Will it divide or unite....

For a concept that went so far as to bring international cricketers together, the IPL, through no fault of its own, faces the prospect of being a vehicle that will ultimately cause friction rather than harmony. I post this blog piece today, deliberately timed so it gets published before any decisions have been made and diplomatic wrangles occur.

It's clear that security issues will continue to affect the IPL in years to come, regardless of how this year's event pans out. The relocation in 2009 to South Africa, prompted by security issues involving the national elections in India was managed admirably, making the best of a difficult situation. The 2010 situation is a bit more serious because it has the potential to reduce the international flavour of the tournament that makes the IPL such a unique dish. Sure, even if some international players pull out, the event might yet be a modest success, bolstered by patriotism and India's domestic strength but regardless of the brave spin that may be put on it, it will lose some of its lustre. No sense in denying that.

If it comes to pass that players from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and England withdraw, the risk is that it will create an East-West divide that will take many years to repair. And that will be the ironic legacy of the IPL if it does turn out that way: what started off as a global event may descend into a Cold War drawn along traditional and predictable lines. There will be accusations of cowardice and double standards, of plotting to steal World Cups and of the supposed arrogance of cricket's major powerbroker. One can only hope that the cricketers themselves will be spared the pain and vitriol that will inevitably flow from all disappointed stakeholders.

Already, there is innuendo that the Australian camp is divided. The ex-players are apparently keen to make the event, spurred on no doubt by advancing years and the promise of a last golden handshake. Let's not pretend otherwise - despite all the talk of great challenges and being part of a global event, it ultimately boils down to money. Plenty of it. An IPL without the big cheques would simply not be on the radar of these retired warriors.

The current Australian players are reputedly less keen, weighing up a long career in Australian cricket against the promise of a quick but uncertain payout. They are not in that much of a rush to make their fortunes and one can understand their reluctance to risk their safety when time is on their side. What makes this clash unique is that it will eventually come down to a question of whether the various player unions can exert enough influence over a membership that also includes ex-players who are essentially beholden to no one but themselves. If the advice is that they should not attend the IPL, how can they enforce that ruling on any 'retired' player who wants to act independently?

Next year's World Cup question is a bit easier to resolve because it involves playing for one's country and that will mean that the decision will be taken by the respective governing bodies, thereby not putting the players in the invidious position of making the call themselves. What is clear though is that it is patently ridiculous for any government, in any country, to offer guarantees and assurances of safety. If it was that easy to guarantee such a fluid concept, why can't everybody do that across all walks of life, not just for cricketers? I mean, how does one ever claim on such a ridiculous guarantee?

Perhaps the answer is for all parties to take the emotion and guilt out of the whole situation and genuinely leave it up to the individual's discretion with no threats or talk of lifetime bans or blackballs. All that sort of loaded comment does is to create guilt and resentment when none of this is really the fault of the IPL or the players. It's a function of the world we live in where terror threats are seen as a legitimate way to push a political cause. India is not alone in facing this problem but she should not view it as a personal betrayal if some cricketers make a personal choice based on their own family circumstances.

And that's pretty well what it boils down to. Some individuals are less risk-averse than others, some are less fazed by terror threats than others and no one deserves censure or praise for making a personal decision. It's really no different to any other risky job. It's up to each individual to decide whether the risks are worth the rewards and make choices accordingly. The IPL is not about representing your country with pride - it's purely about being a highly paid entertainer in a commercial venture. So let's hope they take the nationalistic jargon out of the diplomatic posturing and just treat it like any other job offer. Weigh up the risks and rewards, consult with your family and do what's right for you. It need not be a national insult or cowardice or any other loaded value judgement. Whatever the decision, let's hope it doesn't become a divisive issue that splits the cricket world across the cultural divide. The game is not big enough to survive that sort of pettiness.