| November 24, 2001 | Saturday | Ramazan 8, 1422 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Cricket in turmoil
Hospital waste hazards
THE world seems to be more interested in the fate of Kunduz than in what happens after the Taliban surrender. While the dateline for the Taliban to surrender has been changing, concern is mounting about those who will surrender. The Taliban garrison defending Kunduz consists of both the native (predominantly Pakhtoon) Afghans and foreign volunteers — mostly Pakistanis, Arabs, Chechens and some Indonesians. What is worrying is the attitude of the Northern Alliance’s military leadership. From what has appeared in the press, it seems the NA generals are making a difference between Afghan and non-Afghan defenders of Kunduz. While they have said nothing specific about how the Afghan Taliban would be treated, they have dropped dark hints about the fate of non-Afghan fighters.
Prisoners of war in modern times are treated according to the Geneva conventions. Taken prisoner whether during the fighting or after a formal surrender, the PoW is entitled to certain privileges. These include humane treatment, proper food, adequate medical treatment, the right to receive letters and gifts from his home and international relief agencies, and safe return home after the war is over. The only exceptions are those PoWs who are held guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity: they are tried, given the right to defend themselves and ultimately punished or set free according to norms of justice. However, reports coming out of Afghanistan portray a dark picture, for certain elements in the Northern Alliance militia seem to discriminate between Afghan Taliban and non-Afghan combatants.
Shocking as it may appear, the US, which normally would uphold Geneva conventions in other cases, is ominously silent on the fate of non-Afghan Taliban. In fact, some of Donald Rumsfeld’s statements on the issue are highly disturbing, for the US defence secretary has avoided coming out categorically in favour of adhering to the Geneva conventions. While the US has every right to pursue its war aims in Afghanistan, it has to do so in a responsible manner, without allowing the process to be vitiated by a spirit of vengeance or spite and without any discrimination between one group of adversaries and another. In fact, as the leader of the world coalition against terrorism, Washington has to use its influence with the anti-Taliban Alliance to prevent the massacre of non-Afghan volunteers after the Taliban holed up in Kunduz give up arms.
Pakistan has to realize the gravity of the situation. Immediately after the war began, thousands of Pakistanis crossed over into Afghanistan. That Islamabad did not wish them to do so or was unable to stop them is beside the point. Those who went to join what they believed to be their sacred duty included not only tribesmen but many other groups of Taliban enthusiasts. In Kunduz alone, the number of foreign volunteers varies from 1,000 to as high as 10,000. Clearly, when the hostilities end, they are as much entitled to a safe passage as native Afghans.
One hopes Pakistan will take up the issue of safe passage of the non-Taliban elements in Kunduz with the US and Britain and ensure that they remain unharmed. The safe return of foreign volunteers in no way runs counter to the world coalition’s aim of punishing the terrorists involved in the Sept 11 carnage. While those against whom there are specific charges should be dealt with accordingly, other combatants must be treated according to the Geneva conventions and allowed to return home safely.
THE cricketing world has been thrown into turmoil following a series of extraordinary events in South Africa. A furious row broke out last week when the match referee imposed harsh penalties on five Indian players, including star batsman Sachin Tendulkar and captain Saurav Ganguly, for a series of alleged misdemeanours on the field during the second Test against South Africa at Port Elizabeth. The Indians reacted furiously and claimed that the charges were unfair and one-sided. As demonstrations broke out across India and questions were asked in parliament, cricket’s governing body, the ICC, stood by the match referee, former England captain Mike Denness. The Indians, meanwhile, made it clear that they would boycott the third and final Test if Denness was not removed. Put in an awkward position by the row, the South African government was forced to intervene. The country’s cricketing authorities asked Denness to step down, failing which they would bar his entry into the ground. The ICC, meanwhile, decreed that if Denness was not allowed entry, they would withdraw official support from the match. In a rather unsatisfactory compromise, the match will now go ahead but it will be an unofficial Test.
This unsavoury episode reflects the changing realities of modern cricket. With the game’s centre of gravity shifting towards the subcontinent, cricket increasingly enjoys phenomenal popularity in this part of the world. Today’s top players, especially stars like Sachin Tendulkar, are treated like demi-gods who are considered beyond reproach —- hence the furious response to charges that he tampered with the ball. This changing geographical focus has also encouraged a belief in the subcontinent that the older cricketing nations are envious of talent from South Asia. While this view seems somewhat self-serving, there is a grain of truth in it. In recent years, match referees from the older cricketing nations have imposed bans and penalties on a succession of top stars from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka while largely ignoring the misdemeanours of players from the traditional cricketing nations.
In that sense, Pakistan and India are in the same boat, which explains why the Pakistan Cricket Board has given the Indian cause a sympathetic hearing. This may also explain why Australian captain Steve Waugh jumped into the fray quite unneccessarily and launched an attack on India for reacting so strongly to the recent events. At another level, cricketing rules made in another era need to be revamped to keep in step with changing times. Some leading players have also advocated the abolition of the post of match referee, arguing that traditional umpires, aided by modern technology, are better judges of what transpires on the field than remote match referees.
UNTREATED hospital waste is one of the major causes of the spread of infectious diseases, and poses a direct health risk to patients and their families, hospital staffers and visitors alike. This is particularly true in case of large state-run hospitals, such as the Nishtar Hospital in Multan, which produces some 4,500 kilograms of waste every day and has yet to acquire an incinerator for its proper disposal. The last time the plant was commissioned was two years ago, when a foreign firm agreed to install one, but following the dismissal of the previous government, it backed out of the deal fearing non-payment of its dues by the new government. Meanwhile, the Punjab government issued a notification in April this year that barred autonomous medical institutions from allocating money for any project without its approval.
This means that there remains a freeze on the purchase of any new equipment beyond a certain ceiling, and may spell disaster in cases such as the one in question. Typically, hospital waste contains highly toxic, biological and radioactive materials besides surgical and autopsy waste, dangerous pathogens and bacteria that become airborne and may cause infectious diseases, including tuberculosis, hepatitis and HIV. The authorities need to pay immediate attention to this pressing matter so as to avoid any further spread of infectious diseases in the country. Public hospitals are after all meant to treat rather than spread these dangerous diseases.