Democratizing Pakistan: COMMENT

WE have nuclear weapons. We have missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads and we have institutions which produce militants. A section of our population, even though small, can be labelled fundamentalist.

Jihad is considered a religious duty by many amongst us. Lives of American citizens are not safe in our country. White people, for fear of being taken as Americans, also do not feel safe and have to take special measures for their protection.

Our system of governance makes our military capable of dismissing governments and elected parliaments. Our military is not answerable to democratic governance and is capable of launching a nuclear strike on its own. We do not have political stability. Our governments last only a few years and do not inspire confidence in the international community. We do not hesitate to lie on vital issues.

For years Gen Ziaul Haq denied having anything to do with war-like conditions in Afghanistan. He professed that his nuclear programme was for peaceful purposes. No wonder our land is considered by the world community as too dangerous a place to be left as it is.

Following the coup of Oct, 1999, Gen Musharraf’s regime was persuaded to adhere to a “road map” for “transition to democracy”. After 9/11, Pakistan was forced to cooperate with a coalition of major powers to overthrow the government of Afghanistan and to assist in eradicating terrorism from that country.

There is every reason to believe that sooner rather than later, simultaneously or one by one, directly or indirectly, Pakistan will be asked to neutralize its nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, put its nuclear installations under international supervision, make the country safe for foreigners and foreign investments, improve governance and to take steps considered necessary by the international community to eradicate what it defines as terrorism.

Our ruling elite, constituting the military, the civil services, their intelligence agencies and a pliant judiciary, is likely to yield on the pain of political and economic pressures. It will accept the package of demands but, as in the past, it will not be in a position to deliver on what it agrees to.

Volumes can be written on our failures to keep promises pertaining to the Afghan struggle and in the field of non- proliferation. We have consistently failed to fulfil the endless series of undertakings to the International Monetary Fund and other financial agencies. Time and again, our ruling elite has proved itself to be either incapable or unwilling, or both, to carry out its solemn promises. The reasons can be simply stated.

Our ruling elite has deep vested interests in preserving the authoritarian structure of governance inherited from the British to further its clout and benefits accruing from it. With the foreign assistance, it has successfully maintained its political hold over the country. Its huge uninterrupted success in gathering riches and expanding its size over the past half a century is without a parallel in the history of the subcontinent.

Our ruling elite has successfully used the orthodox interpretation of the Islamic faith as the ideology to serve its material interests. It has maintained confrontation with India to prove itself a staunch nationalist in response to a similar stand by India. For the purpose of enhancing the security of its state, it has developed nuclear weapons as deterrence.

Decade after decade, the lack of democratic governance and the widening gulf between the rich and the poor have created a serious cleavage between the elite and the people. Social contract between the apparatus of state and the populace is hardly in existence. Nobody including the members of the elite have confidence in the system of police and magistracy to provide security of life and property.

Thousands upon thousands of security personnel are assigned to protect the residences and workplaces of officers of the government and judiciary. Industrial and commercial establishments and rich people are obliged to hire the services of private security agencies which have sprouted like mushrooms. Most banks hire foreign firms to transport cash from one place to another. Pakistan stands split into two: the Pakistan of the rich and that of the poor.

The ability of the government to maintain law and order has seriously diminished. Paramilitary and military units remain on the alert to come to the aid of the administration of the rich at short notice.

Lacking the cooperation and democratic support of the people, our governments are not strong enough to fulfil what they undertake or to defy coercive foreign pressure and not undertake what they are incapable of making good. Given the circumstances as they obtain at present and for the reasons stated above, the ability of any government in Pakistan to deliver on its promises to the world community shall be subject to serious doubt.

The situation in Pakistan shall remain one of great uncertainty. Any strategic reforms imposed from outside under the leadership of the United States have virtually no chance of success. Any compact with the traditional ruling elite of Pakistan or a section of it is also doomed to last only for a short period.

The process of change to be real and lasting has to be gradual and genuinely democratic in nature. The situation is not hopeless. The liberal, democratic, left-of-the-centre crowd may be in disarray at the moment but it is not without a vision. It aims at transforming Pakistan into a peaceful, secure, stable polity, tolerant of religious and sectarian differences. It desires to acquire for the country a place of honour in the comity of nations as a healthy, educated and prosperous polity in which human rights are fully guaranteed.

The achievement of the democratic vision is a task that Pakistanis alone can perform. Foreign intervention, even aggressive assistance, can only be counterproductive. The role of the United States in propping up anti-democratic forces in Pakistan during the last 50 years has been a sad one, indeed. If only the United States had observed its laws on its own soil, of not giving military or economic assistance to countries with a doubtful record of human rights or nuclear proliferation, Pakistan’s story would have been different today.

On their part, the democratic forces in Pakistan should regroup and organize themselves for peaceful democratic struggle. There is no other way. The military-cum-civil establishment of Pakistan should also realize that its ability to run Pakistan has exhausted. The sooner it decides to abdicate in favour of the democratic process the better it would be for the beloved country.

Why no reserve day allocated for rain in preliminary round: SWINGING DRIVES

READERS of this column had been forewarned by me about the Duckworth/Lewis Method and the possibility of best laid plans going awry.

In the preliminary rounds, no rain days have been set aside. When it rains, it rains and out go the points that seemed as good as in the bank. Thus, the West Indies shared points with Bangladesh and South Africa having made 306 lost to New Zealand because of the Duckworth/Lewis Method.

Why no reserve day was set aside for rain is something I have not understood. Was it an oversight or was it optimism? Or stupidity?

If there is more to Shane Warne taking just a fluid tablet, than the punishment meted out to him is justified. Otherwise, it is harsh. It is one thing to set an example. It is another thing to be vengeful in order to be seen of being strict.

Warne may have crossed the line once too often but he got a “bum rap”. Let me clarify that I have no inside information, except only what I have read. At best or worst, he should have been reprimanded. Now I know what “kangaroo court justice” means.

The New Zealanders having decided that Nairobi was unsafe, discovered that the night-clubs of Durban were even more unsafe. By not going to Nairobi, New Zealand lost four points but by brawling at a night-club, the team lost dignity and Chris Cairns could have lost some teeth.

We are all somewhat shell-shocked by the result at Cape Town and the seemingly easy way that England bowlers were able to dismantle Pakistan’s batting. Since I am not an apologist for the team, I propose to make no excuses.

Batting under lights at Newlands, is an altogether different proposition than batting first. The toss is crucial. The wicket changes character. There is a breeze and the ball swings prodigiously.

It’s like playing on two different wickets. Having said that, England bowled magnificently, particularly James Anderson. To have got Inzamam-ul-Haq and Yousuf Youhana off successive deliveries. Inzamam’s feet did not move and Youhana played all over a perfectly pitched swinging yorker, Anderson effectively sealed the fate of the match.

England’s 246 was a competitive total but not a daunting one. Pakistan needed one of the top order batsman to get stuck in. Saeed Anwar looks to be a shadow of the buccaneering batsman that he once was.

Saeed is short on self-confidence and he hesitates where once he was fluent. He must start believing in himself. At present he is weighed down by fear of failure.

Inzamam’s repeated failures goes beyond the lean patch. All he needs is one good innings, one hopes, and his golden form will return. It does not happen that way.

Inzamam needs to work at the nets under the supervision of either the coach or someone like Javed Miandad or, if Barry Richards can be induced to spend some time with him. Someone has to tell him what he is doing wrong.

The same would apply to Youhana whose form seems to have deserted him. Tendulkar was also on a lean trot but I would imagine that he worked hard to get back among the runs. So too has Brian Lara. Cricket is a game that is played in the mind and you can be your own worst enemy.

Pakistan’s batting, of late, has not been its strong suit. Clearly at Cape Town, it hit rock-bottom. The top order is not firing and the middle order is not holding. All in all, it was spineless batting and no one was prepared to guts it out.

Pakistan had looked sharp in the field, the bowling was aggressive, a bit wayward but getting wickets at reasonable intervals. Waqar Younis made bowling changes that produced wickets at the right time.

But it was not consistent and too many bad balls were bowled. Wasim Akram got the early break-through and should have had Michael Vaughan but for the no-ball.

Shoaib Akhtar crossed the 100 mph but his final figures were dismaying. Was he trying too hard? Abdul Razzak bowled tightly but lacked penetration while Saqlain Mushtaq and Shahid Afridi picked up wickets without looking dangerous and Waqar under-bowled himself.

Afridi’s catch at the boundary was stunning. But once again, Pakistan could not finish off England when it was reeling at the ropes. Plenty of initiative but no finishiative.

I share the disappointment of Pakistan’s cricket fans. I was not impressed. But Pakistan is still not out of the World Cup. But it will need to win all its matches including the game against India. For that game, Pakistan will need to keep its cool. That will be a pressure-match.

But it will be a pressure-match for India as well. I have no doubt that both teams will be focused. But who knows? Inzamam and Youhana will find their form and Shoaib will be at his destructive best. We must keep our fingers crossed.

Fans hoping against odds for Pakistan miracle: COMMENT

EVEN after a very disappointing display of insipid and uninspired batting by the top order against Holland on Tuesday, many cricket fans here are still hoping — against all odds — that by some miracle Pakistan will be able to qualify for the second round of the World Cup.

To achieve this next-to-impossible feat, Pakistan will not only have to beat both India and Zimbabwe on Saturday and Tuesday but also pray that India and England both lose their last two matches — something which is practically impossible, as in the England-India encounter on Wednesday, one has to win. On the face of it, there is no logical permutation which can kindle any hope of Pakistan remaining in contention.

Like in the previous three matches, the Pakistan tour selection committee once again decided on Tuesday to experiment, this time bringing in Taufiq Umar to open with Saeed Anwar and Saleem Elahi to bat at No 3 position dropping Younis Khan and Shahid Afridi.

The only plausible reason for adding another specialist batsman could be that given the chance to bat first, they could pile up a big total — like 400 or so — and improve the overall run rate.

They got the chance to bat first but unfortunately this strategy did not work. After all, 253 is not a total from where the Pakistanis could hope to take their net run-rate (NRR) of -0.13 to somewhere around +1.20 or so and then put their best foot forward to beat India and Zimbabwe. After four games, Pakistan are lying fourth in Group ‘A’ with eight points and a net run-rate of +0.39.

The most disappointing of the batsmen was Inzamam-ul-Haq, who looked almost ‘frozen’ at the crease to the ball which beat him neck and crop. The way Inzamam has batted in this tournament is simply mystifying. In all his four outings he has appeared out of sorts and looked robot-like during his brief stints at the crease.

Surely Inzamam does not have a fitness problem otherwise he should have been rested either in the match against Namibia or Holland. If he cannot come into rhythm even after playing four matches, he is certainly being over-rated.

Yousuf Youhana has been another concern. When the team left for South Africa, Inzamam and Youhana were regarded as the batting backbone, and all hopes were pinned on these two. Both have failed to oblige in crucial matches and have brought the team to the brink of ouster because of their casual approach.

Another factor responsible for the team’s dismal performance is, as indicated earlier, too much experimentation. The tour selection committee appears at its wits’ end, sometimes packing the lineup with as many as nine batsmen at the cost of the bowling attack. They were given four specialist openers by the PCB selection committee and they have yet to settle down to an opening pair good enough to give a 50 to 80-run start.

But most important of all, the leadership has been below the mark. Waqar Younis has failed throughout this contest to attack. In fact, he and his team-mates have all the time been in a defensive frame of mind. Waqar let both the Australians and the Englishmen off the hook at the most crucial junctures. His team-mates have, on their part, not given their best.

We take pride in the fact that ours is the best bowling attack, but in the last four matches, except for Wasim Akram, all other bowlers have been bowling in bits and pieces. The much-pampered Shoaib Akhtar has bowled much below his potential. He may celebrate his crossing the 100-mile barrier but it is of no consequence if he concedes seven runs per over which helped England reach 246 — a total which caused panic when Pakistan began the run chase.

It is time somebody told Shoaib to forget bowling ‘real fast’ and concentrate on line and length. His obsession with being the ‘fastest’ bowler is causing more harm than good.

A time-wasting exercise: GALLERY NOTES

Opposition leader Nisar Khuhro must be finding himself mired in a delicate situation. On the one hand, he is entrusted with a real hard task of leading and directing a team of inexperienced MPAs, who sometimes become oblivious of the party line. On the other, he is supposed to steer his team in such a way that it leaves a positive impression about the opposition being serious in carrying out the day-to-day business of the assembly.

But while conducting himself with these two objectives in mind, he is seen underestimating the manipulating skills of the Speaker. A past master, Syed Muzaffar Hussain Shah always manages not only to outwit the Opposition leader, but he also keeps on rescuing the treasury benches from onslaughts launched off and on by the Opposition — without leaving any traces of taking sides. It is another thing if some of the people sitting in the galleries suspect Nisar Khuhro and Muzaffar Shah being in a tacit understanding while ostensibly pulling each other.

It was Tariq Masood of the Pakistan People’s Party who landed Nisar Khuhro in a very awkward situation on Tuesday, soon after the proceedings began. Speaking on a point of order, Tariq Masood complained about the deteriorating drainage conditions and poor water supply arrangements in his constituency. Probably he wanted some firm commitment from the government for an immediate action in this regard. But the Speaker simply asked the ministers on the treasury benches to note it down and told Tariq Masood to resume his seat. However, the young and amateur MPA from Nawabshah decided to go for an innovative protest. He left his seat and sat on the floor just in front of the rostrum of the Speaker.

As Nisar Khuhro was trying to persuade the angry man to resume his seat amid whispers and laughters, Muzaffar Shah availed of the opportunity to adjourn the proceedings for 15 minutes. He said: “I am doing so to enable Mr Nisar Khuhro to persuade Tariq Masood to resume his seat.” In fact Muzaffar Shah has been very fond of Tariq Masood. Whenever in need of some relaxation, he would always turn to the MPA from Nawabshah provoking him to provide some moments of joy and entertainment.

All this was quite annoying for Nisar Khuhro who was seen reprimanding Tariq Masood and directing other colleagues to stay in their seats during this recess. Nisar Khuhro had reasons to be perturbed over this situation. In fact it was the second sitting of the session summoned by the Speaker on a requisition by the Pakistan People’s Party. But on Tuesday as the bells kept on ringing since 10am, the PPP and its ally, the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal, apparently failed to gather their members required for the quorum. The session began at 12noon and within 20 minutes it was adjourned thanks to Tariq Masood. At 12.45pm it was a call from the muezzin and the house was again adjourned. Finally the proceedings resumed at 1.20pm.

But there was more to this tendency of wasting time. During the question hour when minister for fisheries Manzoor Panhwar was responding to questions in Sindhi and Urdu, Ayaz Soomro of the PPP requested the speaker to ask the minister to answer questions in English. And he kept on repeating his demand. On this, a disciplinarian Muzaffar Shah expressing his annoyance warned Ayaz Soomro. This provoked Nisar Khuhro to intervene. Now Muzaffar Shah turned to the leader of the opposition and told him: “Tell your members to behave properly.” The exchange of words consumed another 15 minutes.

This was followed by another disturbance. The speaker asked the opposition leader to move a motion for extension in time up to 6pm. As Nisar Khuhro appeared reluctant, the speaker reminded him that since they had requisitioned the session it was their responsibility to finish with day’s agenda. After Nisar Khuhro and Sardar Ahmed mutually agreed on it, the Speaker put the motion before the house. Though the nayes were more in number and louder in sound, the speaker extending the time up to 5pm ruled: “Ayes have it.” And this time extension exercise consumed another 20 minutes. — Abu Ayesha