Soft targets for hard terrorists

Click here for the 23 Yards homepage

As I write this, the Indian tour to Bangladesh has been delayed because of a terrorist threat. The Bangladeshis claim it is a hoax, an Indian security team has gone there to inspect the security arrangements, and in a few hours we will presumably know if the tour is going ahead. If the security arrangements are found to be inadequate, then it will be a good reason to call off the tour. But if the security is fine, and the tour is called off because of the terrorist threat, that will be odd. Because the terrorist threat has existed for years now.

That might seem a strange assertion, in the light of the fact that no terrorist activity involving cricket or a cricketer has yet taken place. Sure, Australia refused to play in Sri Lanka during the 1996 World Cup, and New Zealand have called off tours to Sri Lanka and Pakistan after bomb blasts, but cricketers themselves haven't yet been attacked. What happened at the Munich Olympics in 1972, when 11 Israeli athletes were kidnapped and killed by a Palistinean terrorist group called Black September, was a one-off. Sportsmen have generally not been targets for terrorists. But, logically, there is no reason why that will not change soon.

Terrorists traditionally have had two kinds of targets: the High-Impact Tough Target (HITT) and the Low-Impact Soft Target (LIST). (This is my postulation, first made in an article written in Wisden Asia Cricket in June 2002.) An HITT is a target which, if struck successfully, would have a high impact on people, and would probably cause a national uproar. But HITTs are well defended, and difficult to breach. The Pentagon, a 9/11 target, falls in this category, as does the Indian parliament, which was attacked in late 2001. HITT attacks are rare, because of their difficulty, but desirable from a terrorist's point of view, because of the media exposure they receive.

LISTs, on the other hand, are easy to get at, but do not have that much of an impact because, in countries that are used to terrorism, they take place freqently and involve common people. Palistinean militants in Israel have focussed a lot on LISTs - discos, cafes and the like - as have the terrorists in Kashmir, where incidents blur into one another, and their impact gets more and more diluted.

A terrorist's dream would be a High-Impact Soft Strike (HISS) - a target that is both easy to strike and impactful at the same time. In India, where cricket and cinema are almost like religion, cricketers and filmstars are perfect candidates for a HISS. Top players, and the biggest movie stars, are so revered that if anything were to happen to them, the nation would be as anguished as by an attack on parliament or on a politician. And they are ridiculously easy to get access to, as many ardent autograph hunters would testify. For cricketers, this is especially true in the off season, when they travel around with often no security at all.

It is a no-brainer that at some point or the other, terrorists will figure this out and stake out their targets. It is such a horrifying thought that my instinctive reaction is to go into denial. If the cost of celebrity becomes such peril, then will we all have to temper our ambitions and settle for safe mediocrity?

The days when crowds could be allowed to joyfully rush onto the field and mingle with the players are over. Leave alone terrorists, even a stray nut, a Mark Chapman of cricket, could harm a player if allowed access. Such breaches have thankfully gone down in recent years, though that moment at Lord's in 2002, when a fan rushed towards Sachin Tendulkar during an India-England Test, was a worrying one. There was a similar breach in a game at the recent Champions Trophy, though the tournament was otherwise well-policed.

Players, thus, need to be vigilant even when they are not playing cricket, mindful of the perils of their fame. And cricket authorities need to make sure that nothing goes wrong on their watch. The threat about the Bangladesh tour may well turn out to be a hoax - why should a dog that intends to bite bother to bark? - but every match, every tour should be policed as if there is a terrorist threat, a clear and present danger. Perhaps the times will change, and a future generation can feel safer. But not us, and not now.

My other blog: I keep getting mails from people asking me why I only write on cricket. Well, now I don't. Please do visit my new blog, The Middle Stage. If you don't like it, write in and tell me, constructive criticism is welcome; my new blog is still, you could say, in a Beta stage. And if you like it, please tell all your friends about it.

Update (December 10): Yet another blog of mine, India Uncut, is now up. Do check it out.

Click here for the 23 Yards homepage

More 23 Yards
You cannot sell what you do not own
No cricket board, or the ICC, has the right to restrict a player's commercial rights. Those rights belong to the player alone. More.

Simple and subjective? Or complex and objective?
The ICC faces a choice between comfort and progress. It must find a way to choose both. More.

The walking minefield, and cricket's Iraq
There is no issue that divides the cricketing world as much as the issue of chucking. And yet, both sides have the same aims, which are well served by the new laws the ICC is proposing. More.

The prism of nationality
Some of us love cricket for the intrinsic beauty of the game, while some of us enjoy it only if our side wins More.

Lessons from the stock market
Stock markets are ruled by sentiment, where perception often affects reality. Of what relevance is this to cricket? More.

The full symphony of cricket
Robert Trivers once said about the legendary evolutionary biologist William Hamilton, 'While the rest of us speak and think in single notes, he thought in chords.' And how do we watch cricket? More.

Whose game is it anyway?
To whom does cricket belong? Who exactly should the BCCI be accountable to? What is the road ahead for Indian cricket? More.

Unaccountable umpires, and falling short of change
Some final thoughts on technology and cricket. More.

More Luddites answered, but no early adopters
Why umpires should welcome technology, Part 2. More.

Why umpires should welcome technology
Technology will not replace the umpire, but empower him. And it will do justice to the skills of players by vastly reducing human error from the game. More.

Shiny Happy Flintoff, and outside-in emotions
Can behaving positively change the way you feel? Can the way you feel change the way you play? Does a successful team make for a happy one, or if it the other way around? More.

Attitude Inflation, and the quality of broadcasting
How Indian cricket fans are like the left parties in India, and why hardworking players rather than talented ones make the best captains, coaches and commentators More.

Cricket journalist? But have you played cricket?
We should judge journalists only on the basis of they write, and not their biodata More.

Beating up little brother, and harsh Indian fans
Indian cricketers, and other Indian sportsmen, are constantly vilified and denigrated by their "fans". Why is this so? More.

Hayden's salvo and the angry fat man
Was Matthew Hayden's salvo at subcontinental batsmen just an attempt at mental disintegration, or was there some truth to it? Was Murali's brace like Perl, the programming language? What if the fat man is too fat for you? More.

Do the right thing. But what?
Is there a moral dimension to cricket distinct from the laws of the game? If so, what is it? More.

Murali's redemption, and our arrogance
Muttiah Muralitharan has proved, with his new documentary, that his action is clean. But what does the controversy reveal about us? Was our judgment based on the available evidence, or on the biases we held? More.

Mind games, performance enhancers and the huddle
Twenty20 cricket is good for the sport, and for the commerce of it. What about performance-enhancing drugs? More.

A trophy on the mantelpiece, or a pot of gold?
A constant conflict in cricket is that between the long-term interests of a team, and their short-term needs. Generally, the short term wins out. More.

Towards a posthuman sport, or a better world?
Should we fiddle with biology? Will genetic engineering make us lose our humanity, or will it improve our lives immeasurably? And what are its repurcussions for sport? More.

Current players v past players, and gene doping
There is a strong argument that standards of excellence have risen in just about every single department of every single sport. Are the dominant sportsmen of today, then, the greatest ever? Also, gene doping. More.

Headless Ganguly and the fair and lovely worm
A blog of the India-Pakistan match on July 25, 2004. Some great cricket, and fairly unbelievable commentary. More.

Twenty20 to the rescue?
Twenty20 cricket draws in spectators and has revitalised cricket. It might also be the key to globalising the game. More.

Is there a crisis in cricket?
Has the balance of the game shifted, with the bat dominating ball, as we enter "a batting bull market"? Or is that just alarmism, with bowlers impacting the game as never before, and ensuring that 77% of all Tests end in results? More.