Hockey defeat
THE Pakistan hockey team’s failure to defend its title at the Asian Games in Incheon, South Korea on Thursday has disappointed its fans and experts of the game. Although the team fought valiantly for the title in the final, holding arch-rivals India 1-1 in regulation time, they were found wanting in the penalty shootout and eventually lost the battle 5-3, relinquishing the gold earned four years ago at Guangzhou, China. It was an unlikely end to Pakistan’s otherwise lively hockey campaign at the Games where they remained unbeaten in their group, defeating teams like India, Malaysia, China and Oman on their way to the final. India, by virtue of their win, will now get a direct ticket to the 2016 Olympics while Pakistan will take the thorny path of playing the qualifiers in order to enter the mega event. It is, indeed, a big setback for the national team that failed to qualify for the World Cup early this year, the first such occasion for them in the 42-year history of the tournament.
Having said that, there were still a number of positives for Pakistan at the Asiad. For the first time in many years, the team showed glimpses of the high-class game often attributed to the Asian hockey giants in decades past. It was encouraging to see talented youngsters like Umar Bhutta, Imran Butt, Mohammad Waqas and teenager Mohammad Dilber making their mark at the event and holding their own in pressure games like the ones against India and Malaysia. One must also hand it to head coach Shahnaz Sheikh who worked very hard to prepare the team for the Incheon extravaganza at the gruelling training camp set up in Lahore prior to the Games. Hockey has gone through a major transformation over the years insofar as the rules and regulations are concerned. However, the International Hockey Federation’s latest move to divide the game into four quarterly sessions has clearly robbed the game of its beauty and thrill, and needs to be reviewed.
Tahirul Qadri & polls
ON the 50th day of his dharna, Tahirul Qadri finally declared his intention of taking part in the electoral politics of the country. He is not only ready for the rough and tumble of the general election, but is also prepared to join those contesting the local government polls — if and when someone decides to hold them. The Pakistan Awami Tehreek chief might still link his participation in the election to a reform of the system first. It could well be that, denied an exit after having encamped in the capital for so many weeks, he is striving to find a way out, and the commitment to elections is one plank of that escape strategy. Whatever the reasons, those who had been questioning Dr Qadri’s agenda for change should welcome his announcement. They will be justified in hailing it as a sign of progress towards engaging elements that have been so frustrated by the current scheme to be calling for extreme ‘remedial’ measures. And they will be doing themselves a favour by not greeting the PAT chief’s statement with the jeers that so sadly and frequently overwhelm the real debate.
One impression Dr Qadri has managed to create due to his style and the content of his argument is that, over and above being a candidate for power directly, he is keen to play the ideologue whose blessings must be sought by those wanting to rule. He may still seek to play the revered spiritual and ideological leader, fielding his party and his followers in the election while choosing to not contest a seat personally. Hence, it is perhaps too early to dwell on how his dual nationality would disqualify him from taking part in an election in Pakistan until he declares his candidature. The big question is how well equipped, and before that, how willing the country is to address the grievances of various groups — even those who are not allied with the majority. There is absolutely no doubt that, among the religious groups pushing their respective agendas forward, the militant ones get more attention because of the scare they are able to create whereas the non-militant organisations are ignored, and even made fun of. This attitude has to change and whichever of Dr Qadri’s demands appear to be reasonable must be pondered over in the greater interest of democracy — as a principle — and the culture it spawns.
Counting losses the wrong way
EVERY so often, a Pakistani official trots out numbers to buttress the claim that the country has suffered a great deal from militancy. There is little doubt that Pakistan has suffered greatly and disastrously from militancy — and that is perhaps why the official attempts at putting a number on the losses come across as crude and unnecessary. This week, the Foreign Office claimed that the country has suffered $103bn worth of losses and over 55,000 lives to militancy and terrorism. But even when it comes to the lives lost, there is no single database that exists to even remotely corroborate the claim of fatalities. Indeed, the official estimate — or, perhaps, guesstimate — has ranged over the past year alone from less than 15,000 to, now, over 55,000 lives lost since 2001. If nothing else, it is a dishonour to the dead and injured to not even be accurately counted among the many who have sacrificed for their country. Almost as perplexing is the estimate offered by the Foreign Office of the financial losses suffered by the country: $103bn. For some perspective, this is more than a third of the country’s annual GDP. The $103bn figure only begins to make some kind of sense if investment and economic activity foregone because of militancy is included. But who’s to say whether foreign investment has slowed to a trickle in Pakistan because of militancy and terrorism or because of the energy shortage and business-unfriendly policies of the state?
The apparent laziness with which such figures are produced suggests that the real reason is to demonstrate to the outside world that Pakistan is as much, if not a greater, victim of terrorism than the outside world. The corollary then is that the outside world should do more to compensate Pakistan and to finance the fight against militancy here. Yet, there is a fundamental problem with that thinking: Pakistan is essentially under attack from Pakistanis who belong to organisations that at some point in their history have either been created, nurtured, sponsored, funded, trained or equipped by the Pakistani state itself. Clearly, countries such as the US and Saudi Arabia played a role in the genesis of the problem, but it is the Pakistani state itself that has made the choices that have left state and society so vulnerable to militancy and terrorism. To assert this is not to indulge in an endless blame game, but to underline that the country’s policymaking elite are still in denial about both the causes and the necessary policy decisions that have to be made. Pakistan will only win the fight against militancy if it honestly reckons with the past and moves in the present to shut down the militancy infrastructure and the enabling environment within society. Else, even the exaggerated losses claimed may pale in comparison to the eventual damage.
Published in Dawn, October 4th , 2014