New Bottle, Old Wine

Today, I got called a ‘nationalist pig’ for supporting India in the India – Pakistan match and for saying that the state of belonging to one country means supporting that country in a sport, is morally correct.

I still remember the day on which Bal Thackeray came on a popular talkshow on tv and said ‘Muslims are traitors because they support Pakistan and they should be sent there’ to general adulation and applause. That day was the saddest day of my 10 year old life. I had no idea why someone whom I didn’t even know, wanted to send me, an Indian Muslim, to an alien country where I didn’t want to go. And now after years of thinking about and criticizing Bal Thackeray’s politics of radical fascism, I get labelled as a similar ‘nationalist pig’ because I happened to support my country in a cricket match.

Why is it so unacceptable if I support India? For me, a sense of belonging to India, more than any other nation, is what propels my support. Why do I have to force myself to support another nation pitted against India, just because they are a ‘better team’ or because it is in ‘the interest of peace’ or because it is a more ‘liberal’ thing to do? What do these terms mean anyway and who decides their meaning? If Sehwag gets out on a brilliant ball by Wahab Riaz, I mourn his loss, but does that mean that I don’t appreciate Reza’s talent? In fact, I appreciate both Sehwag’s brilliance, and Reza’s talent in getting him out. So why is mourning Sehwag’s dismissal, an indication of my ‘nationalistic pig’ behaviour?


I have no issues with appreciating good cricket. We all love a good batsman or a good bowler. There is nothing wrong with liking Imran Khan or Wasim Akram, and anyone who actually follows the game will appreciate their talent.

I have no issues with the Pakistan cricket team, and I would support them if say, they were meeting Australia or England in a match.

I would however, and do, support India if India and Pakistan/any other country, play. Does that qualify me to be labelled a ‘nationalist pig’?

If in spite of all the problems plaguing India right now, whether 2g scams or communal riots, I feel a sense of belonging to it, is that a crime?

Also, one of the common reasons given for supporting Pakistan instead of India is that people in some parts of India share a 1000-yr old history and culture with parts of Pakistan rather than India, and this is natural reason for their support. If we trace this further back though, most of north India are of the Aryan race which came from west Asia or Iran. Does this ethnic background mean that north Indians should support Iran in all future sporting events? And even given the possibility that it does mean this, will this come honestly and naturally to a north Indian in today’s time and space?


Lastly, it’s very easy to be ‘liberal’ when you lead a privileged life of leisure. How ‘liberal’ are we when it comes to day-to-day life? How many of us will stand up and protest if a Pakistani is wronged in front of us? How many of us will have the courage to protest if someone from a minority group/religion of our own country, for that matter, is abused by a mob? Does our ‘liberalism’ tend to change with time and space therefore and is that any better than being plainly jingoistically nationalistic? Or is it simply that it is politically correct nowadays to be seen as politically incorrect?


Also, if someone supports Pakistan over India because they play ‘better cricket’, is that okay? Or, if say someone watches cricket but not because she is interested in the game but only because she finds cricketers to be unusually handsome, is it okay to support Pakistan because say, they have better-looking players? Similarly, is it okay for an Indian muslim to support Pakistan because say, the Pakistani cricketers are Muslim and going by their celebratory prostrations on the field itself, good religious Muslims? Does this mean that it’s okay to support a team because of a specific reason that you find appealing? How is this related to cricket at all?



Also, how can we say which is a ‘better team’ which plays ‘better cricket’?

Supporting Pakistan over India because they play ‘better cricket’ is a context-bound issue. It is only in retrospect that we can say who played better. Supporting per se, on the other hand is a pre-facto phenomenon. How do we judge which is a ‘better team’ then? One might say that the Pakistani team played better in the last match, than the Indian team, and therefore they play ‘better cricket’ but who is to say that they are in that exact last performance level. Should we look at their past matches with India or with other teams? They might have or have not played India then, so their comparative qualitative grading is difficult to ascertain now. Also, the team members then may not be the same, pitch and weather conditions will be different from the present. In short, because both teams are generally good, it is very difficult to say which is a better team at the start of a match, based on previous matches. We can judge which is a ‘better team’ only after the present match has been played, and since supporting a team means supporting it from the start, it is difficult to say that we support Pakistan because it is a better team when a match begins.

One might support a particular country but I think, as it happens, it’s usually a subjective decision rather than a fully objective rational one (based on better cricketing ability) as some people suggest. Even if I were to agree that it should be an objective and rational decision, who is to decide what is rational and objective and how it is to be reached? As I’ve mentioned earlier, it is very difficult and nearly impossible to decide which is ‘better’, and to understand qualitative grading based on objective analysis.


Everything said and done, I think true liberalism consists in tolerating each other, even if we have contesting opinions. If I’m inclined to support my country, I should be given the space to do so without being abused. If I’m not inclined to support my country, then too I should be given the space to do so without being abused. I would think that the latter position is, in a personal scheme of things, a sad one, but there have been and will be instances of them in history, and the most we can do as reasonable humans is to look into the why and how of it, and address it if we find problems. Labelling each other as nationalist or anti-nationalist pigs is the worst way, however, to go about it.