then one would have to be an innocent not to know what he meant. A victory in cricket was being painted with other overtones.
I resurrect these comments because what happened on the last day of the first phase of the World Cup has resulted in a similar scene. Bangladesh beat Pakistan by a big margin and I'm sure that everyone who follows the game would have rejoiced; if another team is improving and coming to the stage when it can do battle on even terms with the nine "big" guys, then it will make for more competition on the playing field. And that means a great deal to the cricket lover; I am not referring to the flag wavers, only the genuine lovers of the game.
Sadly, the victory which Bangladesh achieved has been painted in nothing more than political colours by the people who should have had the intelligence to do otherwise -- the cricketing media. The masses may take it on a political level but why should cricket writers descend to this level of jingoism? They even seem to be unreservedly gleeful in doing so.
People know the history of Bangladesh and the way it gained independence. But to compare this match to the war that led to untold misery for millions and the largest number of refugees in human history -- isn't that taking it a bit too far? There are reasons for historical animosity between teams and those will never go away but cricket writers, who are expected to be that mite more educated than the rest, should not play to the gallery. It is a case of cheap sensationalism.
Whether Bangladesh gain Test status or not as a result of this win is immaterial. They are not ready for the big league. But what is more important is that the win over Pakistan is used as the means to an end -- to attract more and better players into the game, recognise the extent to which politics can ruin a team (they only have to look at India or Pakistan to learn), and try to build on this success so that the team becomes that bit more competitive. Much in the way that Zimbabwe have done.
But if all that comes out of a brilliant performance like this is the flag waving and slogan shouting we have seen, then the win is being devalued. In the process, one misses the woods for the trees. The cricketers are treated as war heroes and hailed as saviours. There are dangers here and they will be evident in the future. Sport is a civilised substitute for war and it would be better to keep it that way in every respect.