Captain. Keeper. Fielder. Batsman. Sangakkara does it all. He’s been one of my favorite players in the world since he emerged as one of the few wicketkeepers whose also consistent at bat, and the only wicketkeeper/batsman effective anywhere from opener, to 6th man down.
He’s just a sheer joy to watch. Sangakkara can make runs off any ball bowled his way, because his strikes are consistently clean, and always middled. He’ll never play a ball swinging toward the off side, to the leg side. And that kind of foresight is valuable wisdom in cricket.
Day 3, second test match vs India, Sri Lanka’s down 0 for 1, attempting to chase the monstrous 642 Indian total. Sangakkara steps in. Once opener Paranavithana fell to Sreesanth’s off side out swinger to the left handed batsman who nicked it straight into Dhoni’s hands, I guarantee Sangakkara was thinking: “shoot. I gotta hold my wicket, and be a pillar so my team doesn’t feel pressure to make an astronomical run rate”. He’s thinking like Dravid right now. But the beauty of Sangakkara is, he thinks that without having as much experience as a batsman like Dravid or Gilchrist. Sangakkara’s maturity as a batsman, captain, and keeper lie in the mere fact that if the team requires ten runs an over, he’ll do it, if they need him to hold his wicket for 100 balls, he’ll do it: he does what it takes to win. He’s dependable, consistent and although he’s out early on today, it’s not his norm.
Sri Lanka’s down 216 for 8 with impressive bowling by Sreesanth, and India’s opening lineup unleashed a batting onslaught giving them tremendous pace early on.
Sehwag’s seemingly constant ODI mindset was a blessing and Gambhir played magnificent innings, collectively chalking up 297, which eased pressure on following batsman to play their regular game. The openers did their job, and in any match, be it ODI, 20Twenty or Test, that’s key. I suppose this is just the flip side of the first test match. Sri Lanka dominated leaving India with the option to draw if not face an innings defeat, and it looks like we may see Sri Lanka in that position today.
At the heels of 26/11, Pakistan charged seven people involved in the Mumbai atrocities today. The Virginia Quarterly Review has a four part article revealing the ordeal in harrowing detail and after reading it, I’m still stunned. On 26/11 last year I got a call from a friend born and raised in Mumbai who was flying out there that afternoon, he said his parents were fine but his voice was wrought by a despair I hadn’t heard from him before. He didn’t specifically say he was distraught or describe how he felt in detail, but i recognized the frustration instantly because I’d heard that voice before: from friends in Karachi who witness countless threats and acts of terrorism since 9/11. I identified immediately with my friends frustration and despair on a humanitarian level, and even further because although the perpetrators in Mumbai were allegedly trained in Pakistan, I knew they’d ultimately hurt Pakistani’s the most.
As India forges ahead economically and internationally, Pakistan is deteriorating. Terrorism has brought vanishing security that has perpetually halted foreign investment, stagnating the economy leaving no trickle down for the lower and middle class majority population who simultaneously realize a widening gap in their position vis a vis the wealthy. Terrorism has rendered governance in survival mode since 9/11 making leeway for decreased oversight and increased corruption, which was rampant to begin with.
A year after the Mumbai atrocities, we see Manmohan Singh hosted at the White House in elaborate fanfare with progressive talks on bilateral trade rooted in liberalism that is fitting for a country with roughly 8% growth in GDP and a middle class that’s now larger than our entire population in the United States.
Conversely, relations with Pakistani South Asia in light of that progress are a valid point of comparison because we have a strategic interest in both countries. More than ever, it’s apparent we have economically strategic interests with India, and security based interests in Pakistan. And like previous presidencies the Obama administration quickly realized the delicate art of balancing both interests given that either country feels progressive relations with the United States inherently comes as a direct expense of one another. Engaging India as it expands economically and Pakistan geopolitically for security’s sake (i.e. in the War on Terror and in the face of an ascending China) pose an opportunity for us to strike a creative balance in South Asia.
It’s not about who wears the crown, (“Taj”) in South Asian U.S. relations, it’s about engaging both sides for the long haul.
In Pakistan that means cooperating today for security’s sake and uprooting terrorism and fundamentalism for tomorrow. Key from there is not abandoning ship, but remaining engaged so that Pakistan too has a route to economic expansion in the future. Without security, viable development won’t take place. And so long as we are engaged in an Af-Pak war, our policymakers have a responsibility to establish a roadmap that is rooted in long term success. This is our chance to get it right in South Asia, and that begins with an intention for a permanent solution. Assisting Pakistan to navigate the rising tide of development in our globalized world could be the key to ensuring they remain a strategic, long standing ally.
Zainab B. Jeewanjee
Zainab Jeewanjee 