A debating forum?

IF for nothing else, the eleventh SAARC summit will perhaps be remembered only for President Musharraf’s handshake with Prime Minister Vajpayee, for it has nothing concrete to show by way of achievement. Whether the presidential gesture really served to de-escalate tensions between the two powerful, nuclear neighbours is something only time will tell. Nevertheless, the summit did serve to make the Pakistani and Indian heads of government and their foreign ministers meet on the sidelines. That itself was a gain of sorts, the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation on the border notwithstanding. Like the ones held earlier, this summit, too, came up with a declaration espousing the noble goals of peace, friendship and fraternity in the South Asian region and saying that the SAARC nations “solemnly renewed their pledge to strengthen the Association and make it more cohesive, result oriented, and forward looking”. That, though, shall remain a pipedream, as long as SAARC’s two largest members — Pakistan and India — do not sort out their differences.

Constant tension between the two nations, though with its highs and lows, means that not only do Pakistanis and Indians suffer; socio-economic development in the other five countries is also held hostage to their feuding. The establishment of a South Asian Free Trade Area was agreed upon at the last summit (held in 1998), and a draft treaty framework was to be constituted for ratification by 2001. However, even the most basic groundwork is yet to be undertaken in this regard. Contrast this with the EU which, despite having almost twice as many members, is able to resolve most disputes and undertake and implement major policy initiatives — the most recent being the launch of the Euro.

Before Kathmandu, India made it a point to say that bilateral issues should not be discussed at the moot, asserting that SAARC was a forum for formulating policies through multilateral deliberations. Fair enough, but the reality of Indo-Pakistan differences must be taken into account and not brushed aside unrealistically. Let us accept it: SAARC is only going to be as successful as Pakistan and India allow it to be. Its success, and the achievement of the noble goals mentioned in the declaration, depend largely on the ability and willingness of the two nations to sort out their differences. And we see no reason why the association cannot be used as a forum for at least discussing bilateral issues. After all, countries that make up the EU or ASEAN do this all the time, with contentious issues like the ban on mad cow beef taken up by member countries at the multilateral forum. SAARC cannot become “more cohesive, result oriented and forward looking” and will never have the same clout on the world stage as ASEAN or the EU unless its two largest members make sincere and long-term efforts to reconcile their differences.

Blair’s warning

IT is reassuring to hear Mr Tony Blair say that the world community should not abandon Afghanistan and that it must remain “committed to helping” that country. More important, the British prime minister seemed aware of the mistakes of the past when he asked everybody to “reflect on what happened when we failed to make that commitment.” Under the changed circumstances, the world community’s commitment to Afghanistan is more important than ever before. The Taliban regime might have disappeared, but the remnants of the Taliban and their armed supporters are still very much there — not only in Afghanistan but also in Pakistan. Any slackening of the war on these groups could give them time to reorganize and reappear, thus threatening the stability of both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Two more tasks follow from the commitment Mr Blair spoke of. One is Afghanistan’s reconstruction. A minimum of ten billion dollars is needed for giving the country a sound economy and restoring the normality of life traumatized by twenty-two years of constant strife. The other is the need for making Afghanistan a truly neutral country at peace with itself and with its neighbours. In this task, all of Afghanistan’s neighbours, including and especially Pakistan, have a vital role to play. As a corollary, the world community must see to it that no outside power is allowed to meddle in Afghanistan’s internal affairs.India, for instance, has no common border with Afghanistan, but for five decades it has played a very negative role in that country. All along, its sole aim has been to intrigue against Pakistan and to instigate tribesmen and leaders in its pay to agitate for the Pakhtoonistan stunt. Since instability and anarchy in Afghanistan invariably affect Pakistan, it has always been in New Delhi’s interest to destabilize Afghanistan. Any such attempt by India could lead to a reappearance of conditions of political stability and strife. The world community, thus, must see to it that countries not having a common border with Afghanistan are not allowed to create mischief in that country.

Murali’s magic

MUTTIAH Muralitharan’s ten-wicket haul for the tenth time — a record overtaking Hadlee’s nine such feats — confirmed the spell of his magical spin that has mystified and mesmerized all the batsmen on all sorts of pitches in every country. No wonder, he has been rated as the bowler and man-of-the-match after Sri Lanka’s victory against Zimbabwe. His striking skills and unusual action not only created a stir in the cricketing world but also a controversy calculated to keep him out of the game by scared victims wielding a lot of influence in the decision-making circles. Accusations of “chucking” were immediately taken up for checking by experts who were inclined to question his credentials. But his side stood strongly by him and resisted all sorts of pressure. Finally, he was subjected to severe scrutiny by sports-related physicians, who came up with a verdict in his favour against some referees’ opinion to the contrary. Actually, what raised doubts in his case initially was a queer “throwing” impression caused by an extraordinary elbow structure and a rotating wrist. Ever since the go-ahead signal, he has baffled the opponents and perplexed the observers match after match. He excels not only on wearing pitches but even weaves patterns on flat surfaces. Operating from wide of the crease his angular approach is singularly deceptive and effective. In short, he is Sri Lanka’s unique and puzzling product most difficult to define and decipher.

Pakistan has passed through a similar phenomenal experience. When Abdul Qadir emerged on the international scene, the cricketing world was similarly struck. His spinning art was an incredible development. Even after his retirement, the Australians, now enjoying number-one ranking, appreciate his amazing qualities and ask upcoming players to learn from him the tricks of the trade. At present, Pakistan’s Shoaib Akhtar, the fastest bowler in the game, is traversing through the Muralitharan travail in terms of his arm make-up. The terror that his lightning speed generates drives the opponents to keep their establishments going after him for an exit at any cost. Pakistan should draw a lesson from Sri Lanka’s tough stand a la Muralitharan to keep his magic alive.