It is understandable, albeit misconceived, to imagine that England's cricketers face a complex decision over the next few days. Images of carnage at an hotel with which you are intimately acquainted are bound to blur the “should we, shouldn't we” issue. On top of that, it is a time when Anglo-Indian cricket relations are peculiarly fraught, so that any potential leverage between boards at loggerheads will be seized upon.

But when you cut through everything, the decision about whether England should return to India to play two Test matches is a simple one and should be based on a single question: is it safe to return?

In itself this is a complex issue, since the assassination of presidents down the years confirms that no one's safety can ever be guaranteed. But surely we all understand that: anyone living in London, New York, Mumbai or indeed any nation involved in the so-called war against terrorism must understand that day-to-day living comes with an element of risk attached. What we - players, journalists, supporters - want to know is whether the balance of probabilities is in our favour.

None of us knows, which is why we rely on experts to tell us and why we must respect that advice. Hugh Morris, the managing director of England cricket, confirmed yesterday that this would be the way forward for the ECB, whose directors were meeting last night. He suggested that security reports would come over the next 24 to 48 hours from a variety of sources, from the Foreign Office, from embassies in India and from Reg Dickason, the man who provides daily security reassurance to the players and their families.

Dickason has a crucial role to play, for it is his advice that the players will trust implicitly. He is a jolly, moustached Australian who has been a permanent presence on England tours for the past few years. At times, his closeness to the team - he parades around in England team tracksuits and is often seen socialising with the players - raises the question as to how detached a view he is able to take in these matters. But his professionalism must be taken on trust and, since he is paid a princely sum to give advice about a topic in which he is expert, the players and the ECB would be foolish to ignore it.

Sean Morris will co-ordinate the players' response, along with Kevin Pietersen, the captain, who was speaking to his team-mates throughout yesterday afternoon. Morris, the chief executive of the Professional Cricketers' Association (PCA), is due at the Foreign Office this morning with John Carr, the ECB's director of operations. The PCA's concern is that there may be insufficient time to co-ordinate the kind of independent security reports that in the past have provided firm comfort to the players. If the initial time-frame for the Test series is to be adhered to, a decision on whether to travel would have to be taken by Wednesday at the latest.

If the advice from security sources hardens in the coming days - which it may well do, given that India was reported to be raising its security levels to “war footing” yesterday - to the point at which the advice is for England to stay at home, then no one should be accused of a streak of yellowness. Indeed, the ECB would have a duty of care not to place its players in harm's way.

But, if the advice remains, as it does now, that other areas can accommodate cricket safely, then the ECB should send a team, and indeed should expect its players to go. Briefings have indicated that the ECB is considering Calcutta as an alternative venue to Ahmedabad for the first Test.

Geoff Miller, the national selector, indicated yesterday that no player would have his hand forced. “The players will be left to make their own decisions and they won't be forced to go back even if the security reports are favourable,” he said. “If some players choose to stay at home, the selectors will have to reassess, but any decision to miss the Test series will not be held against them.”

This would seem to be in response to reports that three players, Andrew Flintoff, Stephen Harmison and an unnamed bowler thought to be Jimmy Anderson (his wife is pregnant), have expressed serious reservations about returning. But it has always been a matter of personal choice whether you accept the invitation to play for England, with all the rewards and risk - personal and professional - that such an undertaking brings.

There cannot be any question of sending a second-string team, since no player's life is more important than another's. So if players decide that they do not wish to tour, then normal principles should apply: no tour fee and an understanding that no place should ever be taken for granted.

One positive development yesterday was the conciliatory tone of Lalit Modi, the vice-president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), a man for whom English cricket has always seemed to be as a red rag is to a bull. He suggested that compensation was the last thing on India's mind.

“It is not a case of the BCCI against the ECB or the players, that doesn't achieve anything,” Modi said. “It has got nothing to do with monetary issues, either. We would never pressurise anyone; that is not the way we operate.” That would come as news to the ECB, but welcome news at that. Perhaps the fear of a Pakistan-like isolation has softened Modi's position.

Modi, though, was right when he insisted that “we can't allow events to deter us”. It was an opinion shared by Haroon Lorgat, the chief executive of the ICC, the world governing body, who implored England to tour if security and safety allowed. As time begins to soften the brutal memory of the past few days, that seemed to be the sentiment gathering momentum yesterday.

It all now hinges on the security advice given to the players. Over to you, Reg.