Bangladesh beat Sri Lanka to face Pakistan in Asia Cup final

Bangladeshi cricketers celebrate after winning the match during the one day international Asia Cup cricket match between Bangladesh and Sri Lanka at the Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium in Dhaka on Tuesday

DHAKA: Tamim Iqbal and Shakib Al Hasan smashed brisk half-centuries as Bangladesh qualified for the Asia Cup final to face Pakistan with a remarkable five-wicket victory over Sri Lanka in Dhaka on Tuesday.
Tamim celebrated his 23rd birthday with a 57-ball 59 and Shakib hit a 46-ball 56 as the hosts achieved the rain revised target of 212 with 17 balls to spare in the day-night match, watched by Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.
Bangladesh’s victory — only their third over Sri Lanka in 30 one-day internationals — sees them through to meet Pakistan in the final on Thursday.
Pakistan topped the league with nine points from three matches, followed by Bangladesh (8/3), India (8/3) and Sri Lanka (0/3).
The hosts made it to the final as they beat India in the league match.
Bangladesh were struggling at 40-3 following two wickets from paceman Nuwan Kulasekara before Tamim and Shakib put on 76 for the fourth wicket to raise their team’s hopes.
Tamim was caught by Lahiru Thirimanne at point while attempting to cut off-spinner Sachithra Senanayake after hitting nine fours in his third successive half-century.
The hosts suffered another setback when Senanayake dismissed well-set Shakib, trapped leg-before after hitting seven fours.
But Nasir Hossain (36 not out) and Mohammad Mahmudullah (32 not out) added 77 runs for the unfinished sixth-wicket stand to steer their team home, much to the delight of a capacity crowd at the Sher-e-Bangla stadium.
Bangladesh earlier put in a disciplined bowling performance to restrict Sri Lanka to a modest total, with paceman Nazmul Hossain (3-32) and left-arm spinners Abdur Razzak (2-44) and Shakib (2-56) being the main wicket-takers.
Nazmul rocked Sri Lanka in his sharp six-over opening spell, removing skipper Mahela Jayawardene (five), Tillakaratne Dilshan (19) and Kumar Sangakkara (six) to send the tourists reeling at 32-3.
Chamara Kapugedera (62) and Thirimanne (48) steadied the innings with an 88-run stand for the fourth wicket, but were not allowed to score freely by the Bangladeshi bowlers.
Upul Tharanga was the other main scorer, scoring a 44-ball 48 with one six and five fours.
Fast bowler Mashrafe Mortaza was the other bowler to impress, conceding only 30 runs in his tight 9.5 overs.
Thirimanne hit just three fours in his 73-ball knock before he was stumped off Razzak, the ball rolling on to the wickets after hitting wicket-keeper Mushfiqur Rahim’s pad.
Kapugedera struck only four boundaries in a 92-ball knock for his eighth half-century in one-dayers before falling to a low catch in the covers by Shakib off Razzak.

Commission directs Husain Haqqani to appear on March 26

ISLAMABAD: The Memo Commission constituted, pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, that Mansoor Ijaz has concluded his evidence and that Husain Haqqani has not carried out the admission or denial of documents.
The commission observed that Haqqani has repeatedly been indulged to comply and granted him three opportunities to complete the exercise, said a press release issued on Tuesday.
However, in the interest of justice, a fourth and last opportunity was granted to Haqqani to complete the admission and denial of all documents, to be produced by 5 p.m. London time (10 p.m. Pakistan time) on Wednesday, March 21, 2012.
In case of a failure to comply by the said date and time, it will be presumed that its is an admission by Haqqani.
The Commission further observed that Haqqani said before the Supreme Court he would return to Pakistan on four days notice and appear before the Commission to record his evidence.
The Commission directed that the recording of Haqqani’s evidence will commence on Monday, March 26, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. (Pakistan time) at the premises of the Islamabad High Court.
In case Haqqani has any security concerns, it shall be conveyed to the Attorney General who is directed to ensure that he is provided with complete security.

US supports ‘mutual respect’ with Pakistan: Nuland

The Pakistani parliamentary commission had also demanded an end to American drone strikes inside the country and is seeking an unconditional apology for the Nato attack that killed 24 soldiers in Pakistan

WASHINGTON: The United States on Tuesday said it supported calls by Pakistan for mutual respect but held off a formal response to a parliamentary demand for an apology over a deadly air raid.
Pakistani lawmakers earlier on Tuesday called for taxes on Nato convoys and demanded an apology for the November raid near the border that killed 24 soldiers, plunging relations between the war partners to a new low.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters that the United States would not comment in-depth on the long-awaited Pakistani report on US relations until it comes up for debate in parliament next week.
But she said: “We also have always considered that our relationship should be grounded on the basis of mutual respect and common interest.” “We believe that we have a lot to do together, not only in combating terrorism and creating more security, but in strengthening and promoting economic prosperity, democratic development inside Pakistan and in strengthening Pakistan as a good neighbor throughout the region,” she said.
The United States sent its condolences over the November air strikes, but stopped short of an apology.
Nato expressed regret over what it called a “tragic unintended incident.” Pakistan closed its Afghan border after the air strikes, the latest deterioration in a relationship that came under new scrutiny after US forces found and killed Osama bin Laden living inside Pakistan in May.

N. Korea seeking to develop nuclear missile: Seoul

SEOUL:South Korea accused North Korea Monday of trying to develop a nuclear-armed missile through a satellite launch next month, after Pyongyang dismissed international calls to abandon the exercise.

“Our government defines North Korea’s so-called working satellite launch plan as a grave provocation to develop a long-distance delivery means for nuclear weapons by using ballistic missile technology,” said presidential spokesman Park Jeong-Ha.

The North announced Friday it would launch a long-range rocket between April 12 and 16 to put a satellite into orbit for peaceful purposes.

The United States and other nations see the exercise as a thinly veiled long-range missile test, which would breach a United Nations ban and violate last month’s denuclearisation deal with Washington.

The North is thought to have enough plutonium for perhaps six to eight nuclear weapons, but it is unclear whether it can yet build an atomic warhead for a missile.
The launch is timed to coincide with mass celebrations marking the 100th anniversary of the birth of founding president Kim Il-Sung.

It will come just after an April 11 election in which the South’s ruling conservative party — bitterly opposed by Pyongyang — seeks to retain parliamentary control.

The issue could also overshadow next week’s Seoul nuclear security summit, to be attended by US President Barack Obama and other world leaders.

Seoul said it would work closely with the United States, Japan, China, Russia and the European Union to handle the issue during the summit, the biggest-ever diplomatic gathering in the South.

The North on Sunday rejected international protests, calling the criticism “a base move … to encroach upon our sovereignty.” Ruling party newspaper Rodong Sinmun Monday blasted Seoul for an “unprecedented policy of sycophancy” towards Washington.

The launch by the impoverished but nuclear-armed state seems likely to kill off a February 29 agreement with Washington, which had raised hopes of eased tensions under young new leader Kim Jong-Un.

The North agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment programme, along with long-range missile launches and nuclear tests, in return for 240,000 tonnes of much-needed US food aid.

It maintains that a satellite launch is not a missile test.

But the US State Department has called the plan “highly provocative” and voiced strong doubt over providing the food if the launch goes ahead.

Japan, Russia and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon have called for a change of heart and even China, the North’s closest ally, expressed concern.

The North’s first nuclear test in October 2006 came three months after a long-range rocket launch.

Its most recent such launch on April 5, 2009, purportedly to put a satellite into orbit, brought UN Security Council condemnation and tightened sanctions.

The North quit six-party nuclear disarmament talks in protest at the censure and conducted its second atomic weapons test in May 2009.

Some analysts see a similar scenario this time.

“Seen in the previous cases, North Korea has a pattern of conducting nuclear tests after missile tests,” Yun Duk-Min, of the South’s Institute for Foreign Affairs and National Security, told the Korea JoongAng Daily.

Seoul’s defence ministry also suggested a nuclear test may follow the launch.

“We will thoroughly guard against potential additional military provocations or a nuclear test, as the North is highly likely to repeat its actions back in 2009 when it fired a long-range rocket,” a spokesman told a briefing.

He said the South and its US ally would intensively monitor areas around Tongchang-ri, the North’s new launch site in the extreme northwest.

The North said it has notified international aviation and maritime bodies of the flight path. Media reports said the first stage was projected to fall about 140 kilometres (87 miles) off the South Korean coast, in international waters between China and the South.

The second stage was tipped to splash down 190 km east of the Philippines.

Battles outside the classroom

“I want to become a teacher when I grow up,” was a phrase that dominated a major part of my childhood. My mother still reminds me of the dust of white writing chalk that ruined her draperies and the havoc I created whilst teaching hypothetical students.

In retrospect, had I known the ‘repercussions’ of becoming an educationist in Pakistan, I probably would have silenced my aspirations to spread knowledge.

Universities and colleges in Pakistan have literally transformed into battlegrounds where metal rods, stray bullets and batons rule. Hence, it will not be inappropriate to state that political allegiances triumph over the will to seek true wisdom.

In a country where all the major socio-economic and cultural issues are blamed on a lack of awareness and education, concrete measures to curb the violence, predominantly prevalent in the state-owned universities, are yet to be seen. Education, which can perhaps serve as one of the most vital tools to bring about an end to various dilemmas sabotaging Pakistan, is constantly being disrupted in universities due to the nonsensical and behaviour of a selected few.

Reports of clashes amongst students who represent different political parties make for regular highlights in the news these days. I tend to believe that one day these issues will fizzle out on their own because the administrations governing the universities show no resilience to address the issue.

“Teachers and administrations are more to be blamed than the students who carry out the violence but are not actually the main culprits behind them,” said Dr Mazhar Saaed Akhtar, Institute of Education and Research (IER), Punjab University.

According to Dr Akhtar political parties have much more to gain from the varsity clashes than is portrayed by reports. Stories are generally presented in a manner that is either favourable for the ruling political party or increases it’s prospective fan-following and vote banks. Teachers and university administration have their own political affiliations which is why their role in the engineered riots is formidable.

In my opinion mixing education with politics can have disastrous effects on young, impressionable minds. Intolerance and the ethnic drift, that remain the crux of major problems that continue to terrorise Pakistan, stem from playgrounds and universities. Student organisations, which are either bifurcated on the basis of their respective ethnicities or religious orientations, are more often than not involved in public brawls on the pettiest of issues.

This perpetual hatred towards each other inflicts physical harm no doubt, however, it is the ‘invisible wounds’ that engrave the psychological growth of involved youths, that are perhaps more worrisome primarily because they are more difficult to heal.

Perhaps the violence we experience everyday, which involves brutal ethnic, religious and other atrocious killings, is an off-shoot of the same parasitic plant which thrives on young minds and motivates them to act and think irrationally.

Being an optimist, I am subjected to believe that inherently all human beings are harmonious and congenial. So, I went looking for someone, who could perhaps authenticate my trust in humanity, to the place which witnessed an altercation of a massive magnitude recently.

Basit*, a student of Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology (FUUAST), Karachi, on condition of anonymity said, “when the riots broke out last Tuesday, we were in the middle of a lecture. A couple of people came rushing to the class and asked us to leave immediately. We dodged the metal rods and other weapons by ducking our way through to the safety exit.

“The violence never ceases. It dies down but resurfaces after a month or two. Last year the university was shut down for a month because the administration did not want us dodging ‘stray bullets’ fired from guns that students freely carry around at the campus,” added Basit.

The fact that such vehement activities can defer academic sessions to over a month infuriates me to the core. This unwelcome intrusion in the curriculum is not only a loss to the overall educational system but in fact is a major loss to students who cannot afford individual tuition and solely rely on their college professors for assistance.

The state of affairs is indeed reprehensible and is growing bleaker by the day; however, the only viable solution to end this idiocy is to ban political activities in universities. Stringent rules and regulations for governance can perhaps curb, if not exterminate, the aggression and intolerance which is manifested through arms and ammunition.

Private universities govern on the same mandate and the ratio of violence in such universities is negligible. Disciplinary committees and administration should work together in establishing policies that are beneficial for education and students — beginning with banning political groups.

It is time to work collectively towards an educated tomorrow, one which can only be achieved by putting a stop to these puppeteers. To restore freedom we must start by taking our future back into our hands.

The immunity mystery

Whether President Zardari has immunity/exemption from all civil and criminal proceedings in courts within and outside Pakistan is a central political and constitutional question at the heart of the present conflict between the PPP political elite and the superior judiciary.

In the continuing public debate about presidential immunity, there are two schools of thought.

The ‘political school’ argues that it is an undeniable fact that under Article 248 of the constitution and international law the president has immunity both in national and foreign courts. The ‘legalist school’ contends that the extent of presidential immunity is limited and there is no obstacle to the prime minister writing the letter to the Swiss authorities to revive the cases/claims.

However, as explained here, the confusion over presidential immunity is primarily not the result of ‘wrong’ interpretations but because the interpretation of presidential immunity is yet to be ‘interpretationally constructed’. In short, nobody at present knows what presidential immunity conclusively means — the concept exists but its meaning is yet to be fully born.

A cursory look at Article 248 points to this interpretational minefield. It comprises four separate clauses. Clause (1) of Article 248 confers immunity/exemption to the president from Pakistani courts only in relation to his official acts performed in good faith.

Clause (4) of Article 248 actually allows civil proceedings to be initiated against the president for past and present personal actions subject to giving him 60 days’ advance notice.

But what about clauses (2) and (3) of Article 248? Under these clauses, no criminal proceedings, whatsoever, can be instituted or continued, or process for arrest or imprisonment can be issued, against the president in any court during his term of office.

Yes, no pending criminal case against Mr Zardari, instituted prior to his becoming president, can be continued during his presidential term nor can any new criminal case be instituted against him during this time.

Still, this presidential immunity seems limited. Most importantly, this presidential immunity is limited to Pakistani courts because the Pakistani legislature cannot provide for presidential immunity in foreign courts. The power of any national legislature is limited to the courts of its country.

Even otherwise, if the Pakistani legislature were foolish enough to legislate for the Swiss courts, why would a foreign state and its courts regard the provisions of the constitution of Pakistan as binding on them?

But what about international law e.g. Convention on the Privileges & Immunities of the United Nations and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations etc.?

The question here is not whether the president has immunity under international law but which institution in which country will decide this issue. Again, surely, the Pakistani government, or even the Pakistani Supreme Court (SC), cannot decide whether the Swiss authorities or courts should grant immunity to President Zardari.

Why would the Swiss authorities or courts consider the opinion of the Pakistani government or the judgment of the SC as binding on them? As judgments of the US courts in the Mugabe (President Mugabe of Zimbawe) and Zemin (then president Zemin of China) cases show, it is the foreign courts themselves which decide the issue of immunity of heads of state.

But unlike the political and legalist schools, I don’t believe that there is any obvious meaning of presidential immunity, which is merely to be discovered by the Pakistani Supreme Court.

Knowledge is power because judicial power, by giving constitutional meanings, creates systems of politico-constitutional knowledge, which in turn structures political power. Therefore, the SC’s monopoly over the power to interpret the constitution empowers it to create the meaning of presidential immunity under Article 248 and under international law.

The issue isn’t whether or not the SC’s interpretation of presidential immunity is correct but that it has the monopoly to interpret conclusively, rightly or wrongly, what presidential immunity means. Even when it is wrong in its interpretation, it is the SC itself which decides on its misinterpretation.

What will be the parameters which structure, or guide, the SC’s interpretation of presidential immunity?

Firstly, the language of Article 248 and international law and various court judgments interpreting these legal norms.

Secondly, as lawyer Muneer A. Malik rightly points out “judges realise their real strength comes from moral authority with the people”. So, the SC will take into account the public perception about President Zardari and presidential immunity in its interpretation.

Thirdly, the issue of eradicating corruption is a strategic tool of judicial governance utilised by the SC, which is being used to reform the Pakistani state through the judicial process. The fact that presidential immunity is being used as a shield to protect allegedly corrupt acts by President Zardari will effect the SC’s interpretation.

Fourthly, whether President Zardari is given full or limited presidential immunity will also depend on the political fight-back.
For example, when the prime minister says that he will implement the constitution, and not the SC judgment, what he is really doing is questioning the monopoly of the SC over constitutional interpretation. Therefore, the balance of power between the political and judicial elite will play a critical role.

But this constitutional conflict is not simply about presidential immunity; it is about how Pakistan is to be governed, whether by laws and rules or political consent and compromise. Only political and constitutional battles can resolve these issues as no readymade or instant solutions are provided in the document called the constitution.

Sunshine and rain on Talat Hussain

English drizzle welcomed Pakistani journalist, Talat Hussain, to Cambridge this weekend. Hosted by the University’s Pakistan Society, Hussain had come to provide some insight into the media in his country. He was candid and refreshingly self-critical and he gave permission for me to write about the encounter.

Hussain began, rather defensively setting out how media had brought about positive change and how he felt that it genuinely provided a voice to the impoverished, poor, and marginalised – offering them a ray of hope. “Without the media would you ever hear the voice of the Baloch?” he said. He was perhaps right to be defensive – when I shared news on my Twitter and Facebook pages that I would meet Hussain, people urged me to pin him down on why the media couldn’t do more to support Pakistani development, and why the Pakistani media weren’t more vociferous in challenging and exposing the corrupt elite and politicians. As if Hussain needed more evidence of the cynicism some audiences might feel towards the Pakistani media, someone in the crowd pressured him to explain the special handshake between the Pakistani judiciary and the media. His response was to defend the judiciary, but wry smiles spoke a thousand words.

I shared with Hussain one challenge I felt as a writer – motivated by a desire to see Pakistan in a more balanced positive light, I am often accused of being saccharin sweet on the nation and ignoring the ills of Pakistan. My response is that I have a very straightforward mission to shine a spotlight on the better things – to combat the sea of negative reporting on the country. Hussain acknowledged that the negativity of the media had damaged the nation’s self-esteem, and even went as far as to say it had helped to plunge Pakistan in form of “collective grief”. Referencing Arundhati Roy, and her theories of “crisis journalism”, he said the media would find it difficult to turn back. He also attempted to explain how Pakistan had a different view of “balance”, with a slight distaste for a grammar of the media that had been “inherited from the west”.

What struck me was the inherent problem in attempting to get a broadcast journalist to offer a reasonable, balanced view. They will naturally seek the difficulty or flash points in any situation. The tendency is to sensationalise – and despite claiming to be driven and regulated by the demands of the consumer, responsibility should be taken to ensure that creative ways to present less negative stories are explored.

I was disappointed – but not surprised given his flotilla experience – that Hussain made generalisations about Israelis. “Israelis are…” is as offensive to me as “Pakistanis are…” – and although I haven’t lived in Israel for many years, I feel safe in my own assumption that not all Israelis hate all Arabs. It was a view that undermined Hussain’s promotion of the Pakistani view on balance.

His flotilla experience has clearly impacted Hussain – and he offered many words of wisdom on the Arab Spring. He was right to indicate that it was too soon to tell what change, if any, had been made. And he raised an interesting point that Pakistan had already had its own Arab Spring – two in fact – when they ousted military dictators in the 1960s and in 1988 when Zia-ul-Huq was killed in an air crash. Hussein pointed out that these revolutions were bloodless. My tendency (and mission) is to get excited by such a positive take, but thinking about it, in Pakistan’s short history it has seen more than its fair share of military dictators, in periods which I am sure some Pakistanis would agree were far from bloodless. Furthermore, the words “brink” and “military coup” have been used more than once in recent times not just by the media, but by Wikileaks, and the US State Department. The “we are better than them because…” argument never really works for me – and it’s one Pakistan needs to get out of the habit of.

When Hussain pointed out that Pakistan’s very beginning was forged by ordinary barristers and lawyers – not bloodthirsty revolutionaries – I thought of that “handshake” and wondered why Hussain was not acknowledging the tragic messy birth of a nation through the blood soaked soil of partition.

You see, I’m not all saccharin sweet on Pakistan. It’s not about being unrealistically, or unfeasibly positive – it’s about presenting a dramatic viewpoint that is uplifting and inspiring.

Hussain echoed my own thoughts on Pakistan being an over-diagnosed nation. He likened it to going to see a doctor, who repeatedly told you that your system was failing, but never doing anything to help. However, Hussain himself failed to offer any solutions – and given his job as one of the analysts – he is unlikely to. He did suggest that “new media” would help shape the new Pakistan, as opposed to misunderstood “mainstream media”. He suggested that the mass media had much less influence than people thought, using as evidence his experience of media use in Sindh and the Southern Punjab – and there is more than empirical evidence to back this up. Hussain cited the rise in access to mobile phones and the increased use of blogs, social networks like Facebook (now available in Urdu) and Twitter. Hussain’s own activity on Twitter (or lack of it) indicates that he is new to this means of engagement. Engagement it is – a very different media from “broadcasting” – and we should welcome him to it. The fact that traditional media pundits might struggle in this forum was demonstrated by Hussain’s apparent confusion as to how I knew what my readers thought.

Perhaps the most touching and most profound thing Hussain said, was his account of a disaster in Islamabad. Turning up to produce a TV report on a collapsed tower, he explained how he was confronted by trapped women and children and contorted bodies. Hussain’s tone changed and his gaze steadied in front of him, “words cannot describe the tradegy that my eye saw in one glance”.

Desperately frustrated by his inability to help, he handed the camera to his driver and began attempting to drag people out of the rubble. As he told the story, he lowered his gaze and murmured, “it didn’t do much good”. Flood victims, he said, were often angry that TV crews were first on the scene, when what they wanted was help: food; medical help. As a result of these experiences, Talat Hussain, the journalist, has set up a charity. He was humble about it.

So although he may have painted his own industry in grim colours – referencing the new Pakistani “mini Rupert Murdochs” who control mass media in the country, and his own “wannabe” journalist peers who like the sound of their own voice – it was the story of his compassion and efforts to pull fellow countrymen from the rubble which spoke loudest on that rainy afternoon in Cambridge.

When Hussain describes his feelings for Pakistan as schizophrenic – 50 per cent elated and hopeful and 50 per cent doom-ridden – I would ask that at least the media reflect this. Don’t simply cover the story of the collapsed tower, and the deaths and the destruction; cover too, the story of peoples’ attempts to rescue and make good. It is actually more engaging – and more likely to inspire and bring about change.

I look forward to welcoming Talat Hussain again in Cambridge – maybe one day when the sun is shining.