Interest abroad in Urdu poetry continues to grow. One doesn’t find this kind of curiosity for the other major languages of the South Asian Subcontinent — Hindi, Bengali or Tamil for example — though the poetry tradition is strong in these also. The reason is not far to find. Urdu poetry has that element of elusiveness, that beguiling suggestivity, that delicate intrigue of thought and passion, that mischief of intent and expression, that tendency to hold back and relent just enough, that probing of sentiment’s deeper membranes, that tentative abandon of vows and over all that civil regard and concern for appearances which give to ghazal, Urdu’s unique verse form, its characteristic lyricism. The task of those therefore who take it into their hands to transmit with any degree of faithfulness even an approximation of what a good piece of verse is putting across is perilous indeed. There are pitfalls at every step.

Faiz Ahmad Faiz, who could translate with ease from English to Urdu and vice versa, acknowledged that “translating poetry, even when confined to a cognate language with some formal and idiomatic affinities with original compositions, is an exacting task, but this task is obviously far more formidable when the languages involved are as far removed from each other in cultural background, rhythmic and formal patterns, and the vocabulary of symbol allusion as Urdu and English.”

Yet, in spite of difficulties, for the sake of the foreign, western reader who wants to have a taste of Urdu’s rich brew of poetry this work has to be done. And it will be done with greater adroitness if the translators possessed a poetical sensibility in addition to rich experience of working in both the original and the foreign language. Further, since English translations of Urdu poetry are generally used by European translators, the original translator’s responsibility for faithful rendition becomes even more critical.

This care is noticeable in the admirable English translation of selections from Iftikhar Arif’s verse that the Oxford University Press has just published and is soon to be on the stalls. It is a selection the readers will admire for the care taken in choosing from those poems only that are easier in their amenability to rendition into English while at the same time not failing to present quite a representative spectrum of Iftikhar Arif’s work. For instance Migration rendered by Ralph Russell or I wonder why and A question by Khwaja Shahid Hosain and Yasmin Hosain which are probably the plainest of the selection and, on the side, also demonstrate the comparative ease that free verse offers to its translator. In Ghazal for instance Ralph Russell is at a loss. He must adapt the interrogative mode to express the conditional refrain of the verse: main us se jhoot bhi boloun toe mujh se sach boley becomes I tell you lies? You must speak truly to me. A plainer translation probably may have drained the verse of its poetry. This is the problem. Harris Khalique, in his introduction to this selection, seems to suggest that thought alone if conveyed should be sufficient. That may be so in an executive summary. In verse one seeks the poetry of the thought, not just its substance. Happily in this respect this work of transliteration is adequately satisfying. Some of the renderings have beautifully captured the poetic note of the compositions: Ralph Russell’s To a despondent evening, Syeda Hameed’s Dialogue, Alamgir Hashmi’s Memories, Yasmin Hameed’s A love poem among others of equal grace.

With verse, like that of Iftikhar Arif’s, it would be immoral to be lax. You cannot take liberties with a poet who is so meticulous in his choice of words and whose diction is so terse, who lines up a pick of words in a line to imbue feeling to thought. Here there’s no gushing and spontaneity but a studied reticence like getting up from the table a little famished leaving a morsel of the favourite repast steaming on the platter or leaving a conversation on an unsaid word. In Emily Dickinson’s words, “If it makes my body so cold no fire can warm me, I know that is poetry.”

Gul-e-neelmein: Tujhe kuchh khabar bhi hai intezar ki gard mausame surkh ru ko siah karkey guzar rahi haiAzaab-khwab ki wehshaton pe ravish ravish gvah karkey Guzar rahi hai.
 

WAR’s first casualty may well happen to be the war plan itself. In the dust and din and through the ensuing ‘fog of war’, the bold contours of war plans tend to get so blurred as to leave the top planners unable to read them clearly enough to launch and achieve the given objective within the anticipated time-space calculus.

So far, this would appear to have been the fate of the US-British war plans in actual field and combat conditions. From the pre-planned course and character of the war as a quick fix or ‘a swift, surgical strike’ in the planners’ own language, it would appear to be turning into a depressingly long haul, in spite of the ruthless ‘shock and awe’ tactics used, towards Basra, Umm Qasr, Mosul, not to speak of the main target Baghdad.

Even on the fourth day of the war (commencing March 19) on March 22, Mr Bush could see that the campaign in Iraq could last longer than planned. In a radio broadcast, he had to painfully admit that “a campaign on harsh terrain could be longer and more difficult than some have predicted”.

What is hard to understand is how a plan authored by some of the Pentagon’s best strategic brains could have either ignored or slipped over the nature of the terrain where the battles would be fought. What would then seem to make more sense is that hawks like Donald Rumsfeld just would not let the harsh material realities influence their own euphoric vision of a certain victory even before battle was joined.

Colin Powell’s critique of ‘Vietnamese incrementalism’ or a gradual deliberate build-up as opposed to the use of overwhelming force to achieve quick results has been incorporated in the existing US military doctrine. Mr Powell enunciated his doctrine for Operation Desert Storm of 1990-1991 as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The opening phase of the ongoing tactics of ‘shock and awe’ even surpassed Mr Powell’s doctrine of the application of overwhelming force.

Even from the stray and sliced projection of the serial bombardment of Baghdad (some 3,000 aircraft sorties and scores of cruise and ballistic missiles), one could see the ferocity of the air blitz, not always focussed and well-targeted. Random bombings of the city, quite unavoidably, went side by side, through the confounding melee of wave after wave of attacks from the air.

More than the air campaign, the land war had little to show for it according to the main plan. This would be substantially borne out in the first press briefing by the CENTCOM chief, Gen Tommy Franks, in Doha on March 22.

While giving the good news that his troops were making ‘good progress’ through the desert, he indicated that things might not have been going exactly according to plan. The ‘allied’ US and British forces were ‘not planning’ to attack the strategic south-eastern port of Basra, he said.

“Our intent is not to move through and create a military confrontation in that city.” What then exactly a military commander, at any level (least of a C-in-C), might have been looking for in an ongoing military campaign? His one ambition in circumstances like that would be to clinch victory and let his boys go home in triumph.

Gen Franks said his troops had ‘spotted no major concentration’ of Iraqi troops in Basra and (therefore) ‘preferred’ to work with the civilians there. That could only be seen as a major failure of intelligence — to leave the field commanders and their men high and dry, completely puzzled as to their next move.

British officials claiming to have been the first to enter Basra and occupy it found themselves trapped in a situation at once bizarre and comical. Having unfurled their own (US or British?) flag in place of the white flag of peace in Basra, they sought ‘regular Iraqi units’ to ‘negotiate the surrender of Basra’ — in vain since they had already pulled out from the city. The allied forces secured what looked like a narrow ‘beach-head’ in the strategic port town of Umm Qasr and to have entered Basra, although the city could not, at this writing, be said to be quite under coalition control. Local resistance, mainly civilian, continues contrary to a quick, easy take-over according to plan.

The major elements of the campaign were identified as a ‘decapitation strike’ to take out (kill / disable) the top Iraqi leadership including Saddam; a ‘shock and awe’ air assault; a fast-paced ground advance to encircle Baghdad; and finally to occupy Baghdad. Last but not the least, to hunt out Saddam’s arsenals of WMDs and show to the world how well he had succeeded in hiding them from the UN inspectors.

It may be noted that Saddam Hussein’s best chance to use the WMDs (in case he had any) as his ‘weapons of last resort’ was while the allied forces were still advancing on Basra through the narrow salient (chicken neck) Kuwait. With a simple attack of his VX or mustard gas, he could have asphyxiated and killed the bulk of the invading force. That too turned out to be a simple miscalculation.

— The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army.

IN the end, the two best teams met in the World Cup final and the better team won on the day, and would have won even on another day. Despite a flawed format and boycotts and rain, all imponderables calculated to inject a lottery element, form prevailed and throughout the tournament, Australia looked the part and played like world champions, brilliant to the point of being awesome and a notch above the others.

Australia played to a simple game-plan in every match it played — take no prisoners. But a simple game-plan is arrived at by getting the basics right. Every player makes a contribution. The team carries no dead-wood. There is no bickering. The body-language is positive even arrogant. The only danger to Australia was the rain, not the danger of losing but of having the final washed out and having to re-play it. Australia would have won the re-play as well.

Was the final a mismatch? Only to the extent that no other team, including South Africa, Pakistan, England and the West Indies would have given Australia a better run.

Saurav Ganguly gambled by putting the Australians in after winning the toss. His bowlers are being blamed for being wayward. It was a big occasion and the Indian fast bowlers were trying to put in an extra effort. No one can be faulted for trying too hard. It is when one tries not hard enough then is there a problem. The Indians gave it their best shot but it was not good enough. It was as simple as that.

That India reached the final was an achievement by itself and the point has been made by many Indian supporters. In 1999, Pakistan too had reached the final and lost to Australia. We expressed our disappointment in ways that can only be described as shameful.

On the way to the final, Pakistan had lost to Bangladesh and India. This brought to the forefront the custodians of cricket’s morality and presented with a priceless opportunity, these custodians accused the team of match-fixing.

Even Saifur Rehman’s accountability goons got into the act and while the going was good, his brother Mujibur Rehman became the chairman of the board. As if, this was not shameful enough, Dr Ali Bacher too jumped into the fray. Dr Bacher had to admit that he had no proof but he neither retracted nor apologised nor was he even contrite. He got away with this defamation scot-free.

But one consequence of this was that the ICC was able to set up an Anti-Corruption Unit and give employment to a large number of people including Paul Congdon at princely salaries. I would guess that no such fate awaited the Indian team.

To have lost to Australia in the final was no disgrace and the status of Sachin Tendulkar as a sort of cricket deity in India is not in danger of being sullied just because he played a poor shot in an effort to stamp his authority, an ambitious pull that got a leading edge and popped up to give Glenn McGrath a simple return catch.

Apart from the final, there were many golden moments in the World Cup. None more golden than that Adam Gilchrist ‘walking’ when he had been given not out by the umpire. He did not set so much as a good example but an embarrassing one. There will be pressure now on others to behave like gentlemen. Brian Lara is another who does not wait for the umpire and our own Majid Khan comes to mind.

The best innings played in this World Cup came from John Davison of Canada. Canada? That’s right. The biggest disappointment were Bangladesh. They did not win a single match, leading many to question the award of Test status to them, and which has emboldened Kenya to demand Test status as well.

The unluckiest team was the West Indies, done in by the weather. It was a team showing signs of revival though still a shadow of its glorious past. But cricket needs teams like the West Indies and captains like Carl Hooper who kept his dignity, philosophic rather than petulant and crabby, like say, Nasser Hussain.

I would like to withhold comment on the changes that have been made in the Pakistan team, in the captaincy, players and management. Those changes were due, goes without saying. Sharjah Cup provides a good chance to try out new players but the tracks in Sharjah are flat and there is the danger that wrong conclusions may be drawn.

But induction of new and younger players in such large numbers may mean that the team is short in experience. Javed Miandad is being brought back for his third stint as coach. One hopes that he will make a better fist of it this time. I think there is a need to establish clear lines of authority so that there is no confusion in the minds of player as to who is the boss.

We need to determine whether a coach is an adviser or an executive. We are being told that these are long-term changes and we should not expect immediate results. This does not mean or should not mean that a blank cheque has been issued. Nor should World Cup 2007 come into our reckoning. Four years is a long time and there will be plenty of cricket before that. There is Test cricket too that will be played.

The Australians are delighted to have won the World Cup. But I would imagine that their minds are now focused on the tour of the West Indies and the Test matches that are to be played.