The Nuances of Cricket

The sorry saga of the match fixing story of Pakistan continues into the 7th day with a strange twist. A counter claim has been put across that they were set up. Needless to say that the tactic of a best defence is a good offence!! No matter how this will play out in the future, the incident has served to unearth a sinister aspect to cricket in the Indian sub continent.

Cricket is big business in the Indian sub continent. Players are paid relatively well; there are sponsorships and the glamour. A telling interview in today’s Cricinfo with a former Indian player highlights the burdens of playing cricket in the Indian subcontinent: money, fame and narcissism. At the young ages that cricketers go into, they become vulnerable to temptation and unaware of how to handle fame and fortune.

In recent years, the appearance of Twenty 20 cricket and in particular the Indian Premier League has logarithmically evolved the amount of burden and temptation that players have to face. Cricket has become transformed from the quiet quintessential Sunday afternoon Englishman’s game to one of high stakes, fast women and fast money.

With the money that is flowing around the Indian subcontinent often from illicit deals, drugs, weapons smuggling and all other vices, cricket proves a very easy market for disposable income to be flushed around. The appearance of bookies (often from India) with millions of rupees (and dollars) to spend using all sorts of ways to tempt the players shows that the sport has now become much more than competition between nations. It is about money, corporate sponsorship and power.

Caught in the middle are the (often very young) players who come from very poor backgrounds, and in the transition between teenage years and adulthood, are thrust into the limelight with enormous pressure.

Whilst these players are being chastised, this is but the tip of the iceberg. The problem lies much deeper and the solutions will need to go to the heart of the problem.

Justifying a Lie

Someone said, we should be writing daily (or as much as possible) blogs reflecting thoughts for the day and seeing how this contributes to our mandate in terms of bringing people together.

So today let us reflect on what has been the main achievement for the day. Today marked the official release of Tony Blair’s memoirs. It was always guaranteed to ignite a storm what with the announcement weeks ago that the man would donate his proceeds to charity. ‘Blood money’ some remarked wryly. The storm did come in the form of many revelations about various parts of his premiership. The lack of regret and remorse especially with regards the Iraq war shows him to be a calculating strategist who has no qualms about sacrificing the greater good for his own glory.

Despite being ‘sorry for all the deaths caused’, he still justified the attacks despite knowing all that has taken place since then. This seemed to me akin to a robber saying ‘I am sorry for the sorrow caused in robbing your house, but I was still justified in robbing it’. Such an aspect does not bode well for the future generations.

In an age where individualism is triumphing over all others, what is the message that is being sent to the next generation about how to act and take decisions? It is that one can act with impunity and without facing the consequence of your actions. It is about your welfare and not the greater good. This has been sufficiently been displayed recently with the match fixing allegations of the Pakistani cricketers.

This can not be the future that we want to leave to our children. This needs to change.

Politics of Aid

The ramifications of the BBC world service report on the distribution of aid during the Ethiopian famine in the early eighties, shows no sign of abating. With the very public clash between Rageh Omar and Bob Geldof taking place last week in the Guardian, Sunday newspapers carried articles of how Bob Geldof has demanded the heads of the BBC personnel involved with the report.

Understandably Bob Geldof is upset. For millions of us, he epitomised the efforts to save millions of starving women and children and probably put the whole concept of aid and international charity giving into a public arena. I know for me, it was one of the first instances which motivated me to get involved in humanitarian work and is one of the reasons I hold Bob Geldof in the highest of regards.

However, I feel that in this instance, he should not feel too bad. Of course the inference of the numbers actually making it to the recipients hands is something that does need to be investigated particularly as people gave in good faith, but the fact of the matter is that you cannot divorce aid from politics and that in some ways there is some element of truth to the reports. Having lived in Ethiopia, it was an open secret that some of ‘Live Aid’ was used by all sides in the conflict to sustain and prolong the war. And unfortunately, this is not and will not be first time this has happened. As many current and former aid workers will tell you, you have to deal and engage with this reality on the ground and sometimes, the engagement is about tacit support whether you like it or not.

The fact that aid agencies are ‘apolitical’ has been made even more difficult by the war against Saddam Hussain's Iraq in spring 2003 which was a striking example of the mixing of military and humanitarian action. As the United States administration made clear, the military campaign aimed at bringing down the regime was to be accompanied by the delivery of humanitarian aid to win the hearts and minds of Iraqi people and make them accept the occupying force thereby changing the whole rhetoric on humanitarian relief.

Thus the sad aspect is that despite the best intentions, undoubtedly aid will become involved in politics and if you are working in regions affected by war, the politics will be dirty. This is something that everyone (particularly donors) has to realise and come to terms with. The quicker that people understand that, the less pressure will be on humanitarian organisations and individuals to deal with the consequences.

So the question should be ‘when is it alright for this to happen and when is it not?’ This is where the confusion creeps in. There seems to be a mixed response to this internationally.

Agencies who used to work in the former ‘uncleared areas’ in Sri Lanka controlled by the Tamil Tigers will tell you that they had to deal with a separate administration, pay separate taxes and in effect had to prop up the LTTE administration despite the banning of the LTTE as a terrorist organisation internationally, if they wanted to get aid into the areas of need. Yet very few of them have been castigated internationally for doing so.

The story is very different for those organisations working in Palestine in particular Gaza. In this context organisations doing the same thing and working and dealing with different aspects of the Hamas administration such as hospitals or schools have been sidelined for supporting ‘terrorism’.

So there needs to be a change in the attitude and a consistency in approach. This is not about casting aspersions on the majority of humanitarian agencies who work without any agenda just trying to accomplish their mission of getting aid to the most neediest of people. They have to work under the most difficult and trying of circumstances and need to be supported. In recent times, despite the best efforts of ensuring transparency and accountability, aid organisations will inevitably face the challenge of working in politically complex situations. It is important for governments to ensure that these systems and regulations are in place to allow these organisations to work freely and fairly.

Ultimately aid doesn’t recognise borders and institutions and as such should be allowed to be as apolitical as possible not withstanding the political realities and complexities on the ground. Whilst the BBC report was disturbing and does need to be clarified, it does highlight the challenges faced by many people and organisations and highlights the need for the naiveté that exists in charity giving to be shed. Ultimately, Bob Geldof should take heart from this incident, that once again he has highlighted to the public the immense challenge in not only ensuring that money is raised and spent but that it is also intertwined with the political realities of the day. This education is invaluable and serves as a good reminder to all of us of the problems and challenges faced on a daily basis on the ground by those courageous aid workers forced to take difficult decisions. As such our support does not waver but in fact it grows.

Lesson in Compassion

Robin Sharma once said that 'every person that you meet every day is a teacher of sorts'. I never truly appreciated what he meant by that, until the other night, coming back on the tube, a young man in his early twenties threw up in front of me, just narrowly avoiding my shoe but making a mess on the floor around him. The people around him quickly got up and moved to the other side of the carriage or even into another carriage. Somehow, without thinking I followed them but felt uneasy. I looked back and saw this poor guy who was clearly feeling unwell and slightly embarrassed with his head down, vomit around him and on his clothes. For about 5 minutes he was like this as people entering the tube saw him and moved away.

That is until a lady walked in with her grocery shopping, saw the mess and young man and without a moment's hesitation, went down and sat next to him. She offered him a tissue to wipe himself off, spread her newspaper that she was carrying on the floor to cover the vomit and gave him a drink and a shopping bag in case the guy would throw up again. She then proceeded to talk to the young man and you could see his mood lift.

In that split second, I realised with humility that this lady and young man had taught me a valuable lesson. The lesson of compassion and love for a fellow human being. I became and still remain ashamed that I did not do what that lady did. To rise above the pettiness and arrogance of the material world and go to the aid of someone in need. This for me was the greatest test of spirituality than anything else.

You see most of us who are from one faith or another, boast about how great our faith is. We look down on others because they are somehow less religious than us. However what this lady did is a great lesson for all of those who profess to have faith and to be practitioners of that faith. We remain intellectually arrogant when we talk about the virtues of charity and caring that our particular faith preaches. However when push comes to shove, how much do we actually put it into practice? Of course, it is one thing to give in charity or volunteer for a good cause. Yet the true nature of realising our spirituality and closeness to the Creator is when unexpected circumstances arise and we are forced to react without any premeditation. This is the ultimate test of our closeness with the Creator and our strength in our faith. How do we react? Do we remember God? Do we act in a way that is pleasing to Him? In a saying of the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) it is said that 'God will tell man on the day of Judgement, that I was ill and you did not look after me. Man will respond, how can you be ill oh God? to which God will reply, such and such of my servants was ill and you did not look after him' and so on.

This brings me to the second lesson that I learned that night. That is I finally understood the concept of compassion. I have been struggling with the concept of compassion ever since I heard about Karen Armstrong's Charter for Compassion. I could never truly reconcile the theoretical aspects of compassion as outlined in religious scriptures and daily practice. She says that 'Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect'. What does this mean?

That night, that lady taught me the true meaning of compassion 'do unto others as you would like them to do unto you'. In that split second I recognised that compassion is about the ability to put ourselves in other people’s shoes and to “experience with” the other.

If we reconcile ourselves with religious scriptures like the bible for example, where we are reminded in Isiah 58 6-7 to loosen the bonds of wickedness and to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, to share your bread with the hungry, and that you bring to your house the poor who are cast out; when you see the naked, that you cover him or what the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) said “You shall not enter Paradise until you have faith, and you cannot have faith until you love one another. Have compassion on those you can see, and He Whom you cannot see will have compassion on you”.

Then we see that a world which makes sense, is a world in which we connect with other people, often beyond our immediate communities and experience, and show them compassion and love with our neighbours.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said that ‘no one is a believer if you go to bed whilst your neighbor is hungry’ “Feeding the empty stomachs 40 doors to the right and left' The parable of the Good Samaritan also addresses this tricky issue of “who is my neighbour”, concluding that it has nothing to do with belonging to the same community or ethnic group or class but everything to do with compassion and mercy.

So where does this leave me with the lesson that I learnt that night? Compassion is about the grander things. it is about respecting and accepting the humanity of people. it is about doing something with no expectation of a return. I suddenly recalled a verse from the Qur'an (92:18-21) where God says 'Those who spend their wealth for increase in self-purification and have in their minds no favour from anyone for which a reward is expecting in return, but only the desire to seek for the Countenance of their Lord Most High, and soon will they attain complete satisfaction'. In an era of secularism, consumption and materialism, this is quite a difficult concept to fathom.

The third lesson I learnt? Every day, life will send you windows of opportunity. Your destiny will be defined by whether you choose to open the windows. Compassion is not about the big things. It is about the little things. It is about responding to whoever is in need, without a moment's thought, because they are in trouble and as a brother / sister in humanity, you have to help them. This ultimately is the teaching of all great scriptures.

Will there be a change in Sri Lanka?

On the 26th of January, Sri Lankans will be heading to the polls to elect a new President. Given the pre poll violence that has overshadowed the campaign so far, it is evident that this has not only been one of the most bloodiest elections in recent history but it is also evident that the results will be carefully monitored both local and internationally.

Yet the process of elections in Sri Lanka is a superficial attempt to paint a picture of democracy in action. For the last 60 plus years, the two main parties between themselves have held power with very little difference in policy, approach and effect. There has been a trend of ‘political upmanship’ where the main opposition party would wreck attempts by the party in power to ensure that the country would not benefit from decisive decisions made at critical junctures. As a consequence,when rival parties came to power, they tended to undo what has been done by the previous opposition government much to the detriment of the country.

Hence, this election rather than focussing on policies or issues or anything of substance, ability and reality, has boiled down to how many false promises, allegations and counter allegations can be made to convince the naïve voter. Support has thus been garnered based on much one can get out of each candidate, and so there have been crossovers and counter crossovers (from each party) like musical chairs, as ‘horse deals’ ensure that politicians and their supporters needs are met.

The politics of Sri Lanka is actually a Shakespearean comedy of errors. Where else would you find one of the chief architects of the final conflict pitted against its chief engineer? Where else would you find almost laughable unholy alliances? For example, you have the JVP, who are seen as a Sinhalese Nationalist party, pitted with the very party who brutally crushed them in the 1980s, against the very man and party they helped to bring to power in 2005. Then, the headlines were very different as President Rajapkase was accused of being a Sinhalese hardliner. Circumstances have now changed and former allies have become enemies and former enemies have become allies with accusations being thrown between the two sometimes bordering on the point of absurdity in some cases.

Yet this kind of unsubstantiated cross-vilifcation is not just the past time of the candidates and their key backers. It seems to be an affliction of the ordinary Sri Lankan who has the uncanny ability to pick up lies and spread them around, often adding their own creative spices to the mix. The result is a ‘Chinese Whispers’ game of immense magnitude.

There seems to be very little appetite for any intellectual analysis of the situation on the part of the general public, especially those that live in Colombo, which is as far removed from the realities of the country as it can be. Everyone is advocating for a change, tired of the cost that the conflict has inflicted upon the nation, tired of the corruption of the political system, tired of how Sri Lanka has become as a nation and society. But you dig a little deeper and you notice that frankly despite all the illusions of grandeur, nothing will change. Speaking to people in Sri Lanka, there are only two camps. Those who want the incumbent and those who want the main opposition candidate with very little room in between. There is not really a middle pat h or alternative and no avenue for a middle path, as the recent violence at the polls have shown. Those that advocate it are a silent majority on the sidelines. Yet dig further and you will find that people have absolutely no clue as to why one should vote for the incumbent or the opposition. ‘Well we need to get rid of Mahinda so that is why we want Sarath’ has been the most common argument that I have heard. ‘Mahinda liberated the country from war and Sarath is a traitor’ has been the other one. No one talks about the policies.What of their policies? How are they going to take the country forward?

Of course, because no matter who wins the presidency, he will have an uphill struggle on his hands. First there will be the task of resettling all the displaced people from the 20 years of war, and focussing on rebuilding the war torn north and east. There will be the task of ensuring a political solution to the grievances of the minorities in a way that ensures that the country moves forward after 20 years of conflict. There will be a need to contain the Sinhalese Buddhist elements who seem intent on hammering the Sinhala nationalist identity home. However more importantly there will be the task of arresting the moral and intellectual corruption that seems to not pervade the political scene but has also seemed to have trickled down into society as a whole. Yet neither of the main candidates has presented a clear proposal for the reconciliation and integration of the society.

This then begs the question; will there be a change if the main opposition candidate is voted in ahead of the incumbent? Whilst a new face will get into the driving seat, the vehicle and direction will be the same. The paradigm will not have shifted!

Therefore the concept of being ‘principled’ by picking either the incumbent or the main contender becomes laughable. Both these candidates and the parties and alliance they represent are two sides of the same coin and at this critical juncture in Sri Lanka’s history may not be able to offer anything of value for taking the country forward especially as it moves towards post conflict reconciliation and reconstruction. Picking either one of them would be at best, frantically grasping for a last minute consolation prize and it would be based on a limited understanding of the ground realities and ingrained prejudices. There will be nothing pure or principled about the choice.

If people want to make a principled choice and vote for ‘change’, then there will need to be a paradigm shift . Variations on the same old themes should not be the order of the day. They will have to make a radical choice on the candidate that they choose. There are 18 other candidates in the running, but are all dismissed, because they have no chance of winning. This is not the point. The point is that you vote for an alternative because you want this change without compromising your principles. Some commentators have even advocated to spoil the vote, if you can not find a decent candidate who voices the concerns of those without voice or those whose have been robbed of voice or have had their voices purchased . This might seem to some a bit extreme but under the circumstances in Sri Lanka, extreme measures are called for.

Regardless of who wins in the election, no one doubts that now is the time for reconciliation. Petty rivalries will need to be forgotten. Past grievances will need to be looked into and addressed. This requires the support of all concerned from within Sri Lanka and outside of it.

After 26 years of war that cost thousands of innocent lives, the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) has brought Sri Lanka to a crossroads. Yet despite the government's victory, there has been widespread international criticism about how the war was handled. Success has come at a price in terms of destruction, death and the displacement of civilians. The number of actual deaths during the conflict, particularly in its last days, will never be known, despite many international attempts to hold the Sri Lankan government to task.

Despite the LTTE being widely praised in the Tamil diaspora as a "freedom fighting" organisation, it was one of the world's worst terrorist groups. It had perfected the art of suicide bombing and assassination, as well as engaging in the massacre of civilians from all communities, including Sinhalese and Tamils, and the ethnic cleansing of Muslim civilians from the north in 1990.

Advertisement

Reconstruction, resettlement and rehabilitation will be the immediate postwar challenges and will have to be expertly handled. Reconstruction of infrastructure will be the easiest and most attractive option for donors, but creating an environment of equity and social justice could be relegated to the bottom of the list. There must be a separate effort to ensure reconciliation between people. Many barriers have been erected between Sri Lanka's communities and special programmes to build bridges, facilitate interfaith interaction and regain intercommunity trust are urgently required.

This is the role that the Sri Lankan diaspora as a whole will need to play to bring about a reconciliation that combines human values with an understanding of the need to move away from apportioning blame. Rebuilding trust will mean honouring unity and celebrating diversity, working towards equity and justice and ensuring the eradication of social prejudices in building a collective identity.

Elements of the Tamil diaspora, in particular, have been active in sustaining the conflict. Some are still trying to keep the cause alive by exerting pressure on the international community to instigate war crimes proceedings or cut back on trade subsidies such as the EU's generous tariff preference, the GSP+.

However, they fail to realise that this will not harm the government and will be detrimental to the overall development of the country. Cutting tariff preferences, for example, will affect industry – which will in turn affect the livelihoods of all communities. Ultimately, taking a government to task should be done through a normal democratic process, which can only work if all elements within the country work towards that goal. The focus now has to be on the future development of the country.

How Sri Lanka handles the current displacement crisis is likely to determine the confidence of its minorities and the diaspora. Pressure is mounting for quick resettlement and to give Tamils a share of power. To this end the government will have to work to ensure that all people feel they are equal citizens with equal rights.

Addressing the Sri Lankan parliament last May, President Mahinda Rajapaksa said: "We have removed the word 'minorities' from our vocabulary." Sadly, people seemed to have brushed aside the president's statement as a gimmick, claiming that he himself does not believe in it and has no clear plans for the future. Without denying past grievances, there should now be a move to hold the government to task in terms of building confidence among the various communities and giving ownership to the minorities in rebuilding the country.

Advertisement

The Tamils believed that they were fighting for an identity and to control their own affairs. Such feelings cannot be blotted out by eliminating the LTTE but they can be made irrelevant by the treatment Tamils (and other minorities) receive in the new Sri Lanka. There should now be an active and systematic campaign for celebrating coexistence among Sri Lanka's diverse communities – and the Sri Lankan diaspora can play a big part in it.

This originally appeared here

Challenges of the Monsoon

The recent announcement by the UK government that it would only concentrate on ‘emergency’ funding for the inhabitants at Manik Farm has been designed to exert pressure on the Sri Lankan government to develop some solid and sustainable settlement to the issue of the 300,000 plus IDPs after the end of the conflict with the LTTE in April. 

Since the end of April, these refugees have been in these camps  with the most basic of needs found wanting.  If you had read any of my previous blogs you would have read about the challenges faced by these people as well as those working within the camps, the situation not being helped by a reluctance of the government to open up.  Understandably though as there is this incessant government paranoia of ‘having no friends’.

 However with the onset of the monsoon season producing the bigger threat of flooding and water borne diseases, the government, camp authorities as well as the humanitarian community are faced with a bigger dilemma.  How do we sort this out?  How do we deal with a potentially even bigger problem?

The fault is borne by everyone. Unfortunately like previous governments before it, there was a knee jerk reaction by the government to the issue of the IDPs (largely brought about in response to international pressure) when it committed itself to the 180 day resettlement notice.  For many of us on the ground, we felt that this was too premature and not feasible, given the extent of the displacement and the damage done (both mentally and physically).  Just look at the challenges that are being faced by those that are returning to Mannar or even the east after hostilities ceased there? 

Hence what it was felt was needed was a planned approach where all stakeholders were involved.  Unfortunately this has and is not taking place as the government is wary of any outside interference. The humanitarian agencies are not being consulted as they should be primarily because they have lost the confidence of the government.

The humanitarian community is also to blame for the current fiasco in terms of the basic conditions in the camps.  Most of us knew the unrealistic nature of the resettlement plan and we have also privately discussed how it is not possible to move people back into the areas immediately after displacement.  Yet publicly most of us kept on pushing for quick resettlement and an end to the camps. Some of us in fact opposed it from day one, putting great suspicions on our motives, intentions and objectivity.

Most agencies argued with the issue of semi permanent vs temporary (see my blog on the issue of the toilets) whilst knowing that any solution should realistically in fact be medium term.  This is the natural cycle of any post disaster reconstruction and resettlement.  Just look at the issue of tsunami victims in the east who are still in refugee camps yet to receive any support for long term settlements.  Knowing this we campaigned for something else and accused the government of something else, in the firm realisation that the government would react in the way that they did.  Hence the vicious cycle was perpetuated and the political tennis match continues.

Somehow, there should have been a middle point that we arrived at in terms of accepting a medium term situation, preparing for this and ensuring that the beneficiaries got the best that we could offer them. There should have been this will to move towards this in order to develop a better confidence and relationship with the government as opposed to dictating terms.

Of course the issue of ‘internment’ and security was something that we could have also met halfway with the government had there been an open mind and situation to discuss this. 

However at the end of the day, the monsoons will come, the camp inhabitants will suffer from floods and whatever else that comes with floods and it will be left up to the government and humanitarian agencies to try and cope with this, each side throwing accusations against each other on responsibilities.  The vicious cycle will continue.

As for the long term solution, the planning has to take place now.  The current situation is very unsustainable from all accounts.  Despite there being a need for security to be preserved, the camps will need to be made more open and downsized.  It will make them more manageable.  The sustainability of the operations has to be considered in this regard. Of course, we have to realise that the resettlement will not really take place properly for another year or so.  The logistics, challenges and financial constraints are just too much to even consider.  So what does this mean?

There needs to be this discussion that takes place.  The humanitarian community need to  push for this and if there is international pressure to be mounted on the Sri Lankan government, it should be on this issue, to engage in a holistic and inclusive planning for resettlement and rehabilitation.  This is the priority at the moment.  Any other issue is tantamount to a distraction and will not help those most in need.