Crafting new ties
NOTWITHSTANDING the hard-line positions adopted by some lawmakers and sections of the media on both sides, subtle messages seem to convey a positive mood in Islamabad and Washington. Being the aggrieved party, Pakistan has maintained a rigid stance and expressed its anger in more ways than one. The hurt to Pakistan came in rapid succession — the Raymond Davis shooting, the SEALs at Abbottabad and, to top it all, the Salala strike. The subsequent moves by the government were designed as much to express its justifiable anger over superpower recklessness as to placate angry public opinion. The Nato supply line cut-off, the boycott of the Bonn moot, the Shamsi base closure and the ‘no’ to the Marc Grossman visit were actions whose severity were noted by America, which at least on the Salala killings expressed regret, while insisting that commanders on both sides had made technical mistakes that led to the death of 24 Pakistani soldiers. Since then, behind the apparent impasse, the two sides have never really sat idle.
For Pakistan, the issue revolves round developing “new rules of engagement” as the prime minister repeated so categorically at Davos. This new relationship can be mutually fruitful, lasting and free from misunderstandings and perceived hurts if the two countries realise that there are limits to cooperation, especially because they do not — and are unlikely to — see eye to eye on the ambitions of some regional powers. Whether the two sides are able to evolve a new, comprehensive but pragmatic relationship constitutes a challenge to their diplomacy. That the two countries need each other is a realisation that seems to restrain governments in Islamabad and Washington. The other day, US-made F-16s arrived in Pakistan. For a nation which has not forgotten America’s decision to hold back both the money and the planes Pakis-tan had paid for, the latest American decision should be considered a gesture. At the same time, the New York Times has reported that the American administration is likely to apologise to Pakistan over the Salala carnage.
If true, Islamabad has to respond positively and realise that a strategic relationship with America is in the nation’s interests, no matter what position extremist parties adopt. One religious leader has said the resumption of Nato supplies will be ‘treason’, while another has threatened to besiege parliament. While these visceral outbursts may have the general election in mind, the government must not lose sight of Pakistan’s desperate economic condition, its long-term interests in a unipolar world and the new dangers lurking in its neighbourhood in Southwest Asia.
Rudderless sector
IN Sri Lanka, they’re called ‘floor patients’, and in Pakistan, it’s a common sight: forlorn groups of patients and their attendants who have set up camp outside large public-sector hospitals. Ironically, the better a health facility’s reputation, the more it is likely to find itself overloaded. In Pakistan, there is the additional problem that many such people have been forced to travel long distances from their homes because of the dearth of healthcare facilities where they live. For patients whose complaint requires regular visits to doctors, this means that they are marooned in an alien city with access to none of their accustomed infrastructure and no accommodation. A case in point is the Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplant in Karachi, which offers the most up-to-date treatment and facilities free of cost. The hospital receives thousands of patients from all over the province, many of whose lives depend on regular procedures such as dialysis. Lacking the resources to travel back and forth, or to get accommodation in the city, dozens of patients and their attendants have no choice but to set up makeshift camps outside the facility and fend for themselves as best as they can.
With SIUT’s finances — raised mainly through the private sector — already stretched very thin, the institute can do little to help.
The predicament of such people is doubly saddening because there are a number of vacant public and private buildings in the area; the SIUT management can only hope that the owners and administrators of these venues might one day find it in their hearts to open them up to patients at nominal rents. But given that across the country there are more patients than healthcare facili-ties, it is time the state turned its attention to the wider problem. The fragile healthcare network needs to be propped up urgently, for the demands made on it by a growing population will only increase. In the healthcare sector, the state has been steadily abdicating its responsibilities to the private sector. This trajectory must be altered, for access to healthcare is too important and basic a right to be left rudderless.
Ajmal’s bowling action
TO an extent it could be argued that Saeed Ajmal, possibly the best spinner in the world, has himself contributed to stirring up a fresh controversy over his bowling action. In an interview with a British media organisation, he claimed that the International Cricket Council had allowed him permission to bend his arm by approximately 23 degrees, which is clearly well beyond the permissible limit. It was later clarified by the Pakistan Cricket Board that Ajmal, man of the series in the recent Test cricket whitewash of world number one England, was referring to upper-arm ‘induction’ and not the degree of ‘elbow extension’. The International Cricket Council, which cleared Ajmal’s action in 2009, backed the PCB’s stance saying that the off-spinner’s elbow extension was found to be within the 15-degree limit. At first glance it seems to largely be a case of misconnection across language barriers. A bubbly and exuberant character both on and off the field, Ajmal has never hesitated in speaking to the press with a smile. But in this case a section of the British media pounced on his somewhat confused statement with undisguised glee.
Former England fast bowler Bob Willis was the first to reopen the debate over Ajmal’s action and he is obviously entitled to his views. But he, along with other critics, should give Ajmal the benefit of doubt considering the communication barrier. In fact, they would be well advised to look into the reasons behind the failure of the English team that suffered one of its most humiliating defeats against Pakistan. Otherwise, the debate over Ajmal’s bowling action would come across as a case of sour grapes. Winning and losing is part of the game of cricket and the result ought to be accepted in the right spirit.
<><><><><>