| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Don't speak for Muslims |
| 2007-09-28 |
| By Saeed Naqvi Receiving the runners-up trophy at the end of the T20 final at the Wanderers cricket ground in Johannesburg, South Africa, Pakistan captain Shoaib Malik said, "I want to thank you back home (in) Pakistan and where the Muslim lives all over the world". Forget the poor articulation — the irony of the situation was stunning. The next person to walk up to Ravi Shastri, master of ceremonies, to receive the man of the match award for his crucial three wickets for India, was Irfan Pathan. The Pakistani captain was perhaps projecting the defeat as demoralising for the entire umma, whereas Pathan, after the award, ran around the ground with the Indian flag. Malik's flawed arti-culation points to a decline in the Pakistan team's ability to speak in English as well as Urdu. There is a considerable dip from the days of Imran Khan. By contrast, the Indian team comes across as sophisticated, on a par with some Sri Lankans and certainly better than the English team. Former pace bowler Javagal Srinath is almost profound on TV, while Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly are both fluent and intelligent in their observations. Many members of the young Indian team were raw, untutored lads two years ago. Peer pressure in the dressing room and outside has transformed, say, Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Pathan into articulate young men. Indian cricket has moved out of the metros to absorb players from smaller places, without losing its zip and cohesiveness. Religion has not contributed to this unity. Contrast all this with Malik's remark. Why did he have to burden his shoulders with the weight of the Muslim world, in the face of a cricketing reversal? Which Muslim world was he talking about? Pathan is not only a Muslim; his father is a muezzin in a mosque and Irfan grew up saying his prayers five times a day. My brother said of Pakistan that it is a nice place except that it is too full of Muslims. For an Indian Muslim it is a little tiring to be surrounded by Mohammad, Ahmad, Tahir, Salim, Salman. The society he has grown up in is more reflective of the Indian cricket team: Hindus, Christian, Sikh, Rajput, Brahmin, Muslim. Islamic credentials do not suffer for being situated in a multicultural mosaic. This yen for wearing their Islam on their sleeves is a function of Pakistan's original insecurity about national identity. This insecurity was aggravated in 1971 when Islam proved a weak glue to keep linguistic identities together and Bangladesh was born. In the early 70s when the skinheads embarked on racial attacks on Asians in the UK, the term used was ‘Paki bashing'. This again was a result of the Pakistani desire to obtrude just in case they were mixed-up with the non-Muslims from across the border. Pakistan as an entity first registered with the Englishmen when Fazal Mahmood won the Oval Test match in the 50s. Yet, the primary identities on the English mind were Indians and Sikhs until the rapid growth of halal meat shops, bachelor husbands with wives in Mirpur, and their persistent absence from the only adda of the Englishman — the pub. General Zia-ul-Haq introduced Nizam-e-Mustafa, the first Pakistani effort at a Shariah state. Thereafter, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the US combined to create a powerful Wahabi entity in Afghanistan with twin targets — Soviet Union and Shia Iran. Wahhabism tears Pakistani Islam away from the Sufi driven, tolerant Islam of the subcontinent. The project was to impart to Pakistan a more West Asian identity. This is bound to fail because the common languages of the region are Urdu, Punjabi, English, not Arabic. These twists and turns have created a confused Pakistani society. When Malik tries to speak for the Muslim world, he is only reflecting this confusion. Not so, Pathan. The writer is a political commentator. |
| Posted by:john frum |
| #1 Using atheletes as an example of a culture is certain to lead to letdown. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-09-28 12:20 |