| May 29, 2002 | Wednesday | Rabi-ul-Awwal 16,1423 |
Pakistan remain stronger than Australia on paper
Qasmi discusses contemporaries
THE small fishermen of Balochistan and Sindh have been opposing the federal deep-sea fishing policy ever since the Centre has allowed foreign deep-sea trawlers to operate along the waters of the two provinces. They have called upon the government to ban such foreign trawlers because they are destroying marine life.
However, they have welcomed President Gen Pervez Musharraf’s decision to put a ban on the operation of deep-sea trawlers, also known as factory trawlers, in September 2001.
It is learnt that the president had taken the decision after receiving credible reports through national agencies that the foreign trawlers were destroying coastal resources of the country.
The fishermen have also expressed serious concern about the trawlers’ operations as they have become a threat to their livelihood.
The fishermen of the two provinces have been opposing the government’s move to revive the deep-sea licences, saying it is against the national interests. The local fishermen have always held the concerned departments, both federal and provincial, responsible for the disastrous policy of allowing fishing within 12 miles and beyond 35 miles in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The zone in between reserved for the local fishermen and declared a buffer zone under the 1995 fishing policy has been a subject of frequent violations by the foreign vessels because of lack of surveillance by fisheries departments. Pakistan had entered into the EEZ in 1976 by extending its fishing jurisdiction up to 200 nautical miles in the sea from its coastline.
The exploitation of the deep-sea resources was tried through various inconsistent policies, including the policy of joint ventures that came in 1982, which resulted in sweeping away of unexploited resources by foreign ships, without any substantial economic and technological benefit to the country. Then came the policy of harvesting by Pakistani vessels in 1989 with an objective of transferring the deep-sea fishing technology to Pakistan and to develop its own deep-sea fishing fleet.
Both the local fishermen and experts say that exploitation by foreign and Pakistani vessels, under the so-called joint venture programmes, has led to depletion of marine resources, as well as to poaching in the traditional fishing areas causing economic losses to the local fishermen.
The Sindh government has also opposed the deep-sea fishing policy. It has proposed that the zone from 12 to 20 nautical miles from coastline may be treated as a buffer zone, allowing local fishermen having traditional fishing boats to operate freely in this zone and even beyond that limit, without any licence, if they got their boats upgraded.
Sindh has also recommended that the medium-sized vessels from 100 to 250 gross tonnage, local as well as under the joint venture operations, where the company is to be a Pakistan-registered and the vessel a foreign one, may operate in the zone between 20 and 35 miles and land their entire catch at the Korangi Fish Harbour.
It also suggested that industrial fishing by deep-sea vessels (300 to 500 GRT) would be allowed from 35 to 200 nautical miles. These vessels too must export their catch from the Korangi Fish Harbour. There should also be a realistic minimum target for them. Licences to the vessels for fishing in 20 to 35 and 35 to 200 nautical miles zones are to be issued for an initial period of six months.
All vessels with such licenses must have the tracking devices installed. In addition, all vessels issued licences for fishing beyond 20 nautical miles must conform to the Sindh government’s notification of closed season, as well as ensure installation of turtle excluder devices to conform to the TED regulations according to the international standards.
Three months ago the Centre had announced a new deep-sea fishing policy aimed at enhancing the earnings from fish exports from the present estimated 20 million dollars annually to about 60 million dollars.
It is claimed that the new policy would also help to attract increased foreign investment in the seafood industry. On the face of it, the new policy emphasis is on making poaching and evasion and avoidance of already laid-down ground rules for deep- sea fishing in Pakistani waters stricter and more costlier for violators. One only hopes that the officials monitoring the fishing activities would enforce the rules honestly. The general experience otherwise has been that when there is an increase in the rates of fines, the unscrupulous ones get away simply by increasing the rates of bribes which they offer to the law enforcers to look the other way when they violate the law.
There are many rules quoted in the new policy which would require physical monitoring by low-paid government employees for whom it is not very easy to resist the temptations of illegal gratification offered by fishing tycoons.
All the 30 foreign deep-sea fishing vessels whose licences have been cancelled are known to have breached all the rules in the book with impunity. They could do it because Pakistan lacks the sophisticated expertise, which is needed to check their malpractices, many of which are directly related to manipulation of legitimate gadgetry installed in the vessels.
The policy proposes to increase the number of patrolling flights to three in a week instead of the existing one for surveillance as part of the satellite-based global positioning system. But here, too, it would all depend on the integrity of the personnel operating the patrol flights.
The logic of restricting fishing trawlers to 20 from the present 30 nautical miles and that of tuna trawlers to 50 miles looks sound if it is being done to make the monitoring more manageable and to stop the fish population from being seriously depleted or even wiped out by so many vessels fishing all at the same time. Such a development would rob Pakistan of the full potential of its precious deep-sea wealth by aggravating the problem of depletion resulting from over-fishing in both continental shelf and deep-sea waters.
The proposal to allow medium-sized vessels of 100 to 250 gross registered tonnage at a royalty of 2,000 dollars per trip to fish within 12-35 nautical miles along with small fishermen also appears logical because even within this range deep-sea fishing is a highly sophisticated activity needing proper equipment.
Fishermen with simple boats could hardly be expected to exploit the full potential of this area. There are 2,881 such simple boats and out of these 150 boats have already been registered for modification. The offer of concessional credit facilities, by the Agricultural Development Bank and the Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Bank, to fishermen to upgrade/modify their boats and equipment so as to increase their hauling capacity and prevent post-harvest losses would go a long way in improving the share of domestic fishermen in the deep-sea fishing harvests.
The new policy also envisages improvement in the quality control aspect of the fishing activity. This is very important because the main importers of Pakistani fish are European countries and Japan where the consumers are extremely quality conscious and insist on standardization. Therefore, lack of quality control would only end in either Pakistan losing its export market partially or losing the fishing industry completely to foreign investors, or both.
Pakistan will play three one-day matches in Australia starting middle of June, two at an indoor stadium in Melbourne and one under open skies in Brisbane. For both teams, it is an opportunity to size up each other. Australia will be at full strength, it being assumed that the Waugh brothers are out of the reckoning in this version of the game. Pakistan will be without Abdul Razzaq and Saqlain Mushtaq, both on County duty in England. This leaves Pakistan without its key all-rounder and its best, specialist spinner.
Notwithstanding, Pakistan, on paper, remains a strong side. I am delighted that Saeed Anwar has been included though he will be woefully out of match practice, but Saeed Anwar needs time out in the middle and nothing is really at stake in the matches in Australia. No one can quarrel with the team that has been selected. I would presume that Shahid Afridi will be in the playing eleven but where will he be slotted in the batting order? Shahid Afridi has an extra claim by virtue of his bowling and Pakistan will need his leg spin or his version of it. Shahid Afridi is a bona fide all-rounder. Too bad, he doesn’t get to bowl much.
Among the officials who will accompany the team, five in all, I notice there is no trainer. Perhaps, it is felt that Pakistan doesn’t need one. The Sri Lankans who are touring England have in their squad, a coach, Dave Whatmore, a batting coach, Barry Richards, a bowling coach Darryl Foster and two physios, one of whom, presumably is a trainer. Whether or not he is, Sri Lanka is one of the best fielding sides in the game. They not only hold on to the catches but also have the ability to hit the stumps in effecting run outs.
While it is great to see the setting up of academies, I think we should also concentrate on sending ‘A’ teams on tours. I would imagine that there would be some reluctance on the part of the hosts to meet the expenses of such tours, there being no revenue that can be generated, but the PCB should try and find sponsors and meet some of the expenditure themselves. It would be money well spent.
The West Indies won the Test series against India in style and what is important, without any significance contribution from Brian Lara. The Indians, understandably, are not happy about losing the series but a lot of people in the cricket world are delighted that the West Indies are showing signs of a resurgence. What had been missing from the West Indies teams of recent times was self-belief.
They appeared to have found it and for the first time one gets the impression that the players are behind Carl Hooper. He has, of course, led from the front. Here was an immensely gifted batsman who was something of an enigma. He did not seem to be at peace with himself. He walked out on the game. But he seems to have found himself, television pictures of his wife and son, Carl Jr showed a happy family. Hooper made a bundle of runs himself and led the team with a quiet assurance. He seemed unflappable in contrast to the somewhat excitable Ganguly. But the star of the show was Chanderpaul who batted with a tenacity that one does associate with a West Indies batsman, more like Hanif Mohammad or Sunil Gavaskar or Geoff Boycott. He batted in the middle order, the last of the specialist batsmen. If there was early collapse, he consolidated the innings, if the West Indies had got off to a good start, he cashed in on it. He was the batsman for every occasion and indeed every contingency as he showed in the West Indies second innings at Sabina Park in Kingston, Jamaica.
The West Indies batsmen batted in that second innings like sailors on shore leave. It was Chanderpaul in the unlikely company of Pedro Collins who took the West Indies to a match-winning score. The West Indies still don’t have the bowling to win matches away from their beautiful islands. Mervyn Dillon had a good series but he cannot be compared to a Glenn McGrath or Shaun Pollock and to Pakistan’s trio of Wasim Akram, Waqar Yunis and Shoaib Akhtar. One associate West Indies cricket with bowlers of genuine pace. There does not appear to be an Andy Roberts or Malcolm Marshal or Courtney Walsh in sight. That is why the team will struggle when it plays abroad. Its bowling is rather like that of Sri Lanka minus Muralitharan.
The Indians seem to have given themselves a complex about winning a series abroad. It plays on their minds. They lost to a better team but they allowed the West Indies to become the better team.
The football World Cup starts in the next few days. I don’t write on football as a rule because I am just a distant devotee of the game. But I will stay glued to the television set. And in the midst of all the gloom, the football World Cup will stand out as a beacon. Not arms or diplomacy but sports is the best bet for world peace. If you are angry, kick a football. Not fire a gun or drop bombs.
AHMED Nadeem Qasmi’s latest book, Mere Ham Safar, is going to cause ripples. Qasmi, who is now the senior most poet, has given his account of some of his contemporaries and in doing so he doesn’t seem to have cared that some of his observations may sound strange. His book is going to be a much discussed book simply because it is a frank and, at times, candid appraisal of some of his contemporaries.
He discusses Maulana Abdul Majeed Salik, Maulana Ghulam Rasool Mehar, Maulana Chiragh Hasan Hasrat, Saadat Hasan Manto, Noon Meem Rashid, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Syed Zamir Jafri, Imtiaz Ali Taj, Khadija Mastur, Ibn Insha, Sajjad Sarwar Niazi, Mohammed Tufail and Hakim Mohammed Said. He eulogizes Hakim Said to his heart’s fill. Except for Hakim Said, all of these people have one or two interesting aspects which literary historians or social scientists would care to look into.
The most interesting personalities — if seen from Qasmi’s standpoint — are Rashid, Faiz, Salik, Mehar, Taj and Khadija Mastur. Not that the rest of the contemporaries have nothing interesting to offer. They are discussed in a way that is typically Qasmian. Nothing abrasive. Always keeping in mind the commendable and laudable aspects. Those who have read Qasmi’s articles on his younger contemporaries and hundreds of flaps, will agree with me that he has been very generous in supporting upcoming writers and has come under fire for being ‘too, too generous’ with even those who do no merit attention. Maybe, he would have liked to receive the same treatment from his seniors and it is against some seniors — particularly Faiz — that he has some grievances. According to him, Faiz was wanting in giving Qasmi what was his due: recognition as a poet necessitating warm interfacing with those who didn’t know him as a poet. Qasmi is all respect for Faiz in his article, and unlike his interview published in a Lahore journal, this article is unlikely to cause any furore.
Qasmi appears to be a bit conscious of the advantage of class which Faiz had over his less-advantaged contemporaries. Qasmi in a recent article on Faiz’s poetry has paid great tribute to his mellifluous diction and has regarded him as a very important poet in the line-up of Urdu’s outstanding poets. What we can do is to combine these two articles together and accept the fact that Qasmi’s grievance is smaller compared to the tribute that he has paid Faiz as a poet.
Moreover, it is futile to expect a contemporary to ignore the pricks he has felt in respect of a contemporary whom he regards his important senior. Qasmi’s very grievance puts Faiz on a pedestal which could belong to a senior contemporary whose slight indifference towards him mattered so much so that he thought it proper to record his grievance for posterity.
There is also something important about Rashid, who didn’t regard Qasmi as a worthy practitioner of poetry. He wrote a letter to Afkar and said so as candidly as possible. And then he realized that he was a bit too harsh with Qasmi. He wrote another letter to Afkar, saying that he was wrong. He made amends and said that all he (Rashid) desired was that he could also be graced with the same inspiration which Qasmi had been endowed with so generously. Rashid was fond of issuing retracts of this kind and any authentic biography of his is going to have quite a few retracts.
However, Qasmi admits that he has an assured place in the history of Urdu literature — a remark which doesn’t seem to be the lot of Faiz. It is a contentious issue, however. The way free verse, prose-poetry and newer fads of expressions are gaining currency there is every possibility that Rashid might turn the corner in the foreseeable future. He is a very powerful poet and his images are so penetrating, even a bit abrasive, that he might be regarded by posterity as the father-figure of modern poetry. I have expressed this opinion before and I stand by it. Rashid has all the potential of making Taghazzul redundant in our scheme of things.
Qasmi’s pen-portraits of Salik, Mehar and Taj make them lovable characters. Salik is a great name. Shorish Kashmiri’s disagreement with him led to a violent protest against Salik’s paper Inquilab. Shorish was arrested on a charge of ransacking the office of the paper. Could anyone believe that Salik became upset over the treatment meted out to Shorish and did all he could to secure Shorish’s release. In another case Shorish needed someone to stand surety. Salik came to know about it and he rushed to the court and stood surety for Shorish. What a gesture!
Mehar’s visit to Sadequain’s paintings’ exhibition depicting Ghalib’s verses is also an account which is simply enthralling. Mehar, accompanied by Pir Hissamuddin Rashdi, Prof Hamid Ahmed Khan, Maulana Abdul Qadir, Hajira Masroor and Ahmed Ali Khan and Qasmi, visited the exhibition, and he proved an ardent lover of Sadequain’s art, moved from one canvas to another discussing the imaginative prowess of the artist and his understanding of Ghalib’s mind. At the end of his round, Mehar said: “Today I met another Ghalib. What a multi- dimensional personality Ghalib was and Sadequain has brought forth that dimension of Ghalib’s which was hidden form us.”
It is thanks to Qasmi that Mehar’s appreciation of Sadequain’s Ghalib comes to our knowledge, and there are so many exclusive observations of Qasmi about some of his contemporaries which are now part of our literary heritage.
Qasmi’s pen-portrait of Mohammed Tufail is very interesting indeed. As is known to all, that Nuqoosh was the brainchild of Tufail, Qasmi and Hajira Masroor. Qasmi-Hajira team brought out ten issues under their editorship. Due to the government’s suppression and persecution of progressive journalism, Tufail decided to close down the journal because he thought that it was beyond him to cope with the pressure.
However, not before long Nuqoosh reappeared without the editorial team of Qasmi and Hajira. Qasmi felt that he deserved a better treatment. Qasmi had also brought out the first three issues of Savera, and it is since 1962 that he has been bringing out Funoon, a journal which has carved out for itself a lasting place in Urdu’s literary journalism.
When it comes to writing about Khadija Mastur, Qasmi pays her the ultimate tribute. Her Aangan, he says, is the best work in fiction on the Pakistan Movement. She avoids being pretentious. She has done justice to the theme without parading knowledge.
Faiz has written, Qasmi says, a beautiful sentence about her stories: She is less of a painter; more of a delicate crocheter, ie, having a perfect knitting design.
Qasmi should net in more of his contemporaries in the next edition of the book. There is no alternative to putting down on paper whatever one has deemed important in his age or found interesting in his contemporaries. That’s the only way to develop our literary heritage.