| 06 January 2005 | Thursday | 24 Ziqa'ad 1425 |
Changing attitudes
Whitewash down under
Securing the Pakistan-Afghanistan border is tricky business, as was made apparent by Tuesday's conflicting reports of clashes between Pakistani and Afghan security forces in the remote North Waziristan region.
According to the military spokesman in Islamabad, Afghan tribal militias manning the border on behalf of US security forces in their area and the Kabul government resorted to unprovoked firing on Pakistani positions which resulted in the killing of one serviceman.
Acting in self-defence, Pakistani forces returned fire which killed 15 Afghan troops. The version is denied by the Afghan commander in the bordering Khost province, who claimed that Pakistani forces tried to intrude into Afghan territory, resulting in the exchange of fire; there were no casualties, he said. Meanwhile, Pakistan has lodged a protest with Kabul and demanded an inquiry into the incident.
The border with Afghanistan remains at best a very porous one, with tribesmen having close-knit ties with their relatives living on both sides and crossing over to meet each other as a matter of routine.
Thus, for the uninitiated it is hard to make a distinction as to where one country ends and the other begins. The problem arises when, as in these troubled times, both countries have to watch the border and keep tabs on who might be crossing it.
Both Islamabad and Kabul are on the hunt for former Taliban militiamen and Al Qaeda operatives who are believed to be hiding along the border. The presence of American forces in the region on the Afghan side is an additional factor.
Pakistan has strongly resisted their deployment at the actual border, insisting that Afghan militiamen operate there instead to avoid skirmishes with the Pakistan army, which could complicate matters further. Tuesday's unfortunate incident has to be seen in the backdrop of these ground realities.
The existing tripartite arrangement to secure the border against saboteurs that Pakistan, Afghanistan and the US agreed to last year, has by and large worked to the satisfaction of all three.
For one thing, it has put an end to allegations by Kabul, and by the US ambassador to Afghanistan, of Pakistan providing a safe haven on its side of the border to the Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives fleeing from Afghanistan.
The massive operation undertaken by the Pakistan army in South Warizistan since April last has had its own internal fall-out in the form of civilian casualties, increase in terrorist activities within Pakistan and the reshuffling of tribal loyalties.
Army militiamen now manning the border on the Pakistan side have to be doubly vigilant, in that they are operating under a 'zero tolerance' regime as far as border violations from the Afghan side are concerned.
In a region where tribesmen consider carrying firearms a basic right, and which is believed to be the hideout of militants, there is no telling which is friendly fire and which is not.
If Pakistani positions come under fire at any time, as Islamabad says they did on Tuesday, returning fire is the only option available to those manning the border. Pakistan has to do this for its own internal security too.
Flushing out foreign terrorists and their local sympathizers from the area has also meant curbing incidents of ambush against military personnel, hostage-taking and killings, including those of Chinese engineers near Wana last October.
Changing attitudes
The temptation to indulge in a bit of levity at the expense of 'Bilawal House II', the house bought by Mr Asif Ali Zardari for his residence in Lahore, is strong, but serious issues are also involved.
The house reportedly covers seven kanals (roughly 4,000 square yards), and much publicity has been given to it by the PPP set-up in Punjab. It is seen as a base for Mr Zardari to establish a political presence in the PML stronghold.
There was some trouble at its formal opening on Tuesday, when a fracas also occurred, whether because of internal PPP rivalries or at the instigation of the authorities is not clear.
Mr Zardari is perfectly entitled to a citizen's right to buy property and live wherever he wishes to. But why make such a spectacle of it? Is the PPP trying to cock a snout at the Punjab government led by Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi or is this just sheer showmanship?
The country's political landscape is dominated by feudals and leaders with tons of money, as the lists of legislators' assets testify. This is a bitter truth, but should it be paraded and publicized? Should we be constantly reminded of the opulence that surrounds our civilian and military leaders? No one is asking them to stop living well or turn into monks overnight.
But being in public life imposes some obligations. One of these is to actively pursue a simpler lifestyle. There is a perception that our public needs to be overawed and influenced by a show of power and wealth. This is a totally feudal attitude that must change.
Respect is won on merit, not by an exhibition of the trappings of power - motorcades, weapon-wielding security guards, huge houses, lavish feasts. Sarojni Naidu was said to have once exclaimed: "If only Bapu (Gandhi) knew the cost of setting him up in poverty!" There was a point to all that travel by third-class and all that austerity: it set an example. We could do with a bit of this in our public life, particularly on the part of parties that claim to be populist.
Whitewash down under
Pakistan's three-nil drubbing in the Test series in Australia is further evidence that mental toughness, discipline and a sense of application and commitment continue to elude many of our national cricket team's members.
The difference between world champions Australia and Pakistan can be judged from the fact that the smallest margin of defeat in the three Test matches was nine wickets in the final one at the Sydney Cricket Ground.
Innings after innings, except the last one during the third and final encounter, the Pakistani top order showed that it had not learnt anything from past mistakes. Not to take anything away from the disciplined and varied Australian bowling line-up, Pakistani batsmen continued to throw away their wickets.
They played rash shots with almost predictable regularity and chased balls bowled wide outside the off stump, sometimes giving the impression as if they were playing a local league match.
Pakistani cricketers have often been praised, even by opponents, for possessing abundant natural talent and an attacking flair. Indeed, there were times in at least the second and third Tests when the Australians were on the defensive and players like Yousuf Youhana, Salman Butt, Danesh Kaneria (who took 15 wickets in the series) and Asim Kamal managed to rise above their playing mates and give solid performances.
The problem, however, was that the team failed to press home the advantage when it had the upper hand and allowed the opposition to consolidate, recover and eventually go on to win the match.
The results of recent months have been mixed and only serve to reinforce the image that the Pakistan team consists of talented but very mercurial performers. Bad play and apparent lack of involvement as reflected in the performance in Australia cannot be defended, but there appears to be much else that's wrong with our cricket. The coaching and training staff are costing a lot of money and sooner or later the cricket board will have to prove that they are worth their high salaries.