There is more than a touch of irony in a situation in which Pakistan’s two mainstream parties intend to get rid of a man whose presence is responsible for their temporary alliance. An alliance so fragile that already divisiveness has begun to show. As of now Zardari’s PPP will form the government with the outside support of the PML-N. Nawas Sharif has  suddenly discovered that he can’t, without damaging his political integrity, join the government under a constitution that has been amended by Musharraf. However, Zardari’s formation of the government excluding Sharif defines, early on in the ongoing crisis, a distinction between the two parties which promises to grow.

Political role for Musharraf
Zardari’s party in office places him in relative proximity to the President and brings nearer the possibility of a PPP-PML(Q) plus assorted others coalition that will find favour in Washington. Yet, given that neither of the parties has revealed what their policies are the “support” of the one for the other has no meaning for the present. Will the supporter be able to manipulate the supported? And if differences emerge, as they are bound to do, Musharraf will have a political space in which to play a decisive role.

The fallout from the above is more chaos and instability than ever before, reducing the calls for Musharraf to “go” and for the “restoration of democracy” to a level of banality unparalleled in recent times. The disconnect between all this and reality on the ground is appaling.

The insurgency is getting stronger by the day. The economy is on edge. The energy crisis is severe and the problems of employment and inflation are challenging. Yet the pre-occupations of this precious pair have been confined to the impeachment of Musharraf, the replacement of judges by those dismissed by Musharraf and the reversal of the constitutional amendments.

The first is no more than political vendetta. The second involves time-consuming legal complexities apart from a two-thirds majority in Parliament and the ban on a third-term for Nawaz Sharif for which no one has any stomach. And the third is feasible only after the immediate problems of the day have been solved. Meanwhile the President remains armed with the authority to dismiss the PM and dissolve Parliament. Relations with the Army, fighting the insurgency, Afghanistan the nation’s military and economic dependence on the United States, and holding the country together against the disintegration threatened by an immature “democracy” are the major issues on which Sharif and Zardari have remained mum.

Architects of new Pakistan
In turn this has punctured the suphoria generated by the electoral numbers game. Nothing need to be said about Sharif’s and Zardari’s credentials as the architects of a supposedly new Pakistan and advocates of the new defunct charter of democracy. In contrast Musharraf has said emphatically that he isn’t a politician while displaying all the skills of a political leader under pressures to which there is nothing comparable elsewhere in the world.

All the fuss in the West held captive by its own “values” and among Musharraf’s opponents about the judiciary is spurious. Since 1954 no political authority in Pakistan has shown any respect for the judiciary, including Nawaz Sharif who “physically raided the Supreme Court”. Again in contrast Musharraf hasn’t hesitated to admit that his imposition of the emergency was extra-constitutional, and that “he is the sole arbiter of his fate and of his country’s fate. It is he who will decide how long he will stay at the top. He will go if the people want him no more of him, but it is he who will decide that the time has come to go.”

Put this alongside his January 12, 2002 speech and one has the impression of a man who is either a consummate actor or the only answer to his country’s problems. The most hated man in Pakistan? Does a populist leader necessarily have all the answers? As for Kayani he also is not a soldier-politician and one pictures him as someone who sees reality and recognises it what it is.

Americanised version of game
Groucho Marx was invited to watch a cricket match. After half an hour he asked: When does it begin? That is a question he wouldn’t ask a 20-twenty game. The latter has the immediate action any American could want. There are three sticks at each end of the pitch. There are batsmen and bowlers. There are fielders and umpires. So the picture is the same as before but it isn’t cricket. It has without the Americans realising it, been Americanised and is, among other things, the outcome of globalisation. So is Hayden’s remark that Harbhajan is an “obnoxious little weed”, language that one would expect from an adolescent.

Ishant Sharma has been fined for pointing to the pavilion, symbolising marching orders for Symonds whom he had dismissed. Ponting notably has done much the same in similar circumstances. Apparently the match referee hasn’t questioned Symonds. That is in line with how ICC deals with such matters.

Provocative remarks are as objectionable as the reaction they invite. But seemingly the ICC doesn’t agree. In the age of 20-Twenty, sledging which is a cover for abuse seems more appropriate than the good-natured banter of the past. So there is little point in inquiring who said something offensive first or second.

As for Tim Nielsen’s comment that sledging-cum-abuse is OK because the Aussies are the dominant team in the cricket world, its logic if any is rather baffling.