Peaceful Strokes
Chowk Staff March 11, 2004
#183 Posted by jang on March 24, 2004 11:52:12 am
I like Inzi the aaloo.. he sould be on the indian team being a veg and all. Other than that, everything else went according to the plan, including inzi looking like a deer in headlights when he won the toss...definately a bania conspiracy to lose the toss. The game was lost by Pakistani team because the Indians methodically exploited the weak spots. Pakistan had the killer chucking at its disposal, but the Indians had designed answers for the specific eventualities.. they knew that Soahib after 4 overs is a dud. Now to the long test-series.. the good news, is Ganguly may not play. Strangely, a moth-eaten end to the series.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#182 Posted by impressions on March 24, 2004 10:15:52 am
Now I dont want to gloat or anything but did I not say it was a huge mistake to bad mouth Pathan and Laxman?
See what happens??
See what happens??
#181 Posted by amit on March 24, 2004 10:15:52 am
Congrats to the Indian team for a tremendous victory. I wonder how hamidm is feeling today seeing madrasis (laxman, balaji) team up with a pathan to deliver this result !!
Congrats to the Pak team as well for an excellent series and particularly, congrats to the Pakistani people for being such gracious hosts.
Congrats to the Pak team as well for an excellent series and particularly, congrats to the Pakistani people for being such gracious hosts.
#180 Posted by impressions on March 24, 2004 10:15:51 am
The humanising factor
By: Amit Varma
March 24, 2004
Is it sport or is it war? Whenever India and Pakistan play each other in cricket, the media talks of the game as a metaphor for war – and perversely, with a sense of glee and anticipation. (A random example: MJ Akbar, writing in Time magazine, described this India-Pakistan series as ``a war guaranteed to drive millions of people delirious``. War and delirious?) Leave aside the moralistic angle of how we trivialise something as serious as war by comparing it with a mere sport; the fact is, the feelings that India-Pakistan cricket inspires are extreme, and sentiments like pride and honour are affected by victory or defeat, much as they would be in a war.
Sport between these two countries has always been played with nationalistic fervour – and even fear. Many of the early Tests between India and Pakistan were drawn, with both teams showing an excess of caution, petrified of losing to their neighbour. A loss against any other team didn`t matter – both teams were habitual losers until the seventies – but a defeat to their neighbour rankled deeply. Abbas Ali Baig`s promising career is said to have been derailed because of an average run of scores against Pakistan, when a similar streak against any other side would not have mattered. Javed Miandad`s last-ball six off Chetan Sharma still rankles in the Indian psyche as a low point for the nation. World Cup after World Cup, Indians treated their game against Pakistan with as much importance as the tournament itself, not caring if they lost the Cup, as long as they beat Pakistan. When Pakistan lost the 1996 World Cup match in Bangalore, the house of their great hero, Wasim Akram, was stoned.
Sport has always been described it terms of war. Games are often described as ``battles``, and teams are often said to have been ``routed``, ``slaughtered``, ``demolished``, in a vocabulary of alpha-male aggression. ``Sport is an unfailing cause of ill-will,`` George Orwell once said. In an essay written in 1945, at the tail end of a real war, he elaborated:
``I am always amazed when I hear people saying that sport creates goodwill between the nations, and that if only the common peoples of the world could meet one another at football or cricket, they would have no inclination to meet on the battlefield. Even if one didn`t know from concrete examples (the 1936 Olympic Games, for instance) that international sporting contests lead to orgies of hatred, one could deduce it from general principles.``
The point Orwell went on to make was that all sport was competitive, and involved winning or losing, and thus pride. A sport between nations, thus, took on bigger proportions, as it involved national pride – much as war would. He called it ``mimic warfare``. But having said that, while many other bi-national rivalries exist in sport – the Ashes in cricket, Brazil-Argentina in soccer et al – none are quite so fierce and filled with ``ill-will`` as that between India and Pakistan.
So should India play Pakistan in cricket as long as emotions in the countries run so high? Much of the recent impasses between the two countries have been due to political posturing. If we leave politics aside for a moment, and I accept that we can never entirely do that, there are still good reasons for and against India-Pakistan cricket. I am agnostic on that issue: I have an argument on each side of the subject, and I am undecided which has more merit. Let me lay them both out here.
Zero-sum game in a non-zero-sum world:
Orwell`s case that sport between nations is like war has backing in terms of both evolutionary psychology and game theory, fields which had yet to take off in his lifetime. Sport and war are both, as the terminology goes, zero-sum games. If two parties are involved, then for one to gain something, the other must lose. Both cannot gain from the encounter, just as both India and Pakistan cannot win the same match. To gain something, one must defeat – and thus, humiliate, as national pride is involved – the other.
But the military and sporting paradigms do not reflect how civilisation, and societies, evolve. Economic and social progress, to use the phrase coined by Robert Wright, are a ``non-zero-sum game``. If two parties interact, both stand to benefit if they co-operate with each other, and it is, in fact, for our own benefit that we should help the other. (As Adam Smith famously put it, ``It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their self-interest.``) The basis of modern capitalism – and its success, compared to socialist and communitarian systems – lies is recognising the non-zero-sumness of progress.
Sport and war, thus, function on a different paradigm than society does. India and Pakistan, in virtually every sphere – economic, social, cultural – stand to gain from interaction and co-operation with each other. But sport emphasises zero-sumness – that one can gain only at the expense of the other, which is a regressive notion.
More than just mimic warfare
If the twentieth century was one in which international sport flourished, it was also one in which, sadly, war took on new proportions. Warfare has been a recurring feature in human history, but in the twentieth century it was played out on an astonishingly large scale. Vast amounts of cruelty – from the gulags to the Final Solution to the atrocities in China and Cambodia and Yugoslavia and Rwanda, among countless others, including what continues today in West Africa – were accompanied by vast amounts of indifference, as masses of people stood by and did nothing to protest against the most inhuman behaviour. Why were they so silent?
Jonathan Glover, a philosopher, raised just this question in his book, Humanity: A Moral History of the 20th Century. Glover postulated that the cause of the indifference was the ``degradation`` of the victims: their status or cleanliness, or both, was taken away, and they were thus stripped of their personhood. In Nazi Germany, herding the Jews into ghettoes, and making them wear the Star of David for identification, was just such a method of dehumanising them. Making racial jokes, dressing up a group of people in humiliating outfits – like prison garb – serves the same purpose. And so did ancient India`s caste system, where the Sudra caste was effectively reduced to the status of non-human by virtue of being treated as dirty and untouchable.
For Indians and Pakistanis, the people of the other nationality have been dehumanised thus, through decades of mutual distrust and nationalistic propaganda. (Some of it has come from popular cinema; witness the mindless stereotyping of Pakistanis done in the monster hit, Gadar, and a legion of similar films.) But the switch from ``person`` to ``non-person`` can be thrown both ways, as in that famous example of a soldier who sees a fleeing opponent holding up his trousers while running, a sign of humanity that flips the mental switch from ``fascist`` to ``person``. This is why intellectuals in both India and Pakistan stress the importance of people-to-people contact, so that the other can be seen as human again, and one can feel empathy with them.
Sport can play a part in this process. The more we see of our opponents, the more we are exposed to their humanness, and the less the mythic differences seem. The cricketing skills on display, the emotions on the field, all draw us towards the other side – and the appreciation can sometimes go beyond national pride. The spontaneous applause that the Pakistan team got from the Chennai crowds after they won the enthralling Test there in 1999 is a great example of that.
Exposure to cricketers and ex-cricketers from the other country also helps us feel warmer towards them. Witness Sunil Gavaskar`s popularity in Pakistan, which goes beyond his 1992 prediction that Pakistan would win the World Cup that year. Imran Khan and Zaheer Abbas have enjoyed similar popularity in India, and Wasim Akram and Ravi Shastri, in `The Shaz and Waz Show`, the popular TV program that ran during the India-Australia series, are a perfect example of a Pakistani and an Indian working together to mutual benefit, in a non-zero-sum interaction. If cricket can be played between the two countries regularly, then perhaps it can move from being a metaphor for war to a vehicle of peace.
By: Amit Varma
March 24, 2004
Is it sport or is it war? Whenever India and Pakistan play each other in cricket, the media talks of the game as a metaphor for war – and perversely, with a sense of glee and anticipation. (A random example: MJ Akbar, writing in Time magazine, described this India-Pakistan series as ``a war guaranteed to drive millions of people delirious``. War and delirious?) Leave aside the moralistic angle of how we trivialise something as serious as war by comparing it with a mere sport; the fact is, the feelings that India-Pakistan cricket inspires are extreme, and sentiments like pride and honour are affected by victory or defeat, much as they would be in a war.
Sport between these two countries has always been played with nationalistic fervour – and even fear. Many of the early Tests between India and Pakistan were drawn, with both teams showing an excess of caution, petrified of losing to their neighbour. A loss against any other team didn`t matter – both teams were habitual losers until the seventies – but a defeat to their neighbour rankled deeply. Abbas Ali Baig`s promising career is said to have been derailed because of an average run of scores against Pakistan, when a similar streak against any other side would not have mattered. Javed Miandad`s last-ball six off Chetan Sharma still rankles in the Indian psyche as a low point for the nation. World Cup after World Cup, Indians treated their game against Pakistan with as much importance as the tournament itself, not caring if they lost the Cup, as long as they beat Pakistan. When Pakistan lost the 1996 World Cup match in Bangalore, the house of their great hero, Wasim Akram, was stoned.
Sport has always been described it terms of war. Games are often described as ``battles``, and teams are often said to have been ``routed``, ``slaughtered``, ``demolished``, in a vocabulary of alpha-male aggression. ``Sport is an unfailing cause of ill-will,`` George Orwell once said. In an essay written in 1945, at the tail end of a real war, he elaborated:
``I am always amazed when I hear people saying that sport creates goodwill between the nations, and that if only the common peoples of the world could meet one another at football or cricket, they would have no inclination to meet on the battlefield. Even if one didn`t know from concrete examples (the 1936 Olympic Games, for instance) that international sporting contests lead to orgies of hatred, one could deduce it from general principles.``
The point Orwell went on to make was that all sport was competitive, and involved winning or losing, and thus pride. A sport between nations, thus, took on bigger proportions, as it involved national pride – much as war would. He called it ``mimic warfare``. But having said that, while many other bi-national rivalries exist in sport – the Ashes in cricket, Brazil-Argentina in soccer et al – none are quite so fierce and filled with ``ill-will`` as that between India and Pakistan.
So should India play Pakistan in cricket as long as emotions in the countries run so high? Much of the recent impasses between the two countries have been due to political posturing. If we leave politics aside for a moment, and I accept that we can never entirely do that, there are still good reasons for and against India-Pakistan cricket. I am agnostic on that issue: I have an argument on each side of the subject, and I am undecided which has more merit. Let me lay them both out here.
Zero-sum game in a non-zero-sum world:
Orwell`s case that sport between nations is like war has backing in terms of both evolutionary psychology and game theory, fields which had yet to take off in his lifetime. Sport and war are both, as the terminology goes, zero-sum games. If two parties are involved, then for one to gain something, the other must lose. Both cannot gain from the encounter, just as both India and Pakistan cannot win the same match. To gain something, one must defeat – and thus, humiliate, as national pride is involved – the other.
But the military and sporting paradigms do not reflect how civilisation, and societies, evolve. Economic and social progress, to use the phrase coined by Robert Wright, are a ``non-zero-sum game``. If two parties interact, both stand to benefit if they co-operate with each other, and it is, in fact, for our own benefit that we should help the other. (As Adam Smith famously put it, ``It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their self-interest.``) The basis of modern capitalism – and its success, compared to socialist and communitarian systems – lies is recognising the non-zero-sumness of progress.
Sport and war, thus, function on a different paradigm than society does. India and Pakistan, in virtually every sphere – economic, social, cultural – stand to gain from interaction and co-operation with each other. But sport emphasises zero-sumness – that one can gain only at the expense of the other, which is a regressive notion.
More than just mimic warfare
If the twentieth century was one in which international sport flourished, it was also one in which, sadly, war took on new proportions. Warfare has been a recurring feature in human history, but in the twentieth century it was played out on an astonishingly large scale. Vast amounts of cruelty – from the gulags to the Final Solution to the atrocities in China and Cambodia and Yugoslavia and Rwanda, among countless others, including what continues today in West Africa – were accompanied by vast amounts of indifference, as masses of people stood by and did nothing to protest against the most inhuman behaviour. Why were they so silent?
Jonathan Glover, a philosopher, raised just this question in his book, Humanity: A Moral History of the 20th Century. Glover postulated that the cause of the indifference was the ``degradation`` of the victims: their status or cleanliness, or both, was taken away, and they were thus stripped of their personhood. In Nazi Germany, herding the Jews into ghettoes, and making them wear the Star of David for identification, was just such a method of dehumanising them. Making racial jokes, dressing up a group of people in humiliating outfits – like prison garb – serves the same purpose. And so did ancient India`s caste system, where the Sudra caste was effectively reduced to the status of non-human by virtue of being treated as dirty and untouchable.
For Indians and Pakistanis, the people of the other nationality have been dehumanised thus, through decades of mutual distrust and nationalistic propaganda. (Some of it has come from popular cinema; witness the mindless stereotyping of Pakistanis done in the monster hit, Gadar, and a legion of similar films.) But the switch from ``person`` to ``non-person`` can be thrown both ways, as in that famous example of a soldier who sees a fleeing opponent holding up his trousers while running, a sign of humanity that flips the mental switch from ``fascist`` to ``person``. This is why intellectuals in both India and Pakistan stress the importance of people-to-people contact, so that the other can be seen as human again, and one can feel empathy with them.
Sport can play a part in this process. The more we see of our opponents, the more we are exposed to their humanness, and the less the mythic differences seem. The cricketing skills on display, the emotions on the field, all draw us towards the other side – and the appreciation can sometimes go beyond national pride. The spontaneous applause that the Pakistan team got from the Chennai crowds after they won the enthralling Test there in 1999 is a great example of that.
Exposure to cricketers and ex-cricketers from the other country also helps us feel warmer towards them. Witness Sunil Gavaskar`s popularity in Pakistan, which goes beyond his 1992 prediction that Pakistan would win the World Cup that year. Imran Khan and Zaheer Abbas have enjoyed similar popularity in India, and Wasim Akram and Ravi Shastri, in `The Shaz and Waz Show`, the popular TV program that ran during the India-Australia series, are a perfect example of a Pakistani and an Indian working together to mutual benefit, in a non-zero-sum interaction. If cricket can be played between the two countries regularly, then perhaps it can move from being a metaphor for war to a vehicle of peace.
#179 Posted by nazarhayatkhan on March 24, 2004 10:15:51 am
Bad Wednessday
Hazy. Moths. And the Indians taking good catches - congrats.
Only silver lining is making some money out of the Indian tourists - the only tourists willing to come - need to promote this ``nostalgia tourism``.
Similarly, India needs to open up its Visas to Pakistanis - costs much little to be a tourist in India. And no language, food problems.
#178 Posted by rozaiba on March 24, 2004 9:17:21 am
Unfortunately Pakistan lost. Not a good result.
Congradulations India!
Congradulations India!
#177 Posted by amit on March 23, 2004 3:57:58 pm
Re:#176
Ijaz, the comon man in Pakistan wants good relations with India. This is quite evident from the crowd behavior in Karachi, Rawalpindi, Peshawar and Lahore. Nobody asked all these people to be nice to Indians. It is coming from their heart. The brutality of partition happened because regular people did not want to live together. Today we are becoming friends because regular people want to be friends. The Pakistani elite and their corresponding counterparts in India are being dragged to the realization that the common man is fed up with confrontation and wants good, friendly relations. The negative elements will try their best to ruin this beautiful turn of events, but God willing, it will never go back to the way it was. As the saying goes - Muddai lakh bura chahey to kya hota hai, wohi hota hai jo manzoor-e-khuda hota hai
Ijaz, the comon man in Pakistan wants good relations with India. This is quite evident from the crowd behavior in Karachi, Rawalpindi, Peshawar and Lahore. Nobody asked all these people to be nice to Indians. It is coming from their heart. The brutality of partition happened because regular people did not want to live together. Today we are becoming friends because regular people want to be friends. The Pakistani elite and their corresponding counterparts in India are being dragged to the realization that the common man is fed up with confrontation and wants good, friendly relations. The negative elements will try their best to ruin this beautiful turn of events, but God willing, it will never go back to the way it was. As the saying goes - Muddai lakh bura chahey to kya hota hai, wohi hota hai jo manzoor-e-khuda hota hai
#176 Posted by ijaz_gul on March 23, 2004 6:45:34 am
Tust to remind, here is my analysis again.
#11 by ijaz_gul on March 12, 2004 9:04am PT
I feel the major difference will be in the attitudes of the key players and foolhardy attitude of showmanship performers like Afridi, Shoaib and Nazir. These players will have to keep their heads smaller than the game to produce consistent performances.
The corridor of uncertainity will remain a real test with India using three left arm seamers. Just recollect how Nehra teased the Pakistani players in the World Cup.
Despite boasting slow wickets, our performance against spinners of late has been pathetic. Even a mediocre like Stuart McGill, knocked the hell out of us. At Karachi, our players made a demon out of Giles. Right now we boast no world class spin bowler. Saqlain is not in the right frame.
Shuffling before the wicket and moving on the backfoot to low balls will produce many a LBW decisions and the coach ought to be worried about it. Both Inzi and Yousaf will be vulnerable to both factors early in the innings.
Saqlain somehow has lost his rhythm. Bowling with success to mediocre county batsmen in England on a different line and lenght has reduced his effectiveness. He had perhaps needed dedicated coaching to unlearn the county cricket and rediscover his old form, but alas!.
Though Shoaib will remain lethal in patches and Sami comme ci comme ca, the most teasing ones will be Shabbir and Umer Gul. On home wickets, Razzaqs over pitched ball hit for a six in Australia can become deadly.
It is most dangerous that India has gone through the dip in the very first match. They will need seaming wickets to go down again. Ours are equally bad on that. So where are our strenghts? I am sure someone must have thought of it. I am not so sure.
#11 by ijaz_gul on March 12, 2004 9:04am PT
I feel the major difference will be in the attitudes of the key players and foolhardy attitude of showmanship performers like Afridi, Shoaib and Nazir. These players will have to keep their heads smaller than the game to produce consistent performances.
The corridor of uncertainity will remain a real test with India using three left arm seamers. Just recollect how Nehra teased the Pakistani players in the World Cup.
Despite boasting slow wickets, our performance against spinners of late has been pathetic. Even a mediocre like Stuart McGill, knocked the hell out of us. At Karachi, our players made a demon out of Giles. Right now we boast no world class spin bowler. Saqlain is not in the right frame.
Shuffling before the wicket and moving on the backfoot to low balls will produce many a LBW decisions and the coach ought to be worried about it. Both Inzi and Yousaf will be vulnerable to both factors early in the innings.
Saqlain somehow has lost his rhythm. Bowling with success to mediocre county batsmen in England on a different line and lenght has reduced his effectiveness. He had perhaps needed dedicated coaching to unlearn the county cricket and rediscover his old form, but alas!.
Though Shoaib will remain lethal in patches and Sami comme ci comme ca, the most teasing ones will be Shabbir and Umer Gul. On home wickets, Razzaqs over pitched ball hit for a six in Australia can become deadly.
It is most dangerous that India has gone through the dip in the very first match. They will need seaming wickets to go down again. Ours are equally bad on that. So where are our strenghts? I am sure someone must have thought of it. I am not so sure.
#175 Posted by ijaz_gul on March 23, 2004 6:45:34 am
bongdong, thats it!
Sponsors and friends` friends
By MA Niazi
Well, as I suspected, this One-Day Peace series between India and Pakistan is poised at 2-2. It had to. Apart from the fact that the teams seems quite evenly matched, it`s in the sponsors` interest. Look at it this way. If Pakistan had won this match, it would have won the series, and the final match would be what they`ve started calling a `dead match,` with no effect on the series, and with only pride at stake. So viewers wouldn`t have been attracted to the television, and advertisers would not be able to convince them to buy their stuff.
This series isn`t about cricket, or even diplomacy and politics. It`s about advertising. That`s why a South Korean company competed so hard with a Japanese to be sponsors. I mean, they don`t know anything at all about cricket in South Korea or Japan. They know football and hockey better. But catch them sponsoring either of those two much neglected games. Clearly, there`s no love of the game involved, just cold calculated greed.
So Pakistan lost the first match at the Gaddafi Stadium, not because the bookies had it fixed, but because the sponsors wanted it that way. Going by that, the last match should be an Indian win, because the sponsors are out there selling to the Indian middle class, which is about twice the size of Pakistan`s total population, and Pakistan`s middle class, in the national interest, which has been defined by the IMF and the World Bank, now hardly exists.
I didn`t go to the match, just as I haven`t done for years, because I don`t want to get into the whole parking and seating mess. About 20 years ago, I was quite a regular. In those days, a day`s play in the General Stand, on the bleachers, cost Rs 10, and you could get a five-day ticket for Rs 30. That was barely affordable, and it wasn`t much of a hassle. If you went a couple of days in advance of a Test, even if it was against the West Indies or Australia, you went up to this hole in the Stadium wall, and after a few minutes, someone would come and give you a ticket. There was usually a crowd on the day itself, but if you went early enough, you could get in quite easily, and take a seat at the midwicket boundary (from the College end). The College, by the way, is FC College, and it used to be a reasonably small walk from there, through the gap in the barbed wire fence near the Halls (as FC`s hostels are known). Obviously, we`d be bunking classes, but no pain, no gain, as they say.
The focus on cricket has cloaked two important events. First, the Indian invasion of Lahore, which has been on for a couple of months, and which is going to go on. Industry, trade, media, film, politicians: they`re all over here. In fact, the only Indian occupational group which hasn`t swarmed over the border is the Indian Army. I wonder what`s keeping them? The sort of welcome the other Indians have been getting should have guaranteed a warm welcome to the Indian soldiery, after all. I mean, have you seen the fraternal feeling between the Indian and Pakistani paramilitaries at Wagah? All you see is them exchanging baskets of sweets at the drop of a hat.
The second event also has to do with our brave paramilitary forces, but on the Western border. No, not their relations with the Afghan paramilitaries (who are actually US troops in disguise), but with their fellow citizens, the tribesmen of the North and South Waziristan Agencies. Them they are pounding with artillery and helicopter gunships. Barfi for Indians, bullets for Pakistanis. They`re guilty of hiding foreign terrorists. Well, if we can give the Indian BSF, who are terrorising the Kashmiri people, rasgullahs, why do Pakistani citizens who harbour foreign freedom fighters deserve rockets?
The key is that our friends are America`s friends: Afghan quislings are American friends, Indians terrorising Kashmiris are American friends, so they are our friends. And those who oppose them are our enemies. Fine. Let`s live with that, and get on with the important things in life. Like who`s going to win the last ODI. Does anything else matter?
Sponsors and friends` friends
By MA Niazi
Well, as I suspected, this One-Day Peace series between India and Pakistan is poised at 2-2. It had to. Apart from the fact that the teams seems quite evenly matched, it`s in the sponsors` interest. Look at it this way. If Pakistan had won this match, it would have won the series, and the final match would be what they`ve started calling a `dead match,` with no effect on the series, and with only pride at stake. So viewers wouldn`t have been attracted to the television, and advertisers would not be able to convince them to buy their stuff.
This series isn`t about cricket, or even diplomacy and politics. It`s about advertising. That`s why a South Korean company competed so hard with a Japanese to be sponsors. I mean, they don`t know anything at all about cricket in South Korea or Japan. They know football and hockey better. But catch them sponsoring either of those two much neglected games. Clearly, there`s no love of the game involved, just cold calculated greed.
So Pakistan lost the first match at the Gaddafi Stadium, not because the bookies had it fixed, but because the sponsors wanted it that way. Going by that, the last match should be an Indian win, because the sponsors are out there selling to the Indian middle class, which is about twice the size of Pakistan`s total population, and Pakistan`s middle class, in the national interest, which has been defined by the IMF and the World Bank, now hardly exists.
I didn`t go to the match, just as I haven`t done for years, because I don`t want to get into the whole parking and seating mess. About 20 years ago, I was quite a regular. In those days, a day`s play in the General Stand, on the bleachers, cost Rs 10, and you could get a five-day ticket for Rs 30. That was barely affordable, and it wasn`t much of a hassle. If you went a couple of days in advance of a Test, even if it was against the West Indies or Australia, you went up to this hole in the Stadium wall, and after a few minutes, someone would come and give you a ticket. There was usually a crowd on the day itself, but if you went early enough, you could get in quite easily, and take a seat at the midwicket boundary (from the College end). The College, by the way, is FC College, and it used to be a reasonably small walk from there, through the gap in the barbed wire fence near the Halls (as FC`s hostels are known). Obviously, we`d be bunking classes, but no pain, no gain, as they say.
The focus on cricket has cloaked two important events. First, the Indian invasion of Lahore, which has been on for a couple of months, and which is going to go on. Industry, trade, media, film, politicians: they`re all over here. In fact, the only Indian occupational group which hasn`t swarmed over the border is the Indian Army. I wonder what`s keeping them? The sort of welcome the other Indians have been getting should have guaranteed a warm welcome to the Indian soldiery, after all. I mean, have you seen the fraternal feeling between the Indian and Pakistani paramilitaries at Wagah? All you see is them exchanging baskets of sweets at the drop of a hat.
The second event also has to do with our brave paramilitary forces, but on the Western border. No, not their relations with the Afghan paramilitaries (who are actually US troops in disguise), but with their fellow citizens, the tribesmen of the North and South Waziristan Agencies. Them they are pounding with artillery and helicopter gunships. Barfi for Indians, bullets for Pakistanis. They`re guilty of hiding foreign terrorists. Well, if we can give the Indian BSF, who are terrorising the Kashmiri people, rasgullahs, why do Pakistani citizens who harbour foreign freedom fighters deserve rockets?
The key is that our friends are America`s friends: Afghan quislings are American friends, Indians terrorising Kashmiris are American friends, so they are our friends. And those who oppose them are our enemies. Fine. Let`s live with that, and get on with the important things in life. Like who`s going to win the last ODI. Does anything else matter?
#174 Posted by nazarhayatkhan on March 23, 2004 6:45:33 am
Pakistani women cricket team playing with West Indians. Not many people even know about it?
#173 Posted by faz on March 22, 2004 11:34:50 pm
Anyone who thinks that the extras are an indication of match fixing probably missed the stat line for those two games that we (pak) did win. We`re definitely gifting the Indian`s a 12th batsmen (extra`s) and the problem has plagued our team the whole series, win or lose.
I think people need to chill and enjoy (albeit for Pakis its frustrating at times) the great cricket instead of trying to discount the effort by the Indians and our homeboys.
I think people need to chill and enjoy (albeit for Pakis its frustrating at times) the great cricket instead of trying to discount the effort by the Indians and our homeboys.
#172 Posted by Brat on March 22, 2004 1:21:38 pm
impressions:
I had just read an article about the `Prince` and was sort of walking towards similar reasoning as the one you outlined, so thanks for elaborating :) I didn`t realise the extent of this mental pressure tactic, but you are right. And one thing is for sure that professionalism suits Indian team, no one likes to see (Sidhu`s) - Indians falling like Cycles on a Cycle stand.
Farzana:
Lahore game 1:
At one point the bowlers came too close for comfort. I mean Yuvraj Singh was also gone, and if they had taken just one more crucial wicket - Dravid - we were done for and out of the series. (Sometimes the others can pitch in and perform but you can`t count on it). I think that was what they were pushing for - but careful play on Dravid`s part (and I think luck that no wild ball came his way) kept us in the game. I think Dravid has this assured stance that might have come across to the Pakistani team and they may have given up - that`s what i see as the reason for the wide margin.
Second - I think bowlers tend to go after wickets - and disregard extras - at their own peril. We gave them 30 extras!
I think you may be right in one sense - both teams have been told to `play nice` so if they seem to be losing - they may resort to - `ok well all in the name of friendship/orders from above` - and not be out there wanting to devour one another.
I certainly don`t doubt the motivations BJP may have had.
jang:
`` In addition, Advani will be in the stands, to put more pressure from BJP (somehow). ``
If that`s all it takes - cricket crazy public will demand that the entire party go to the Australia matches.
I had just read an article about the `Prince` and was sort of walking towards similar reasoning as the one you outlined, so thanks for elaborating :) I didn`t realise the extent of this mental pressure tactic, but you are right. And one thing is for sure that professionalism suits Indian team, no one likes to see (Sidhu`s) - Indians falling like Cycles on a Cycle stand.
Farzana:
Lahore game 1:
At one point the bowlers came too close for comfort. I mean Yuvraj Singh was also gone, and if they had taken just one more crucial wicket - Dravid - we were done for and out of the series. (Sometimes the others can pitch in and perform but you can`t count on it). I think that was what they were pushing for - but careful play on Dravid`s part (and I think luck that no wild ball came his way) kept us in the game. I think Dravid has this assured stance that might have come across to the Pakistani team and they may have given up - that`s what i see as the reason for the wide margin.
Second - I think bowlers tend to go after wickets - and disregard extras - at their own peril. We gave them 30 extras!
I think you may be right in one sense - both teams have been told to `play nice` so if they seem to be losing - they may resort to - `ok well all in the name of friendship/orders from above` - and not be out there wanting to devour one another.
I certainly don`t doubt the motivations BJP may have had.
jang:
`` In addition, Advani will be in the stands, to put more pressure from BJP (somehow). ``
If that`s all it takes - cricket crazy public will demand that the entire party go to the Australia matches.
#171 Posted by bongdongs on March 22, 2004 11:57:08 am
A didnt know Farzana wrote for the Nation (under a ``nome de gurre`` of course)
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/Mar-2004/22/national/lhr6.asp
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/Mar-2004/22/national/lhr6.asp
#170 Posted by jang on March 22, 2004 11:57:07 am
Ferzi is really unhappy that hindi-pakis are getting bhai-bhai and bjp is actually gaining political milage out of this. If this goes on, soon pakis will stop saying mashallah-subhanallah to her articles. These are disturbing times.
#169 Posted by MaheshG2 on March 22, 2004 11:38:53 am
Jang mian, your posts are hilarious. Thank you!
#168 Posted by soysauce on March 22, 2004 11:38:53 am
#166 jang
Haha. You left out the part about indians needing to be more self critical..
Haha. You left out the part about indians needing to be more self critical..
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- dost_mittar: dehliwala#48: I am not a... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- dost_mittar: GT#47: Yes, we do and... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- guru: Ahmed, We had come to... Dhokha and Being a
- sattar2: tahir bhai (re #408),... Of Medical Students, Passports
- guru: Re: # 283 "After... Dhokha and Being a
- mohar11: looks like Guru kicked... Dhokha and Being a
- guru: Ahmed, Mind also this the... Dhokha and Being a
- delhiwala: Dear DM sahib: It is... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
