Unnecessary and unwise

Would you like to field on the boundary line with your back turned to the crowd, at Karachi, the home of terrorist activity in Pakistan, wondering if you might stop a brick, or worse "" an AK 47 bullet? Would you like to do so over a total of at least 12 days at different venues?

This is the question no one is asking. The players must be worried, but so wary are they of the cricket board and its power to punish them with exclusion (which is akin to a death sentence), that they are content to smile wryly "" as Saurav Ganguly is reported to have done when the home minister asked him if he was 'comfortable' with the tour.

Ordinarily, the answer would be that it is no more unsafe to play cricket in Pakistan than it is in some of the grounds in India.

And in 1999, Pakistan did tour India safely, even though the record shows that when it comes to hurling stones and missiles at fielders, we are no slouches. Nor has India ever used the security argument against cricket.

When Australia and West Indies refused to play in the World Cup match in Sri Lanka, India sent its team there to show that there really was no danger. India has also never approved of other teams that refuse to tour Pakistan on the grounds of security risk.

That said, the proposed tour of Pakistan by the Indian team should not have been allowed to go through. The main reason is the context of the tour, which has two components.

One is the reason why the tour is being undertaken at this point "" it was not in the calendar for 2004 and was inserted at the behest of the government, at the expense of the tour to Bangladesh.

Bangladesh are not the most exciting opponents, and a cricket series with Pakistan will produce better cricket, a bigger audience and much more money for all concerned.

But the fact remains that, despite the record of ping-pong diplomacy with China, sport should not be used as part of a tactical diplomatic game.

The role of sport in politics has been debated to death and it seems right that sports should not become an instrument of international politics. After all, it is not Ganguly and Co. who are conducting the negotiations. They must not be used as pawns.

The former, however, is more important at this point. The fact is that there are very powerful forces which would like to halt the peace process between India and Pakistan, and it makes no sense to provide them with sitting (or standing) ducks.

The problem, one should bear in mind, is not off-field security which will probably be all right, but on-field security.

It would take very little to injure an Indian player and the trouble taken to do so "" a bribe to a policeman would be enough to carry a brick in "" from the extremists' point of view, would be worth it.

And it would not be some idiot throwing it but a motivated terrorist with a clear political objective. Should that happen, it would greatly slow down the peace process.

The government has to ask itself whether it is being too eager to please the Pakistani establishment. We think it is.