The Express Tribune Editorial 5 September 2019

Misbah in dual role

The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has named former Pakistan captain Misbahul Haq as the head coach and chief selector of the Men in Green. Earlier, the PCB had decided not to renew the contract of Head Coach Mickey Arthur based on the suggestions of the cricket committee. Misbah was part of the cricket committee that took the decision. When speculations of Misbah’s appointment began, various quarters highlighted this factor as a potential conflict of interest. Misbah then resigned from the Cricket Committee after revealing his intentions of applying for the position of head coach.

The positions of the head coach and a chief selector have traditionally accompanied a lot of influence. In the past, the two posts held each other accountable for the performance of the team. A dual role, however, might grant too much power to one individual. The players themselves who rely on the advice of their coach might have problems clearly communicating with someone with so much influence over the decision making the process.

Famous Indian commentator Harsha Bhogle, through Twitter, warned against the appointment pointing out how the players could be directly affected by the dual role. “Never been a fan of one person being coach and selector. Players come to a coach with a problem. If they know that that knowledge could result in them being dropped, they may not be honest with coaches,” tweeted Bhogle.
Misbah is also expected to coach the Pakistan Super League (PSL) franchise, Islamabad United. Chairman PCB Ehsan Mani had previously said that coaching the national side and a PSL franchise was a conflict of interest that would be abolished in the future. Misbah’s appointment clearly suggests a deviation from that line of approach by the PCB. Pakistan cricket has, in the past, been plagued by various miscommunications between head coach and chief selector. A dual role could spell an end to that issue but has the potential to create many more.

Afghan endgame

The troop withdrawal agreement between the US and the Taliban now looks almost certain — with a nod from President Trump being the only thing awaited. A confirmation to this effect has come from none other than Zalmay Khalilzad, the chief US negotiator. Khalilzad says that a draft agreement will lead to the withdrawal of US troops from five bases in Afghanistan within 135 days provided the Taliban meet conditions. If a deal is done, it will set the Afghan endgame rolling. Withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan would mark the beginning of the end of America’s longest war which broke out on Oct 7, 2001, to avenge the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, and which has cost Americans billions of dollars besides the lives of more than 2,300 soldiers.

At its peak in 2010-2011, the US troops on the Afghan soil exceeded 100,000. Under Obama, the number went down to 8,400 by 2016. In August 2017, Trump sent more troops to Afghanistan in a strategy to train and assist Afghan soldiers, raising the figure to 14,000. Now, as part of a withdrawal deal, Trump is all set to bring down the number — reportedly to 5,400. As for the overall cost of war to the US, there are no official figures. However, a Pentagon announcement made in 2018 does give some idea. It estimated the US war bill at $45 billion in that year alone, giving the breakup of the money allocated under various heads, like for the US troops in Afghanistan, the Afghan forces, economic aid for the country, besides wasteful spending like on planes not for use in Afghanistan, unused command and control centers, etc. Experts say that adding up the costs for 18 years, the US war bill is estimated to range from $841 billion to trillions, depending on the number of heads taken into account.

Despite such a huge sum and such a strong force, the Taliban now rule even a larger part of the land than they did when the war had broken out. It’s true that wars resolve no dispute and every war ends at the dialogue table.

Talks despite tensions

Pakistan plans to open the Kartarpur Corridor on the 550th birth anniversary of Baba Guru Nanak on November 11 and has urged New Delhi to show flexibility after the third round of talks on the matter yesterday. Pakistan has kept the corridor project insulated from the recent tensions with India over the illegal revocation of occupied Kashmir’s special status, subsequent lockdown in the disputed state and intensified ceasefire violations by India at the Line of Control. The project also remained unaffected by the escalation between the two counties in the wake of the Pulwama attack in February this year.

Pakistan has taken a number of steps in response to India’s illegal annexation of occupied Kashmir last month, including the downgrading of diplomatic ties and suspension of trade and rail traffic. However, talks on the Kartarpur Corridor that is meant to facilitate India’s minority Sikh community to visit Gurdwara Darbar Sahib in Pakistan have continued. The first two rounds of talks between the two sides have resulted in an agreement on visa-free travel for Sikh pilgrims from India; keeping the corridor open all year round; allowing 5,000 pilgrims into Pakistan every day and providing them Langar and Prasad; building a bridge over the Budhi Ravi channel; and opening a direct line of communication between India’s BSF and Pakistan’s Rangers. The third round of talks held on the Indian side of the Wagah-Attari border deliberated on the rules and regulations related to the entry of pilgrims.

The initiative to build the corridor had come from Islamabad, and the continuation of the talks with New Delhi despite the prevailing hostile environment in the context of Kashmir is a testimony to Pakistan’s commitment to peace in the region. Pakistan’s seriousness about talks is reflective of its belief that the Kartarpur Corridor initiative has the potential to become a template for cross-border exchanges based on faith and to extend the momentum to other areas, given the undeniable role religion and religious beliefs are playing in intrastate conflicts and aspects of international affairs in the 21st century.