| December 25, 2001 | Tuesday | Shawwal 9, 1422 |
Christmas cognition
Vaughan dismissal, leg theory legitimate tactics
DECEMBER 25 marks the birth anniversary of the Quaid-i-Azam, the founder of Pakistan. The entire nation will celebrate and pay rich tribute to the Father of the Nation. They will renew their pledge to carry on his mission but it will be a rare person who will be able to recall what was said or resolved the previous day.
TWENTY-THREE year old Shan says that he would have gone for Jihad had it not been for the fact that he is the only child of his parents and they do not grant him permission to go. Contrary to what one may think, Shan (not his real name) has not been “brainwashed” into this line of “extremist” thinking by any madrassah.
In fact, he was educated throughout at a top federal government school/college in the capital and is now in the final stages of completing a professional degree. His father is a Grade 20 government servant and his mother wears neither a burqa nor a chaddar, only the dupatta over her shoulders.
The typical middle class Pakistani yuppie, Shan wears a suit and tie to work, carries the latest Nokia mobile phone and drives his father’s Suzuki Baleno. His favourite pastime is watching English movies.
All in all, his is not the kind of environment that one would commonly associate with the making of a mujahid. What is it then that drives him to even think of becoming a mujahid?
A discussion between Shan and his father over the latest international events throws some light on this. The father, visibly disturbed about his son’s “pro-extremist” point of view, castigates the policies of the “extremists” and is all praise for the American action in Afghanistan since September 11. Shan on the other hand is critical of American arrogance. He argues that there is no “extremism” in Islam as such and jihad is the religious duty of every Muslim. Little does the father realize that the more he condemns the Taliban and the mujahideen, the more his son is revulsive of American policies.
Shan’s example belies the common belief that it is poverty and social deprivation in general and the madrassah in particular that are responsible for nurturing and producing many a mujahid.
There is no doubt, however, that governmental neglect over the years in the social sector, plus the official encouragement given in the 1980s to the setting up of the kind of madaris with a strong political and militant dimension and overemphasis on jihad, led to the mushroom growth of these madaris, particularly among the poor, underprivileged and uneducated.
Hence, the logic behind Islamabad’s current policies on regulating and modernizing the madaris and bringing them into the mainstream educational system is that this would control, if not stop, the tendency of madrassah education to produce mujahideen.
The success of this policy would depend on one major factor: the money being purportedly channelled into the ambitious madrassah reform as well as the equally ambitious programme of alleviating poverty is not misused, as funds often have been in the past.
But is this twin policy of reining in the madaris and pumping money into the social sector alone enough to stop the production of mujahideen?
Unregulated madrassah education and social deprivation may be major contributory factors to the growth of the so-called “fundamentalist” mind. But the one necessary and sufficient condition that has contributed to the rise of “fundamentalism” thinking in the country, and elsewhere in the world, is the perceived sense of injustice perpetrated by America on Muslims, especially in Palestine and Kashmir. The encroachment on the sovereignty of Muslim states and particularly on the fundamental concepts and definitions in Islam like “fundamentalism”, “extremism” and “jihad” have also fuelled many a young Muslim’s disgust with America.
Unless this issue is also addressed sincerely and genuinely in one way or the other, Islamabad’s move against “extremism” will be seen by many Muslims as buckling under Western pressure to undercut Islam. The act to regulate the madaris and reduce the social divide through poverty reduction is a noble one that should have been undertaken long before. At the same time, however, this should not detract or divert attention from the real source of the problem, which is the West’s policies towards Muslims in many parts of the world.
But Dec 25 has another significance, not just for 113 years, but for almost 2,000 years. The birth of Jesus, son of Mary, who was crucified by the Romans.
Christmas approaches once again, signifying not merely the end of another year, but what has been for 20 centuries, a time of joy and festivities and thinking of the Prince of Peace. Not just for the Christians but for many other peace-loving people all over the globe. For the Pakistanis, Dec 25 each year is an occasion for celebration, twice over.
And yet today the heart does not respond to joy. Is it, I wonder, the hardening of the arteries or the failure of social sensibility? I look into my heart deeply and frankly. It is happening to me and many others like me. Social sensitivity has perhaps become a little sharper. Life is beginning to lose its savour not because one is unable to savour it, but because there is a good deal that is positively unsavoury in it. No decent person can put up with it tamely.
One thought that the travails through which we are passing are but the birth pangs of a new social order. That, perhaps, deep below the surface there are rumblings and stirrings of a revolution which will bring better life within the reach of the common man who has lived, in most ages, a life of deprivation. The progress of science and technology gave support to this hope and there were instances of the quickening of the social conscience and of political, social and legislative measures, which aimed at this objective.
Perhaps that is still the case. Perhaps in cosmic time things will right themselves. But we neither live in cosmic time nor have cosmic patience and, therefore, feel depressed.
Gone is the naive optimism of the generation of H. G. Wells who believed that progress in science and technology would solve most of the world’s problems; that international organizations would herald an era of peace in which man will, at last, discover himself as a gentleman; that culture and civilization would spread almost automatically... What a pleasant — but foolish — dream it has turned out to be!
Undoubtedly, science and technology have solved many of mankind’s most obstinate problems in the field of production, travel, health, knowledge for constructive and destructive purposes. But the fruits of this progress have not been shared at all fairly by the world, which continues to be divided, both nationally and within each nation into the privileged and much larger underprivileged groups. For many of whom all the discoveries and inventions on which we pride ourselves today might as well have never been made.
Society and its self-styled leaders have failed in civilizing man into an agent of peace. Beneath the polished exterior, one often finds the beast of the jungle that begins to snarl, at least in a collective setting, whenever the old prejudices are set into motion. You feel quite helpless in the face of the massive, brutal, irrational forces.
What will the protest of one person or even a large number of persons matter in this all-pervasive crisis? We do not know, but is there any other way open to men and women of decency, conscience and good will to live at peace and honour with themselves, except to raise the voice of protest and indignation and to declare, whatever the risk, that we do not propose to be annihilated at the behest of irresponsible and unscrupulous persons?
That is why we honour those who protest against injustice and violence even when the protest may apparently take ‘foolish’ forms. Provided the protest is not only against wrongdoings by others but as emphatically against ourselves, whenever our own group, community, country or race is at fault: “Speak the truth even if it is against yourself,” says the Holy Quran.
Is there any other way of paying tribute to Christ and the Quaid, who were both born on Dec 25?
THERE was nothing unsporting about the way of the Michael Vaughan dismissal, handling the ball and there was nothing unsporting about Ashley Giles bowling to Sachin Tendulkar, so-called leg theory. If the rules permit it, the tactics are legitimate. That it goes against the spirit of the game is to say that bombing civilian targets goes against the spirit of war. One of the enduring myths about cricket has been that it is a “gentleman’s game”.
The myth may have its origins in that cricket was once a game played by the upper-classes and the upper classes themselves circulated the myth that they lived by a higher moral code.
Dr W.G. Grace is widely considered the patron-saint of cricket and the main gate at Lord’s, the spiritual home of cricket, is called Grace Gates. W.G. Grace would have laughed at the notion of the spirit of the game. He had all but invented gamesmanship.
Vaughan looked very hurt when he was given out and in the same hurtful vein said that he was trying to be helpful and handing over the ball to an Indian fielder. He should have first seen a replay of his dismissal. He had no idea where the ball was and when he discovered that it was spinning precariously close to his stumps, he brought his hand on it to stop it. He handled the ball to prevent it from rolling on to the stumps. That’s out both within the letter of the laws of cricket and its spirit.
A captain is allowed any tactics within the rules and if Nasser Hussain felt the best way of getting Tendulkar out was to play on his patience, he cannot be faulted. I admit it was boring but this was a Test match and he was not obliged to provide entertainment. England knew, as most teams do, that Tendulkar’s is the prize wicket.
Ultimately, Tendulkar did lose his patience and was stumped, the first time in a Test match and England was able to gain an upper hand and a first innings lead of 98. A googly is an off- break bowled with a leg-break action. It is a kind of deception. Can anyone say that this deception goes against the spirit of the game? Test cricket is always played hard and no quarters are given. I cannot see what the fuss is all about.
England put on a spirited show and though it lost the series, had the better of India in the other two Tests. In a reverse role, for a change, it was rain that came to India’s rescue at Bangalore. Normally, rain has been a good friend of England.
England played as a unit, gave the impression of having done a lot of homework and having a game-plan. India did not give this impression. Apart from the Mohali Test, India seemed to be playing by ear. Both at Ahmedabad and Bangalore, India had England on the rack but never went for the jugular.
Either his lack of batting form is affecting Saurav Ganguly’s captaincy or the captaincy is affecting his batting. On both counts, Ganguly seemed to be wanting. India was expected to prepare spinning tracks, most of all at Bangalore and India duly played three spinners and only one seamer.
It was England’s seamers who did most of the damage and barring Tendulkar, none of the batsmen seemed to have a clue when the ball was seaming.
When India goes to England next summer, England’s think-tank will have already got their plan ready. India has John Wright as the coach but it would not be a bad idea at all to pick the brains of Sunil Gavaskar on how to play the moving ball.
South Africa was mauled by Australia and I would be very surprised if they do not suffer a whitewash. I have doubts that South Africa is the best team, after Australia. Without being patriotic, I believe that Pakistan is the next best complete team.
That is, when Pakistan plays as a team and is not fractured by petty, personality clashes and in-fighting. Wasim Akhtar, Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akhtar, Abdur Razzaq backed up by Saqlain Mushtaq is as good a bowling attack as Australia. The batting led by Inzamam-ul-Haq is better than that of South Africa. The one weakness is fielding and this is the area that needs the greatest attention and Pakistan needs to get a fielding coach or a trainer. As the coach, Mudassar Nazar, himself, should ask for this.
Pakistan is sending a full-strength side to Bangladesh, resisting the temptation to blood some new players. This is as it should be. In any case, the Pakistan team hasn’t played much cricket and the players are far from being match-fit.
Besides, Test cricket is Test cricket, despite the quality of the opposition, though I am surprised that Shahid Afridi is once again being treated as a one-day player and has been omitted from the Test squad. This tendency to pigeon hole a cricketer as being only a one-day player is gradually being abandoned by other teams. When a player reaches the highest level of the game, he should be able to adjust to both versions of the game. If he can’t, he’s not good enough for either version.
Apart from Afridi, the Test squad is a good one, the right balance between seniors and the up and coming.
Bangladesh has been getting quite a drubbing and questions are being asked whether it got Test status prematurely. I don’t think so though I feel it will be many years before they can provide stiffer opposition. I just hope that the cricket public in Bangladesh does not lose heart and their passion for the game.
All good wishes for the coming new year. The one that is ending has been a wretched one. It even affected cricket and saw the introduction of politics in the game, particularly the cancellation of India’s tour of Pakistan.