| November 7, 2001 | Wednesday | Shaba’an 20, 1422 |
A voice of sanity
AFTER the hiccup of its first match against Sri Lanka, Pakistan regrouped, pulled up its socks and started to play to its potential and by the time the final came around, raised its game and won The Khaleej Times Trophy in a breeze. It was a heartwarming performance and after a long time, one saw Pakistan play as a team and with commitment.
I am delighted for the PCB which has taken a lot of flak but in the end, its patience with the players paid off. This applied most of all to Shoaib Akhtar. Despite his general attitude in the past and which can be described as ‘prima-donnish’ the PCB kept faith with him and this time he did not let it down. He is still inclined to be a loose cannon and has a short fuse and, at least, on one occasion, one did not have to lip-reader to know what he said to a batsman, I think it was Mahela Jayawardena who had delivered the ultimate insult to fast bowler by hitting him for six and on the first ball he received from him. Waqar Younis used him most sensibly, in short bursts and he picked key wickets. Added to his pace which was fearsome, he bowled a good line and length. There is no doubt that he brings fire-power to the bowling attack and with Wasim Akram and Waqar in top form, this is as good a triumvirate of fast bowlers in cricket today as any.
The man of the tournament, for me, was Wasim Akram. He propelled it from the ordinary to the sublime. This was a reborn Wasim. He says that he is enjoying his cricket but more than that, he is answering his critics.
Not only did he bowl magnificently but was involved in the game, setting a high personal standard in the field and encouraging and guiding the other bowlers. He insists that he still has some years left in his cricket and no one will or should disagree with him if his performance at Sharjah is any guide.
Whether he’s picking up wickets or not, he is the bowler who exerts pressure on the opponents and no batsman smiles when he is bowling. His bowling should carry a health warning: “Dangerous for your peace of mind”.
Easily, the best innings of the tournament was played by Inzamamul Haq in the ‘rehearsal’ for the final. He is now in peak form and seems to be getting better. He must surely rate with Sachin Tendulkar as the best batsman in the world. He appears to have lost some weight and was quite nifty running between the wickets.
I think, one asked Imran Khan, he would say that Inzamam has not yet reached the top of the mountain, so high does Imran rate him and, has always done, since the World Cup in 1992. I remember Imran telling me in Melbourne that Inzamam would go on to become the best batsman that Pakistan would produce.
“I have never seen so much talent”, he had said.
Pakistan has produced some very good batsmen in recent years but somehow we have allowed them to go to seed. I can think of Mohammad Wasim, Hasan Raza, Imran Nazir, Faisal Iqbal and many others. A young player should find it hard to get into the national team but once selected he should be given some security and not to be treated as a daily wages worker.
We have squandered so much talent and broken so many young hearts. I write this in reference to Naveed Latif. One swallow does not make a summer but this lad was a revelation. I hadn’t seen him play but Wasim Bari had spotted him and had told me that he was a batsman of great potential. His century against Sir Lanka was as good as they come. He betrayed a certain nervousness and was bogged down. But Inzamam nursed him and calmed his nerves and Naveed grew in confidence, so much so, he was matching shot for breath-taking shot with Inzamam.
If in the previous match, he had been nervous, in the final he was cocky which was his undoing. This is where the coach comes in. Mudassar Nazar needs to take him under his wing and get, not the youth out of him, but youthfulness. That was the problem with Imran Nazir. He is such a gifted player but his shot selection is poor. Mistakes can be corrected but there are tiny details that need to be addressed. I am sure that Mudassar must have made a mental note of Naveed poor shot to which he got out.
A modest target is often more difficult to overtake. It puts the batting side in two minds and sometimes it falls between two stools. Pakistan had got off to a positive start and seemed to be cruising until Yousuf Youhana was out and then the innings seemed to wobble. This coincided with the introduction of Muttiah Muralitharan and he bowled a magical spell and I was surprised that he hadn’t been brought on earlier. Younis Khan was mesmerised and he achieved the same level of comprehension against him, he would have achieved if someone were to explain Einstein’s Theory of Relativity to him. But Sanath Jayasuriya left it too late.
In fact, Jayasuriya had an off-day both as a batsman and as captain. Sri Lanka does not have quality fast bowlers that Pakistan has. Sri Lanka should have played Kumar Dharmasena and attacked with spin.
Jayawardena is a world class batsman but he seems to falter at the last hurdle. He was batting superbly but, not the first time he appeared to lose concentration and slashed Shoaib Akhtar, a shot of both opulence and extravagance and Rashid Latif picked up the edge. Given the dire straits of the Sri Lanka innings, it was an irresponsible shot and all hopes of Sri Lanka reaching a competitive score were dashed. A fine win for Pakistan who looked the part of champions.
A LARGE number of poets, writers, critics, journalists, trade unionists and professionals responded to a brain-storming session held by the Irtiqa Institute of Social Sciences recently to condemn terrorism. All agreed that terrorism and the causes that promote it have to be done away with, together. For this, the gathering pleaded for a consensus on what is terrorism.
Neither the UN Declaration on Terrorism, nor Amnesty International’s Charter, nor the UN Resolution has defined it except that the word has acquired a double-faced meaning: a terrorist for one group of people could be a freedom-fighter. What meanings could be given to the wars of national liberations? While this is a debating point, there was a consensus that any loss of innocent civilian lives, by even a freedom-fighting organization, was not acceptable.
Some writers suggested that terrorism should be opposed as vehemently as should be supported the freedom struggles of the oppressed peoples. Quite often, during the discussion, reference to Chomsky was made for his recent views on the war against terrorism in Afghanistan. He thinks the on-going war can create many Osamas, and this fact should not be lost sight of.
The discussion also noted the fact that fundamentalism had its roots, in the Christian context, in New England in the 17th century. The Puritans (Christian fundamentalists) adhered strictly to the belief that each individual could understand the Bible by means of his own personal criterion and each believer had to be taught to read before he could honestly face God and determine his religious duties. The movement ended in Congregationalism and Unitarianism as expounded in New England schools like the Harvard School of Divinity.
The Puritans were deadly opposed to liberal theology and deplored — some of the denominations still do — the three D’s — Dancing, Drinking and Dirty Movies — and Billy Graham and Jerry Felwell are some of the prominent names who preached against liberalism. Bob Jones University and Wheaton College are some of the seats of learning which are known as centres of Christian fundamentalism. It is from there that all those who stood for the observance of fundamental teachings of their religions came to be known as fundamentalists.
The Islamic fundamentalists, at present, stand for fundamental teachings of Islam and are also opposed to the domination of their economies and government policies by foreigners. The Taliban were supported by the US as an anti-dote to the Communist ideology and the situation took a turn for the worse when the US withdrew from Afghanistan in haste after the Soviet withdrawal, leaving the Taliban to fend for themselves.
According to some writers, those who want peace are neither for the Taliban nor for terrorism. They don’t want carpet-bombing of the civilian targets because this is against the declared aims of the allies. Senior writer Ahmed Hasan Rizvi reminded the participants, at the Nov 3 session, that the US had acted on the advice of Zbigniew Brzezinski to the US administration to support the fundamentalists, instead of the liberal, modern forces.
This is something which Israel also did in the West Bank to counter the liberal and progressive outfit of Al-Fatah, with the result that the foreign policy options of yesteryear couldn’t be just wished away by the policies of carpet-bombings.
The encouraging aspect of this dialogue, which engaged the majority of the city’s intellectuals, was that everyone sympathized with the loss of innocent civilians in the Sept 11 tragedy that befell New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. But at the same time the writers emphasized that their feelings for the loss of human lives in Afghanistan could not be any different and warned that no untoward meaning should be given to this expression of sympathy.
The men of letters have always supported the weak, the humble and the oppressed. It is the main ‘material’ of literature. Be it Vietnam, Palestine or Kashmir — or before it Algeria and Nicaragua and all other colonies — where human blood has been shed unnecessarily, the protest remains the same. Only the proper nouns or characters in the drama have changed. No intellectual has ever sided with the strong or the arrogant. This is against the grain of humanity, against the very motives of literature.
Prof T.B. Irving, Dr John C. Merenkov of the USA and Cherif Bassiouni of the USA have written a great deal to discuss what fundamentalism is. One is free to follow a prescription for salvation one has chosen for himself or herself but the moment it is demanded of others to follow that prescription, it becomes a sort of terrorism no one could support.
Samuel Huntington should be feeling quite happy that his theory about the ultimate class of Christian and Islamic civilizations stands a good chance of being proved right but its efficacy is conditional on maintaining a status quo which perpetrates inequities of all kinds.
The moment the strong and the mighty decide to be equitable in their words and deeds, there is no likelihood that the monster of terrorism could ever raise its head. The three-day dialogue of at the Irtiqa appealed to the writers and politicians the world over to work for transparent equity and fair play to all. The more they persevere in their struggle the more it will be evident to us all that terrorism will become extinct. Until then it will continue to raise its ugly head, time and again.