All sports are a substitute for warfare, whether individual or collective. This has always been so. At the individual level, this is no different and the "gladiator" syndrome is still universal. You win or you die and the crowds cheer.

While things are not so interesting or bloody in the contemporary sports world now, there is no doubt that sports are a substitute, not a chosen one, but because it's cheaper than actual guns and bombs to fight with. I mean there is no greater pleasure in human life than defeating your enemy. And that is displayed every day. And like it or not, politics is also about that and serves sports as its most devoted slave.

Cricket too?

There is this strange fiction and fantasy some have about cricket being a gentleman's game. This is one of the most amazing crap that circulates in the world of cricket fans. They seem to think that cricket is above other sports and while it's played by gentlemen, the rest are played by thugs and rowdy street beggars.

It's so absurd that if someone uses perfectly legal ways to get a batsman out, many protest when it happens as we often see in the name of sportsmanship. So if a batsman is not inside the crease, you don't take the bails off and get him out, but call him back, shake his hands and maybe plant a kiss or two or whatever. I mean you are saying shaking hands comes first before the rules of the game?

This strange twisted notion of fairness actually masks a greater secret. It legitimises superiority and privileges and a fake behavioral code. Remember it began in England and one can see that the idea of White colonials having a higher code of their own which was far superior to any universal rules of the game is something many seek. Its this being above the rule of law spirit that fuels such an attitude.

Cricket has travelled on the shoulders of British colonialism to several lands If and its rooted in colonial power games. However, its not colonialism alone that can explain the cricket frenzy in the post-colonial zones. While the Brits may have introduced the game, it's an even longer deeper history that keeps the wheels churning. And nothing works better than that then the rivalry among countries, once the rulers and once the ruled.

South Asian Rivalries and what it really is

South Asia is a classic example of all kinds of past and present histories, political and personal colliding with each other to act out their very active proxies on the field. This zone is interlinked and shares much of its history and growth over time. Ancient history very surprisingly plays a major role as ancient hatreds, dominations, affinities and tribal sentiments continue to exert their clout.

Both cricket and the historical zone has two major clusters: The North Indian zone - India and Pakistan- and its adjacent Afghanistan and the Eastern Indian zone housing Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

North India has always dominated over the East, the periphery in its cultural imagination and the margin in reality too. It is also defined by ancient anthropological markers including colourism or as some say "racism" but that is only a marker. It's being fair complexioned is a sign of elite aristocracy in every space and in South Asia that notion dominates. And that is where the game begins.

Bangladesh has never had any ruler who was not North India based - from the Palas to the Pakistanis - which is why there is certain anxiety about it in the NI cluster if it does well as the recent events show in Both India and Pakistan. So is it with Sri Lanka - the historic Ravana land which North India failed to conquer properly- which has produced world class players and won the World cup also making it claimants to equality. However, it's a bit in decline now which makes the NI cluster feel better.

North India's own conflict

But as it always happens, there is another fight on. It's the fight within the North Indian cluster as it always has about who is superior. In the ancient world it was among kings trying to control the region. Now it's different but fights must be kept up and that is why India and Pakistan always fight. They are not even aware that they're playing out their historic determined roles, prisoners of their historical DNA as fight on the borders and on the cricket field endlessly. Not to hate is to be left without history.

In this war, Afghanistan is their brother kingdom but a small weak one who has to take sides to survive but not able to compete. India in every way nursed Afghanistan to cricket respectability and created a strong playing country which is also at war with Pakistan. The enemy's enemy is a friend. However, all three are brother states, all fair complexioned and the ruling class in both countries come from the Afghan central Asian zone including the Indo-Aryans. So it works for the three well.

The Black and Browns

The two brown and black clusters - B'desh and SL- are typical examples of small-time punks fighting each other because they can't fight the biggies. In history it means those "janpads" not really kingdoms who don't qualify to be part of the scuffle. So they fight within each other and also with each other. Remember the "time out" and "nagin dance" scenario? They are saying, "pls take us seriously" but in regional politics/conflicts they don't matter so they only have each other for company.

In brief, all sports are proxy wars, cricket is also one and is not even original to the zone but since it's impossible for the South Asians to be original or innovative, they hang on to cricket and copy what their ancestors did.