US-Pakistan equation
THE first high-level contact between Pakistan’s elected government and the United States was established on Friday when Secretary of State Colin Powell rang Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri. It would be idle to read too much into what was essentially a formal call. But Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Christina Rocca is due here on a visit and is scheduled to meet Mr Kasuri on Monday when discussions on US-Pakistan relations are expected to be more substantive. The postponement of the Saarc summit must have been as much of a disappointment to Washington as it has been to Islamabad and the South Asian peace lobby generally. It was hoped that the presence of the Indian prime minister in Islamabad would contribute to a lessening of Indo-Pakistan tensions and even if it did not lead to a quick normalization of relations would at least damp down the daily verbal duels between the two sides. The US put in considerable diplomatic effort in talking to the two countries last summer when open conflict seemed almost about to break out. It thought that the trust it had acquired in both capitals might enable it to also play a role in a settlement of the Kashmir issue, which American officials have described as being on the international agenda. Washington would probably like to assess the possibilities of initiating a fresh effort to bring Pakistan and India together after the installation here of a civilian government and to revive the Saarc spirit.
Where Pakistani-US ties are concerned, they have maintained their post-9/11 closeness despite the partial change of guard in Islamabad. But new factors have come into play, not least the strong electoral showing of religious parties which campaigned on an anti-American platform. General Pervez Musharraf remains in the saddle as a powerful president, and this will be a source of some comfort to the Americans. But even a controlled democratic system has its own dynamics, and an elected parliament would like to assert its authority on the decision-making process. One can hardly recall an occasion in the past year or so when Secretary Powell had talked to the foreign minister; the line went directly to Army House. Friday’s conversation with Mr Kasuri shows the US awareness of the new set-up in Pakistan, at least of the protocol demands that it entails.
According to the official statement, Mr Powell and Mr Kasuri “expressed their firm commitment to a structured, long-term relationship, with growing cooperation in diverse fields, and agreed to remain in touch”. The problem is that US interest in Pakistan so far has been fitful and unabashedly self-seeking. We too on our part have appeared to wait for a crisis to erupt to attract America’s attention. It is not perhaps fully realized here that it is difficult to sustain outside, particularly western, involvement with a country that can never seem to put its own house in order. We have a poor record of upholding democratic and civil rights. We have invested almost next to nothing in education and other social sectors. We remain unconcerned about our galloping population; we have not only tolerated but encouraged feudalism; we have sought to justify religious militancy; and we have actually enacted new laws that discriminate against women. We are often referred to as an intolerant society that turns its back on enlightenment. If we became a freer, more democratic, and economically a stronger and more caring country, we might not need a threat to peace in the region to make the world conscious of our importance.
A rational response
THE Punjab chief minister has done the right thing by setting up a commission headed by a former chief justice of the high court to look into the grievances of doctors, health practitioners, teachers and students agitating against the Model University Ordinance. The measure gives sweeping authority to boards of governors in the running of teaching hospitals and other higher education institutions. Following the chief minister’s move, the joint action committee formed by the affected parties has offered to call off its agitation pending a final decision by the commission in which all stakeholders have been given representation. The welcome development proves that when an elected government is in place, arbitrary laws, regardless of their good or bad nature, cannot be imposed from the top without the concurrence of those directly involved.
The presidential ordinance aimed at revamping the working of higher institutions has a number of good things about it. But the way in which it was promulgated — in a hurry and in defiance of the logic of consulting major stakeholders before a radical overhaul was attempted — became its very nemesis. The immediate reaction from doctors, paramedics, teachers and students was one of outright rejection, disrupting higher education instead of improving it. Now that better sense has prevailed and the Punjab government has adopted a reasonable stance, it is time members of the joint action committee also took a positive approach to the issue. Higher education — professional as well as in the humanities — has been badly hit by lack of reforms in this sector over the past many years. Privatization has increased costs without improving quality. Hopefully, the commission now constituted will evolve a consensus whereby outright commercialization of higher education will be avoided and a qualitative difference made to education in our seats of teaching and learning.
Success in Chennai
PAKISTAN’S victory in the final of the blind cricket World Cup in Chennai is a remarkable feat. The Pakistanis beat former champions South Africa convincingly in what proved to be a thrilling encounter. The tournament is the most prestigious event of its kind in the cricketing calendar. What is most significant about Pakistan’s success is that it was achieved despite a lack of proper facilities or adequate support and funding. In a country where sports facilities even for the sighted are few and far between, it is remarkable that a group of dedicated blind and partially sighted people should go on to win the tournament in competition with the best teams in the world.
Blind cricket has been played since the 1920s when it was taken up by a group of enthusiasts in Australia. Since then, the game has made steady progress and spread to many parts of the cricket-playing world. Sound forms the basis of blind cricket. The ball is made of hard plastic and is filled with ball bearings that make a loud rattling sound when the ball is in motion. The players bat and field by judging the direction of the ball by its sound. Each team has 11 players of whom at least four must be totally blind and a maximum of four partially sighted.
One major departure from traditional cricket is that the bowler has to bowl underarm. Otherwise, it is remarkable how blind cricketers are able to play the same brilliant cricketing shots, engineer run-outs and make difficult catches just as they do in cricket for the sighted. The game not only provides a healthy source of diversion for disabled people but also gives them the confidence to cope with the rigours of everyday life. Blind cricketers are not looking for any sympathy from the public but require recognition and support. One hopes that the Pakistan team’s stunning success will prompt the government as well as the corporate sector to help the cause by improving facilities and offering sponsorships for this remarkable sport.