Making sense of Pakistan

It's something that even Hillary Clinton failed to do, but I thought I'd give it a shot.

It's not always great to see bombs and suicide bombers go off in your neighbourhood, is it ? But that is the unfortunate and the undeniable reality in India's neighbour, Pakistan today. A very weak civilian-government is in charge, yet invisible in many ways, overshadowed by the real authority, the Army which is waging a war, which could well determine Pakistan's future as a country (I wouldn't call it a nation yet, as even Pakistan's very own Shuja Nawaz thinks so). The problems, as we all know are multi-fold, yet terrorism is seen through a smokescreen, well and truly differentiated and categorized depending on who they fight and who the enemy really is. However, what they're missing out on is a comprehensive policy on fighting terrorism within the country, in dire contradiction to how they resorted to terror as not a strategy, but a state policy (and still do, against India and Afghanistan).

Military operations are pretty much alright and it's always fair to discuss strategy and tactic, but where is the policy, I ask ? And the answer I get, from some of the Pakistanis I have interacted with recently, is there isn't any. And, it's not just the places where the writ of the Pakistan Government claims to not exist, where there is a problem. It's well and truly within their eye-lines, at the very heart of where the power is - Punjab. Yet, the response one gets from officials in Punjab (as we heard during the siege at the GHQ and Manawan, near Lahore) is wide and clear - "We do not know of any camps operating in South Punjab", said Rana Sanaullah, one of the ministers in the provincial government there. Or maybe they do, but there is a visible reluctance in taking control of the situation. There is where, I say, there is a specific distinction they make when it comes to taking on these terrorists. Broad categories first, and not that they ain't known, anti-India (groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Hizbul Mujahideen - all umbrella groups, who are waging a supposed 'jihad' against India in Kashmir) groups, also described as those who do not fight the state, and hence no action against them, and you have groups like Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan Punjab (a broad conglomerate of terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Sipah-e-Sahiba and the likes, who are taking on the State) and indeed, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan in places like Waziristan or Malakand or Swat, where the Army is/was involved in flushing them out. If Pakistan continues to see terrorism and militancy as something heterogeneous - depending on it's usability, it might very well be seeing it's end - as an idea, as a concept and worse, as a country. If denial is the only way Pakistan wants to and chooses to live in, might as well wish them luck in that regard.

Secondly, it almost seems bashing India up for the problems in Pakistan has become an everyday affair - and now, it's coming from everywhere - be it the very articulate, or as the Daily Times editorial called him "the usually factual" Interior Minister Rehman Malik or Pakistan's Comical Ali/Baghdad Bob (as Foreign Policy labeled this honorable serviceman) - Maj Gen Athar Abbas, DG of the ISPR. It's almost become a very loose substitute for abdicating their own responsibility for their own people, appealing to their own domestic constituency, which still sees India as Pakistan's number one enemy and sketching itself as a victim of imported terror, rather than a state that exports it and most importantly, it paints a picture of every authority in that country living in a perennial state of denial. What it doesn't talk about is the human rights abuses committed by the armed forces in Balochistan, which might have equally fuelled insurgent rage against the State, (instead they prop up the Indian Army's role in Kashmir) and also, that it's heart i.e. Punjab has resorted to exploiting the Baloch resources, notably the gas-rich areas in that province. Even, as a matter of fact, the Balochi Regiment in the Pakistan Army consists of Punjabis, rather than the people it is named after. To blame India is supremely easy, but to reach out to the Balochis seems a responsibility, the Pakistani authorities don't want to undertake. Unfortunately, for Pakistan and Mr. Malik, no one buys these claims, not even Hillary Clinton.

What I hope, Pakistan do is get out of this cocoon of denial as soon as possible and take appropriate action against these miscreants for their own good. As Barack Obama used to repeatedly say about the Republicans in his campaign stumps, "It's not that they don't know about it, it's just that they just don't get it" - that phrase perhaps surmises the situation in Pakistan. If Pakistan is serious about wiping militancy and talking about this romantic image that the Zardaris and Gilanis paint about democracy, it's time they act, and act for their own good. Period.

The Baloch Conundrum

Okay. Like a cricket writer would put it - "India dominated the first two sessions of an opening day of a Test match against Pakistan and then collapsed in the final one." I don't know if I could apply this analogy to the events in Sharm-al-Sheikh, when events leading upto this Summit were undone by a second, irreversible version of the original Himalayan blunder back in 1949. One look at that rather shabbily drafted joint-statement and even a proverbial rocket scientist will tell you that it stank of concessions of grave proportions by India - lowering our posture in this diplomatic "I-will-not-talk-to-you-until-you..." standoff. What should stir everyone concerned about that joint statement, is not the language i.e. English, but it's most notable word - one word - Balochistan.

And, that one word is not yet a Frankenstein that could one day eat up South Block's policies, but even it's mention in a paper, not a "legal document" as some would argue, has put a largely ignored region of Pakistan into the world map. Yes, it will be equally foolish if New Delhi perennially lived in denial about it's possible involvement there, given the Ministry of External Affairs so proposterously came out with a statement, condoling Nawab Bugti, a Balochi insurgency leader's death in August 2006. Logic would say, it wasn't something we should have done, but that was the first sign when India seemed to lose the plot, and its Baloch policy came out in the open. As expected, the diplomatic circles played it down, but there were signs that India was up to some activity there. Then, the opening of not one, not two, FOUR embassies along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, probably gave it away. Again, not something we did with superior wisdom.

But, Balochistan intrigues me, it always has. I remember watching this rather shabbily shot documentary in Doordarshan (2002) about what Balochistan means to Pakistan vis-a-vis natural resources and how it has been exploited, not given its due by the various governments there. Fair enough. I mean, it accounts for 48% of oil and gas supply to Pakistan, and all it got in return was a dummy Prime Minister in the form of Zafarullah Khan Jamali. Again, a policy of appeasement recognizing the inflammability of the region, thanks to an insurgency which began in 2004 under the leadership of Akbar Bugti. Okay, now this begs me to ask the question, why should India involve itself in a region we don't even have geographical access to ? Bangladesh was logical, but Balochistan ? The old argument would have been to defeat the concept of Pakistan, it's idea and it's foundation. The newer argument smacks of a tit-for-tat, nothing else. If India thinks it's involvement in Balochistan is going to stop Pakistan from fueling more 'jihadis' in Kashmir, it is a foolish argument - one backed ever so least by common sense. On the contrary, it could and probably has increased the already existing anti-India sentiments within Pakistan, and gives our neighbours that one weapon to pin India down in many an international summit. Everytime we justifiedly talk about terrorism, or Ajmal Kasab, Pakistan could make up an Indian Kasab and bring it to the table. When we demand proof from them, they'll make up dossiers, not quite intending to punish India but just implicate India for acts they might/might not be involved in. Something for the South Block to think over.

My question is does India need Balochistan as much as Balochistan needs India ? It's again not rocket science to know that insurgencies look for funds, logistical support and covert backing. Do we even need to have a Balochistan policy ? If we ever had or have one, it's time to take our hands off it. I don't think India will benefit a great deal by involving itself in Balochistan, except to satisfy it's big-elephantine ego of "Hey, if you do this to us, we'll do this to you". It's time we realize that we're achieving zilch by even mentioning that word. If interfering in some other country's affairs gives us immense pleasure, sure, there's a reason for us to be involved. Close those embassies in Afghanistan, no one goes there and people who don't have the money to sustain themselves won't surely visit India. It's a virtual giveaway, simple.

Enough said, I rest my case here. The gist of all this, if you have had the patience to read it - is as my friend on twitter @thecomicproject would say, jab ungli karne nahin aata hai, kyon karte hai hum log ? (If you don't know to meddle, why do we even do it ?)

When terror raped cricket !

Almost thirteen years go, on 17th March 1996, this very ground played host to Sri Lanka's finest sporting moment - when Arjuna Ranatunga proudly lifted the Wills World Cup trophy given to him by the late Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Little did they know that thirteen years later, outside that very Gaddafi Stadium would they be subject to the same fate as her, with twelve to fourteen terrorists nakedly brandishing their Kalashnikovs, hurling rocket launchers and hand grenades at the team bus on its way from the hotel to the ground. This was probably the day cricket was shamed, brought to its knees by the wrath of terrorists who with an absolute disregard for anything distinctly human, fired at the visiting Sri Lankans. At first, it deserves a condemnation in the harshest, rather strongest possible language and one hopes that the perpetrators of this dastardly act are brought to justice. Sounds like a formal Government statement, but I just can't help it.

It was about the wee hours of the morning when a friend called from India, and a former Sri Lankan player kind enough to keep in touch with me, sent me a text about the attack. It literally woke me up and I couldn't but feel shocked, for I have made friends and acquaintances within the Sri Lankan team over the years. Some of my closest cricketing contacts are within the 16-member squad and to see them in such a state was disgusting, unfortunate and indigestible. But, therein lay a crude reminder of Pakistan's free-fall into chaos, its deterioration into a failed state and indeed one which could potentially affect the larger sub-continent. If Mumbai's seige on 26/11 was not reminder enough to Zardari & Co, here it is. And as the day prolonged and my interactions with people connected with Sri Lanka cricket got going, I realized that this was more than an symbolic attack on cricketers, who among many others were there to show their solidarity with the people of Pakistan amidst tour boycotts and cancellations. 

Why would a Sri Lankan team be attacked at the first place, I began to ask myself as the Pakistani media began its share of India-bashing and got into its usual, "non-state actors are behind it" and "one cannot rule out an international hand" type denial mode, as it did post-26/11. Was there a touch of symbolism behind attacking a team which hails from a country that has been crippled by terror itself ? Or, was it a blatant act of terror by the group (you know who I'm referring to) seeking a larger international visibility after signing a peace deal with the Pakistan government in the Swat valley not so long ago ? Or, going by recent events of instability, I ask, if the political vacuum in Punjab province, created an ideal environment for an attack of such brazen nature ? Having read and followed the post-9/11 situation in Pakistan through various books, talks and documentaries, I can't rule such possibilities out. But, what this attack did was it shamed cricket more than anything ever before and indeed splashed a bigger black mark over Pakistan and its future.

While India pulled out from what would have been a Pakistan vs India series due to diplomatic pressure from New Delhi, Sri Lanka tried to play the good Samaritan, only to be backstabbed by the ones it tried to help. When I spoke to Arjuna Ranatunga yesterday afternoon, who ironically took the first step by proposing to help out Pakistan, all he told me was, "Well, we were promised and assured of full security by the Pakistani authorities." In hindsight, both he and Mr. Lokuge would admit that this tour was hastily arranged, without a proper security delegation from Sri Lanka Cricket or the Government visiting the country to examine the arrangements there. Every country visiting or planning to visit Pakistan in the recent past has done that, and so as a matter of protocol, Sri Lanka should have followed suit. Instead, they fell for the sugar-coated promises made by the PCB and decided to go without a recce or a preparation and sadly, their innocent cricketers fell victims. Sad, but true. And going by India's warning to Sri Lanka in December against touring Pakistan (something seen as a proof of RAW involvement by some of my Sri Lankan friends and some security experts in Pakistan), they should have taken it seriously and at least, sent people across to see if things were fine enough to play cricket. They didn't and we all know what happened.

The events of Tuesday has not only ensured Pakistan's further isolation by the cricketing community, but has also put the World Cup under considerable doubt, as much of the post-mortem revealed. Yes, it is time for Pakistan to wake up to realities within its own sovereign territory and indeed as every terror attack does, gives them an opportunity to set things right. Even with regular regime changes in that country (be it uniformed, civilian or whatever they call "democracy"), the mindset has remained the same. Pakistanis, who are as passionate about the game as any of the Indians I know, do not deserve this at all. Yet, with so much at stake, both the PCB and the Government fumbled and failed, resulting in an unprecedented first-time-ever attack on cricketers.

As the day draws to a close, those images of the terrorists on a free-run outside the Gaddafi Stadium just refuses to fade away, for it stripped cricket off everything it stood for - a binding force that kept the region together, a sport that brought people together, as the romantics would add. It was a day, the sport would have never lived to see and witness with its very players being in the midst of it. Cricket was indeed raped on 3rd March 2009.

Of Tendulkar, Manchester United and destiny...

The Guardian's Mike Selvey calls it Karma. I choose to call it destiny. India's 6-wicket win over England in Chennai was inevitable, or to simply put it - was meant to be. At this juncture, let me also bring in the Champions League final between Manchester United and Chelsea in May 2008. Just as John Terry was destined to miss his chance from the spot, another United great, who embodies everything the club stands for, Ryan Giggs, was meant to score the winner. Bring that scenario into what happened on Monday, the 15th of December where it was Sachin Tendulkar, whom the British junta refer to as the "Mumbai Man", who took his team past the line in chasing 387. Perhaps those two examples put sport into perspective.

People may ask me why I choose to relate these two events, of different sport - simply because they stand for something significant. Manchester United, simply had to win the Champions League after having to put up with a disaster of their own, the one in Munich in 1958, where the club lost 8 players and 3 members of the staff. If that was tragedy enough, Mumbai and indeed, India had to bear something worse. Incommensurable in numbers, it was a blatant disregard for humanity, life and pretty much the law of the land when terrorists held the city on gunpoint. And where does the ten percent of the healing touch come from ? I guess, sport. It was a telling moment when Sir Bobby Charlton, a survivor of the Munich crash walked up on behalf of Manchester United, to collect the medal at Moscow as it was when Sachin Tendulkar, scored perhaps his most significant hundred and that leap of joy - did mean something for someone from the city, sitting through the chills of London.

Of course, as much as we continue to romanticize the Tendulkar innings, three others were played in the background while the soundtrack hit the higher notes. Virender Sehwag who, in consensus, gave India the chance to make their own destiny and shape up a special end to the contest. At his usual, cold-blooded and no-nonsense best, Sehwag is quite literally the best batsman in the world. And, on Sunday - that was the case. He nullified two of England's potential fifth-day threats with absolute disregard for them and that played out perfectly, come Monday. If not for Sehwag, as Dhoni rightly pointed out, India would have been defending the game, something they've not known to be successful at. So, to bring in Manchester United again, this was something like the header Ronaldo scored to put them ahead in Moscow. An important moment, a massive platform as indeed a curtain-raiser for something special at the finale. Gautam Gambhir and Yuvraj Singh, recent graduates into Test cricket played two knocks which, given the occasion might just slip into the background, but were no less invaluable than the ones played by Tendulkar and Sehwag. In context, they played their part too.

Tendulkar's innings on Day 5 was special in many regards. Andrew Flintoff was steaming in with the intensity last seen in the Ashes 2005 and Tendulkar's initial moments were indeed human, with barely any feet movement and some loose plays and misses. But once the square drive came out of the Tendulkar shot factory and not to forget that intentional upper-cut off Anderson, everything suddenly seemed so normal. Indeed, the ghosts of the venue - almost 10 years ago would have popped up in his mind during the course of the innings, but he seemed determined to bury to tag of "the best hundred ever seen in a losing cause for India" and write a new chapter into his love-affair with the MAC Stadium in Chennai. There was a method to his batting, a hunger which has been in question time and again, and a determination to see the team through, if only losing to Pakistan by 12 runs in 1999 was reminder enough. And what a moment it was, when of all the shots in his repertoire, Tendulkar brought out the paddle, or as the Poms call it the "nurdle" to settle the issue - for him, Mumbai and India. A moment to savour. That's when my mind pops back to Moscow, when Ryan Giggs, of all the people, in his 759th game for Manchester United, in the tightest of situations had the nerves to put it past the diving Petr Cech. That was the goal, like Tendulkar's boundary, that mattered in the end.

And, for someone who passionately supports Manchester United week in and week out and occasionally chooses to back India in cricket, the very thought of destiny being a factor was to an extent scary. Chelsea did not deserve to lose the game at Moscow, nor did England in Chennai. But thats when there's a 12th man in destiny. To put it simply, I quote our great manager, Sir Alex Ferguson, as he so rightly and effectively stated after the Moscow triumph, "We had a cause which was very important. People with causes are difficult to battle against and I think fate was playing its part." Ferguson said. Fate and Tendulkar played their part in Chennai too.

Barack and I

It was about 4 am here in London, 11 pm EST in the East Coast in the United States of America and dawn in the Orient. The moment overshadowed every emotion in the world, as CNN's Wolf Blitzer confirmed the obvious by announcing Barack Hussein Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America. I was down to tears as the traditional Blue West Coast, drove the Illinois Senator to the White House. It was a moment to savour for me personally as I had been following each and every stump of the Obama campaign for a little over 21 months. Staying up late nights, wasn't so much a problem, but a matter of privilege - right through the Democratic Caucuses through to Super Tuesday to the DNC to the Presidential Campaign and of course, last but not the least - the Election Night.

What drew me closer to Barack Obama was his larger-than-life, transformational image, yet a down-to-earth, humble and gracious self. Change and Hope were two words in the Oxford Dictionary which Americans had heard before, perhaps in 1992 - when Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush, but were never more relevant than in today's context. America never needed Change more desperately than today, after eight years of failed economic policies and strategic blunders. And, America had to choose. Vote for a man who offered Hope, Change and belief in the average American's ability to change the country or a Vietnam War veteran promised nothing but an extension of the Bush policies for four more years of the same. And, they chose in large numbers, unprecedented in the history of the elections in the United States. To imagine a Black President in the White House was a quite long shot, given the history of slavery, exclusion and racism in the country - but America knew and realized what was at stake. And as decisive as the verdict was, it showed how America had come out of its own cocoon and voted Barack Obama as the President of its country.

Someone asked me the other day about what I thought of Barack Obama's chances in the elections. I was quietly confident about victory, but more importantly alluded to the manner in which that victory would come. A movement was on its way. A social movement that transcended race, religion, gender, economic class and redefined the way Americans saw politics as. A movement that was so rooted to common Americans i.e. the very grassroots that built the nation. And indeed, Change was on its way. Having virtually followed the campaign on the web and Obama's campaign website regularly, it wasn't surprising that this movement-turned-political campaign could attract large crowds. Passionate chants of "Yes, We Can" from the crowds demonstrated how America gave its voluntary consent to be a part of this historic movement. A movement that redefined imagination and defied conventional politics.

Barack Obama, in my view, always looked Presidential. That image of a man poised, calm under the usual barrage of personal attacks from his Republican opponents, the stoic leadership he displayed through the economic crisis and the warmth he drew from the American public indeed defied imagination. Remember the "ENOUGH" he said, as he delivered his acceptance speech during the DNC in Denver ? Watching the event back home in India, it sent a chill down my spine. That was the moment I thought Barack Obama came alive, not that he was under the carpet till then. That was President Obama for me. And then, right through the three debates when he addressed every issue with clarity and confidence and won every argument against John McCain.

Barack Obama's campaign was one, where strategy prevailed over tactics - and looks to have settled that debate, at least for now. A campaign that had the best blend of the traditional and the modern and used it more than effectively to send the message across. Be it the Obama Facebook Application or the Obama '08 offices in every lane of America - they both worked with one cause - to elect their candidate as the President. The internet, in the past campaigns was just nothing but a fund-raising medium. Never before did the world see the internet playing its role in community organization and perhaps, with the medium - came the voters - the youth. Text messages, Youtube Videos, and constant e-mail reminders to Donate to the campaign (sadly, I couldn't as the Campaign Finance Committee suggests that only American citizens can donate to the campaign) and updates from David Plouffe and David Axelrod, the architects of the Obama victory gave this campaign a surreal experience. The real, eventually turned virtual and vice-versa. Some initiatives like the GOTV - Get out to Vote and exploiting the internet's untapped potential - was a hallmark of this campaign.

As I heard President-elect Obama's speech last night, like many others in the Park in Chicago, I was moved to tears. As I wiped them off, a certain realization that it has all ended, ended in joy and victory. No more will I wake up the nights to be a part of this movement, no more will I skip dinner to watch an Obama rally at Manassas, Virginia and no more will I try to convince my Republican friends about who's the best man for the job. They have the answer, and so do I.

Racism of a regional kind...

Okay. Picture this. Being called a "Bloody Indian" in a supermarket by a British guy and being called a "Bloody South Indian" by one of your own mates. If you ask me what sounds better ? I'd take the British bugger for the Indian mate. Simple. He's at least being sensible there and called me by my nationality than the friend because she's labelled me as someone from a place, she particularly doesn't like much or doesn't know about. As unfortunate as it may seem, this pretty much sums up my three weeks in London so far. As much as the racial taunt from the British guy doesn't disturb me much, as almost inevitably one expects it to be spat out, the Indian girl's jibes were a rude shock.

The question I intend to ask here is - Does India only belong to the North ? If it dows, I am sorry. I refuse to call myself Indian. Yes, I am a vegetarian. So what ? Is it worth being looked down upon ? I am a South Indian. Is that worth being looked down upon ? Maybe it is. Some of us ridicule each other on the basis of our regional identities and I am quite okay with that for now. A couple of weeks since that jibe, its hard to forget how it is to feel a "bloody South Indian" !

Go Go Ganguly !

Okay. Bengal these days, just needs an issue to simmer. A day after the Singur issue was supposedly "resolved" through compromise, another issue involving a citizen of that state has emerged. Sourav Ganguly's imminent axing from the Rest of India squad for the Irani Trophy has taken everyone by storm. Not really. Facts are simple. Like his previous ejection from the Indian set up, when the Greg Chappell episode brewed up, it was on merit (or the lack of it in this case) and of course non-performance.

With a meager average of 16 and 29 against Sri Lanka and Australia respectively, Ganguly's case at the hands of the selectors became weaker. Not to forget, Dilip Vengsarkar, the Chairman of Selectors' made a statement of intent (not what Mark Hughes said about Manchester City and its takeover) when he announced that some of the one-day starlets were ready for Test cricket. But, I shudder to ask myself this question over and over again. Why don't Indian cricketers know by themselves that their time's up ? I mean this is just not restricted to Ganguly for that matter, Rahul Dravid had an opportunity to let himself go, when he  denounced his Indian captaincy in England last year. Why ? Why do our players want to be perennially playing cricket ? Why don't they realize that enough is enough ? Or is it just the I-am-not-retiring-Kick-me-out-if-you-want phenomenon ?

For all that I am sitting and writing here about Ganguly, I think he's given Indian cricket fans everything to cheer about. His batsmanship is something anyone would pay to watch, but when the bat and the pad doesn't come close enough, is there a message ? When the bat just does enough to knick a delivery you would leave otherwise, is there a message ? Perhaps there is. That was the message Niranjan Shah read out today.

What this in effect does, is puts the other veterans into the observation center. Sachin Tendulkar's regular presence in the sick-bay is doing no good to the Indian team, nor is it doing anything to himself. For that matter, whenever he is struggling for form, he tries to conjure up an injury just to shy away from the action - this again is not undermining his contribution to Indian cricket, whatever it has been - but just an attempt to bring it out. Why is Tendulkar not under the microscope ? Why should he be exempted from examination or scrutiny ? He shouldn't. But thats the case with darlings of the establishment. They're often admonished of all sins, granted all immunity from observation, there is ! Why ? If Indian cricket needed a recent example, Michael Vaughan's one is there for everyone to see. His statement of "If I am not scoring runs for the team, I have no business to stay in there", tells something, doesn't it ? The gap between the bat and the pad which Dale Steyn exploited. The same shots that he played early on, which a free-flowing Vaughan otherwise resisted from chasing, led to events after the third Test there. Thats the model we need to follow.

Thats England, the same old argument, and this is Indian cricket. But if Indian cricket needs to evolve from its own rotten cocoon, it better take some hard decisions. Else, lets say doomsday approaches soon !