There have been reminders lately that cricket and politics are not far from each other. This was most evident from the ongoing farrago between the Pakistan Cricket Board and the Cricket Board of Control in India.

In the center of the storm was the men’s 2023 AFC Asian Cup, hosted by Pakistan but jeopardized by the BCCI’s refusal to allow players to travel there. Security reasons were mentioned, although it is not hard to believe that other factors prevail.

India’s refusal to travel jeopardized the entire tournament. In response, the Mixed Model Council suggested that some matches would be played in Pakistan and others at a neutral venue.

Sri Lanka emerged as the favourite, with rumors emerging that nine of the 13 matches would be played there. This is confirmed in the schedule, which was released on July 19. The 50-over format tournament starts on August 30th and ends on September 17th.

Six teams will participate – Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. They were divided into two groups, with the top two groups advancing to the Super Four stage. Then, the top two teams will play in the final.

At least one match is guaranteed between Pakistan and India, as they are drawn into the same group, along with Nepal, who qualified by beating the UAE.

The hybrid model was proposed by Najam Sethi when he was Chairman of the PCB’s Cricket Management Committee and, despite early objections from the BCCI, was accepted by the members of the Asia Cricket Council.

However, the Sethi-led committee, which had only been appointed in December, was replaced on 6 July by a new committee under the new chairmanship, Zakka Ashraf. As the PCB’s patron is the President of Pakistan, this was a political appointment.

The 10-person committee, which was announced on July 8, includes the foreign and sports ministers. Its establishment and election faced numerous court challenges by former committee members. As a result, it will initially be held for four months, with the main objective of making recommendations regarding the participation of the Pakistani team in the 2023 World Cup in India.

In addition, Ashraf appears to have the prerogatives to secure more Asia Cup matches in Pakistan, making this desire clear to members of the ACC during International Cricket Council meetings in Durban, South Africa, last week. It was agreed that there was a special desire to host the match against Nepal in Multan, but the number of matches to be played in Pakistan is still at four, and three in Lahore.

A much lighter political row occurred during the second Test between the England and Australian men’s teams at Lord’s. After a controversial, but legal, action by the Australian wicket-keeper, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak suggested that the spirit of cricket had been broken. His Australian counterpart, Anthony Albanese, jokingly responded by saying that Sunak should stay in his fold.

Humor was something completely missing when cricket and politics became involved in the anti-apartheid movements of the late 1960s.

These came to mind last week during an evening presentation by two men who were parties to those fierce political events. First was Peter (now, Lord) Heine, and second, Mike Procter, one of South Africa’s most celebrated cricketers.

At 19, Heine became the face of the movement to stop the visit of the South African men’s cricket team to England in 1970. This followed the upheaval that caused the South African rugby team’s tour of the UK and Ireland in the winter of 1969 to 1970.

An array of tactics was used, which included storming the field, damaging floodlights, demonstrations, boycotting the team’s hotel and communications systems, and even stealing the team bus. All of this leads to the team voting to go home. Its management ordered them to stay.

Henn’s motivation for his work was based on personal experience. Born to South African parents who were anti-apartheid activists, he was forbidden to work. Effectively exiled, they left for the UK in 1966, with vivid memories of white-only bands and segregated black spectators.

Henn knew how important sporting success was to South Africa’s white elite, providing them with respect and recognition on an international level. Hence, the target that had the best chance of effecting change lay with sport.

Prior to the tour, due to begin in May 1970, he formed the Stop the Seventy Tour campaign. Before long, opposition to the tour became much broader.

Thirteen African countries, along with Asia and the Caribbean, have voted to boycott the Edinburgh Commonwealth Games if the tour continues. Details of the planned unrest were leaked to the press, the print and broadcasting unions urged members to take industrial action, and 14 cricket grounds in the county were vandalized.

This led to the English Cricket Board announcing that the tour would be reduced from 28 to 12 matches and the start date pushed back to 1 June.

Eventually, further activism and government intervention led to the tour’s cancellation on May 22, 1970.

The South African national team was one of the best ever assembled. Prior to the proposed tour of England, they had thrashed Australia 4-0.

Sadly, senior players were denied international careers, as South Africa was not allowed to resume international cricket until July 1991.

The bitterness on their part towards Hein, who is seen by the British elite as Public Enemy No. 1, is understandable. However, many of them later stated that Henn was right, and that his campaign was the turning point to bring about much needed change. South Africa has become isolated in other sports, not just cricket.

During that seclusion, Proctor played English cricket with distinction for Gloucestershire. On retirement he set up a foundation providing physical education and sporting opportunities to around 2,000 disadvantaged schoolchildren in two towns near Durban.

The fact that this kind of intervention is required after 53 years of being excluded from South Africa suggests that the pace of change is still hampered by the intersection of politics and cricket. The idea that they can be separated is fanciful.