I have to say that I don’t consider Gambhir’s remarks particularly inflammatory. In the actual interview he said: “And if we win the final, for me, it’ll be dedicated to the people who lost their lives in the 26/11 massacre. To my mind, a win against Pakistan and a win in the final and that too in Mumbai should be dedicated to those victims.” Given that he was including the final against Sri Lanka, it seems to me that he was dedicating both achievements to the victims and not treating the victory against Pakistan as symbolic vengenace.
However, in responding to the question “Do you think that will soothe their pain?”, he did say “I am sure the win against Pakistan would have helped.”
Even if he were implying that the victory over Pakistan was a symbolic act of vengenace, I would not be surprised. In the November 2008 incidents, terrorists fired automatic weapons into masses of people. Over 160 people were killed. The terrorists were Pakistani citizens belonging to Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. The Pakistani government has shielded that organization, its cover group, the Jama’at-ud-Dawa, and its leading ideologue for years. The government of Pakistan has had at least a twenty year history of supporting terrorism and insurgency in India. Among Indians, this set of connected facts generates a strong feeling of animosity towards any entity with the label “Pakistan” associated with it.
The logical fallacy of collective identification is so commonplace in human behavior that Gambhir’s thinking (or that of most Indians who agree with him) is hardly unusual.
Your main point about the ugliness of the Indian fan, as demonstrated by the extract from Uday Chandra’s blog, is indisputable. Still, I don’t think Gambhir’s statements are reflective of that ugliness.

One of the reasons I stayed away from cricket is the ugly nationalism of Indian cricket fans, especially against Pakistan. In my experience with both Indians and Pakistanis, of the educated disaspora-variety, I find Indians exhibiting far more hate towards Pakistanis than vice versa. But that is just my limited experience.

It all started when Inzamam, understandably unhappy at being called ‘aloo’ all day,was goaded into beating up an Indian fan:

The ratings of the incident were much higher than that of the match, and the advertisers caught on that their audiences really wanted red meat more than the red cherry. From there, it is but a straight line to the emetic Bharat Matrimony Ad:

shown between every other over of the 2011 CWC.

Namit,
I think you are being unnecessarily melodramatic.
The idea of giving people honorary roles in the defence forces is common. Sachin Tendulkar was made an honorary Group Captain in the Indian Air Force in September 2010. According to this article, 21 people have received honorary ranks from the Air Force over the previous 60 odd years. In 2008, Kapil Dev was appointed to an honorary position (that of a Lieutenant Colonel) in the Territorial Army. I believe Dhoni is also being inducted into the Territorial Army, with the rank to be decided later. The Territorial Army in India consists mostly of volunteers serving part-time. Frequently, their role is to help out in maintenance of essential services during emergencies.
Universities give out honorary doctorates all the time, quite often to people who are not academics. Other organizations in society also honor different kinds of achievement. Why should we regard this any differently ? The personnel of the armed forces are very much a part of society in India. Defence jobs were coveted jobs until recently, and perhaps continue to be so outside the metros. Given that the personnel of the armed forces are a microcosm of Indian society, they are just as passionate about Indian cricket as the rest of the population. When they choose to honor the achievements of cricketers, they are not doing anything unusual. That is what I would call a plausible interpretation.
What you think of as a charitable interpretation, I would call a cynical take.The defence forces are recruiting “brand ambassadors” (the favored term in India) with the added advantage of not having to pay much for it.
I am not sure which of the above interpretations is correct, but it does not much matter. If your basic concern is with this giving rise to jingoism, I would say that your concern is misplaced. On a list of probable sociopolitical causes of jingoism, this would probably be at the bottom.
Another thing: a “commissioned officer” does not automatically mean a Lt. Col. In the army, a second lieutenant is the first commissioned officer rank. Graduates from the Indian Military Academy or the Officers’ Training School are appointed to these positions. It takes roughly 16-20 years of service to become a Liutenant Colonel.
Your last paragraph is extraordinarily weak. Firstly, in India, the defence services have always been associated heavily with sports, especially outside of cricket. This has led to no noticeable ill-effects over the last 60 years or so. In fact, only recently have the services turned towards cricket. As for the separation between politics and the army, I think the record speaks for itself.
Secondly, it is not that Dhoni (or Tendulkar) lack political sophistication. I am willing to bet they are way more politically savvy than either you or me. What you probably meant was that they are philosophically unsophisticated. If that is what you meant, you have not made a case for it. Also, it is worth pointing out that one man’s philosophical sophistication is another man’s crazy talk.
Finally, saying that defense equipment is phallic is so 1970s. The business of systematic killing is a very practical matter. The shapes of fighter jets and missiles have more to do with simple aerodynamics than with assumed psychosexual imperatives. Perhaps there is a good lesson to keep in mind: taking sophomoric Freudian digs at things you don’t like adds nothing to understanding.