| 14 April 2004 | Wednesday | 23 Safar 1425 |
Giving persuasion a chance
More laurels for Lara
It has been announced on behalf of General Pervez Musharraf, by the federal information minister, that the president will abide by the 17th amendment on the uniform issue. The clarification is welcome in view of the disturbing developments of the past few days.
It was really quite amazing how a non-issue that was seen as settled was being made an issue again. First, there were merely some statements; then a delegation of the PPP Patriots met the president on Monday and formally requested him to consider retaining his office of chief of the army staff beyond the December 31 deadline.
This proposal was made on different occasions earlier by a PML-Q legislator and two Patriot ministers, Rao Sikander Iqbal and Mr Faisal Saleh Hayat, who hold the key portfolios of defence and interior, respectively, in the federal cabinet. Both were in the delegation that met Gen Musharraf.
So was another Patriot minister, Mr Raza Hiraj, who last week had reportedly dismissed the proposal but then 'clarified' his position. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Jamali and PML-Q president Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain had taken up a stand that could be considered ambiguous but was nevertheless clearly against retention of the general's uniform after the deadline.
Mr Jamali said the president had given an undertaking - which is now a constitutional obligation - and he was a man of his word; Chaudhry Shujaat described the Patriots' move as an attempt to create a controversy about the president.
This long recountal was necessary to indicate the confusion that suddenly enveloped us. The timing of the Patriots' move itself remains intriguing, and no clear indication is available as to why the issue was raised in the first place, except that this new red herring distracted attention from many other vital problems, not least the government's continuing difficulties in dealing with recalcitrant tribesmen in South Waziristan.
A contemporary has speculated that the affair might be linked to the rifts developing between the Patriots and the PML-Q and that this may well be an attempt by the former to ingratiate themselves with the powers that be.
On the other hand, there will be many who will believe that the suggestion was deliberately floated by the establishment to clear the way for an eventual reversal of Gen Musharraf's commitment.
The argument has also been put forward that since the MMA did not take part in the vote of confidence for the president and did not support the bill setting up the NSC, the president was no longer bound by the agreement with the opposition alliance. In short, there was much waffling all around.
Gen Musharraf should have himself categorically set the irresponsible idea at rest and prevented a needless debate. The LFO agreement was reached after the nation was embroiled for a year in a high-profile and bruising confrontation that practically stalled the normal functioning of the state's administrative and legislative machinery.
It was Gen Musharraf's acceptance of the demand to give up his uniform that had made an agreement possible. Going back on that now would generate widespread rancour and again divide the nation.
We have made it a practice to trifle with solemn constitutional obligations and can continue on that course only with disastrous consequences for everyone, including the military, which must seriously consider the implications of retaining a hold on the country's politics despite the grievous mistakes of the past.
Giving persuasion a chance
The American decision to send two more combat brigades comprising 10,000 marines to Iraq stems from a necessity that is the Bush administration's own creation. The way an armed resistance has taken shape against the occupation of Iraq and the way Iraqis from all shades of opinion are supporting it should come as no surprise.
Washington only has its unilateral policy to blame for this state of affairs which has alienated all those Iraqis in whom a more sensible and less arrogant occupying power would have found ready allies.
Nearly a year after the fall of the Baathist regime, Iraq today bleeds like it never did under the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein. A disparate guerilla warfare targeting the 180,000-strong occupation forces and their toadies and sympathizers rages from the Shia-dominated south to the Sunni-majority heartland around Baghdad and beyond.
Despite their many differences over power sharing and over the future political dispensation of Iraq, most Iraqis today are united in their aversion for the Anglo-American occupation of their country.
They just want the occupiers out of Iraq. On the international front, too, American unilateralism has alienated the staunchest of its long-standing European allies as well as the United Nations, leaving the occupation forces to fend for themselves and to sustain increasing casualties as days go by.
Contrary to the thinking prevailing in Washington, neither a forcible putting down of the popular Sunni revolt in Fallujah nor the capturing of the Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr "dead or alive" will solve the problem.
It is simplistic 'solutions' of this sort that have been applied since the occupation and that have brought about such popular resistance movements where none existed before.
Under the current circumstances, no third country, and not even the United Nations, would be willing to pull America's chestnuts out of the Iraqi fire and share the burden of providing the US a reasonable exit strategy.
But all may not be lost just yet. Better sense can still prevail if a more credible consultative strategy seeking a solution to the current crisis and involving a mix of the Iraqi religious establishment and Arab leaders can be forged together. It is time persuasion were given a chance to succeed where force has failed to end a mindless war and the resultant bloodshed.
More laurels for Lara
When In 1938, Len Hutton made his epic 364 for England against Australia at The Oval, everyone thought that he had achieved the ultimate in Test cricket. And so it was for twenty years until Sir Garfield Sobers of the West Indies hit 365 not out against Pakistan in Kingston in 1957-58.
Thirty-six years later, Brian Lara, also of the West Indies, made 375 against England at St John's Recreation Park in Antigua in 1993-94 to become the world's highest individual scorer in Test Cricket. Almost ten years later, Matthew Hayden of Australia bettered Lara's records with 380 at Perth against Zimbabwe in 2003-04.
Brian Charles Lara, however, was not to be deterred. Hayden had made his runs in October last year. Six months later, Lara has become the first batsman in the world to make 400 runs in Test cricket.
This he did on Monday against England. It does not matter how many fours and sixes Lara hit on his way to creating history. The fact remains that he is the best left-handed batsman of our time.
There is not a shot he cannot play and there are some he can improvise on his own. He has given immense pleasure to millions of cricket fans across the world. It has been Lara's misfortune to have been asked to lead the West Indies when they are probably at their weakest at this point in time.
Had he been in the side when the West Indies had the best fast bowlers in the world and a fearsome battery of stroke makers, Lara would have won for himself more laurels than he already has.
Even as it is, Lara has distinguished himself in adversity. If not the best, he must rank among all-time greats. It is not for nothing that it is said: East or West Lara's best. Others may emulate, even surpass, him but no one can take away from him the honour of having been a trail blazer.