Once more unto the breach

If the current political circus has proved anything at all, it is that this benighted country can no longer lay its trust in the institutions that have traditionally been regarded as the harbingers of change, such as the political parties or the judiciary. It is time to look for alternative sources of inspiration and for institutions such as the media to provide it.

Consider: any conversation about General Musharraf’s continuing power inevitably throws up the question, “but what are the alternatives?” This point is endlessly debated on the streets and in the media. The ‘experts’ called upon for comment are the same twenty-odd talking heads that we have been subjected to for years, some of whom were instrumental in creating the problems in the first place.

There are, however, over a thousand other people whose plans for the country’s future may be as worthy of being heard as those of the handful on our television screens. There are a hundred seats in the Senate, a total of 342 in the National Assembly, 371 in the Punjab Assembly, 168 in the Sindh Assembly and 124 and 65 seats in the NWFP and the Balochistan Assemblies respectively. Why are the majority of these people left out of the media debates? Each one represents a group of people that saw fit to appoint them to high office. They have varying degrees of power, credibility and even relevance, of course, but even the whittles have some experience of the political process and may have something valid to say. We’ll never know until we ask.

It is also worth pondering the fact that Pakistan currently has amongst the youngest parliaments in its history. Concurrently, the population figures also lean heavily towards the young. Factoring in birth and death rates, the 2005-06 Pakistan Economic Survey estimated that five people are added to the country’s population every single minute, a net increase by 2,890,000 individuals a year. Clearly, then, the next generation ought to have a say in its future. And therefore, the younger crop of politicians must be represented on television and in the newspapers.

Furthermore, it is useful to remember that behind every person who succeeded in being elected are many more that were defeated. Each of these has views on matters such as the policy changes required to effectively alleviate poverty, reduce crime or counter Talibanisation. Some of them may even have a plan, and some of these plans may actually be workable. Why do the media not find out?

In most parts of the world, it is usual for politicians to be asked pointed questions such as what they intend to do about the healthcare and education systems, foreign policy or immigration issues if they are elected. Such topics form the crux of election campaigns and hopefuls are expected to give specific, well-fleshed out answers, not spout general clichés about “working for the poor” or “improving the lot of the common man.”

When politicians are interviewed, they must be pressed into revealing their plan – if they have one – so that, for example, one can decide whether to vote for development through trade or through capacity building. I, for one, would like to see or read a debate about how the Labour Party would apply its apparently Marxist manifesto to Pakistan’s realities if it were ever voted into power.

Our great leaders have already informed us that the stakes for which they play are power and privilege – not for them the heavy burden of actual and widespread improvement. It may have something to do with the nature of high office … the altitude drives people mad.

Three little pigs went out to play and the wolf has already huffed and puffed and blown down the house of the littlest one.

Perhaps we should change plots and dispense with the animal kingdom.

— hmumtaz@dawn.com

Comment: Heroism is short-lived, Twenty20 is not

“Heroism is short-lived on this earth,” says Will Rogers. Two Pakistan cricketers we all know will see this aphorism contrastingly.

Twenty one years after he hit Chetan Sharma’s last ball for a six to win the Australiasia Cup in Sharjah, Javed Miandad’s heroism is still recalled with awe; for as long, perhaps forever, Misbah-ul-Haq’s mishit against Joginder Sharma in the final over of the Twenty20 World Cup will be recalled with regret. In Pakistan certainly.

Sport can be cruel. The gallantry of Misbah – who was actually instrumental in taking his side to the final - will be consigned to the rubbish heap of history. What will be remembered is how his one mistake, with victory only one stroke away, cost his country the title.

By now we have watched a zillion replays of how Pakistan were so near yet so far, but it bears repetition still. Within a handshake of immortality, Misbah-ul-Haq makes the cardinal error of ignoring the danger lurking behind him, goes in for a dramatic finish when a more pedestrian approach would have done.

He steps outside the line of off-stump and scoops a gentle outswinger from the nervous Joginder Singh to Sreesanth at short-fine leg. Suddenly, it’s all over for Pakistan.

But where did it all begin for India? Chroniclers will undoubtedly research this at length, and could find various leads. It could have been from the time a balanced team was chosen with a charismatic young man at the helm, or the morale boosting ‘bowl-out’ triumph over Pakistan in the first phase or was it the stunning upsets of England and Australia? Perhaps it was a combination of all this. Just perhaps it was the never-say-die approach of a bunch of youngsters whom nobody had given a hope in hell.The talent, the passion, the self-belief and the ambition which has marked India’s every performance in this tournament was never more in evidence than in the final. There were phases when Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s team looked out of the game. A couple of poor deliveries, some misfields, a dropped catch could have turned the game away from them irrevocably. But each time Pakistan looked like they had sealed the game, India clawed their way back - through resolve and derring-do - into contention, and finally snatched a memorable win.

Sehwag was injured, no matter, rookie Yusuf Pathan provided a quick start, took a good catch, fielded well in the deep and gave only five runs in the only over he bowled. The law of averages caught up with big striking Yuvraj and Dhoni, but no dismay. Gambhir, an unsung performer in this tournament, and Rohit Sharma, the dazzling new find, did enough to get the total to 157 and give the bowlers enough hope and scope.

Of these, trump card Harbhajan Singh had an off-day, and Sreesanth began erratically, but no worries. R.P. Singh and Irfan Pathan were outstanding, in varying their pace, line and length. Yusuf Pathan’s one over cost just five runs. Joginder, saddled with the responsibility of the last over again, held his nerve; just about. Sreesanth returned to bowl a splendid yorker that got rid of the dangerous Yasir Arafat in the nick of time. And, of course, there was Uthapa’s direct hit to run out the free-stroking Imran Nazir.

In a relatively low-scoring match, how the middle overs are played holds the key to the result. The scoring pattern reveals India were behind in the run rate in the first five overs (39 to Pakistan’s 47) and the last five (44 to Pak’s 55 off 4.3). This shows how effectively Dhoni’s team fought back after the opening blast from Imran Nazir, and the brutal late blast from Misbah.

Ultimately, it all boiled down to nerves. Which team would crumble under the pressure? The battle was ding-dong. Afridi’s mad blast first ball suggested that Pakistan were panicking, but Misbah’s calculated assault showed that they were willing to fight till the bitter end.

In the event, that metaphor became a reality for Pakistan. With victory just a stroke away, Misbah played a shot that may haunt him for a lifetime. He looked like the hero of the final with a succession of brilliant and audacious shots, now he will be remembered as the man who failed to clinch the game.

His heroism had been short-lived. As I said earlier, sport can be cruel.

But let’s dwell now on the tournament and this new format which could give the sport the kiss of life, and especially in the Indian sub-continent. After the debacle in the 50-over World Cup played in the Caribbean Isles where both India and Pakistan were knocked out in the first phase itself, cricket had hit a trough. Many grieving aficionados announced the demise of the game. ‘’It’s gone,’’ they mourned. Six months later, cricket had come roaring back.

It’s not only cricketers who were left gasping by the high octane action in the Twenty20 World Cup. Spectators – at the stadia, in sports bars, in their homes – were driven to euphoria and everybody connected with the game, everybody is now strategizing how to cash in one the craze. The cricket establishment – in Dubai, Mumbai, Lahore, London, Melbourne, everywhere - perhaps not believing its own luck, will obviously try and create more such opportunities to entertain and make money in the future.

“Twenty20 could give Bollywood a serious run for its money,’’ says former Indian captain Ravi Shastri, but only half in jest surely. While there might be few takers for a repeat of viewing a match, unlike movies which are high on such demand, the Twenty20 game perhaps exceeds the appeal of a movie as a first-time experience.

The action is high-pitched and non-stop, the time taken for a match to be played is that of an old-fashioned movie, and the performances are ‘real’. The latter attribute marks sport out as special any way, and when you have a format that is not intellectually demanding, easy to understand, its appeal will cut across gender and age groups. Add to this dollops of razzmatazz like pretty cheerleaders, music bands and dance troupes, and the sport has to be a winner through and through.

Does Twenty20 then spell the demise of Tests and ODIs? Could be, but the cricket establishment would hope not. The ICC and its constituent members would rather see this as the inducement for nations outside of the erstwhile Commonwealth to take to cricket.

Over a hundred years and more, the sport has struggled to find new markets, but the time taken and the slow-paced texture of cricket have always been constraints.

Research now suggests that the T-20 format could break these barriers and forays have been made into China, Japan, Latin America, America and parts of Asia and Africa previously untested. The results have been encouraging say ICC officials, claiming that they want to create as large a market for cricket as exists for football.

In a globalised world, where time is at a premium, it is clear that the traditional game will struggle to retain its hold, though my own view is that the 50-over game faces the bigger threat. Enter T-20, and suddenly cricket, played only by a dozen or so countries, reveals to potential to capture the world. Indeed, if the tumultuous climax seen in Johannesburg last week is any indication, it already has.

The Mumbai-based scribe is a leading sportswriter in India