Not a woman’s place

When I listened to Malala Yousufzai address the Canadian Parliament the previous day, I  felt nothing but respect for that girl. No, that woman. The way a nineteen year old woman could command the respect of the entire house, conservative and liberal was mesmerizing. I wished she spoke longer, I could listen for a long time perhaps with a Nazia Hassan tune playing in the background. She said she wanted to see more young ones sitting in the house of Parliament instead of many sitting there now, such was her appeal that even the oldest parliamentarians found themselves to be nodding.

I was quickly brought back to reality, the reality of pessimism and anger. My country folks don’t really let such moments pass easy, you see most people can’t tolerate strong independent women. There was a woman being honored by a house of parliament and yet she stood their telling them that they have not done enough to support a girl’s education across the globe, she told them that they need to do more. It pained me to watch so many of my own people accuse her for working on an ‘evil foreign’ agenda, obviously a girl’s right of education can only be something evil for the patriarchy.

1983 – Women’s Movement to protest against laws passed by military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq

Society on this side of the world, both sides of the border have internalized misogyny. It comes easy for them, they all feel threatened by a woman who can speak, who has her own voice. Be it the Fatima Jinnah daring to stand up to the dictator Ayub, standing up for the rights of the Bengali people or even the Sharmeen at the Academy Awards wanting to protect millions of other women from ending up like the girl in the river. Every female politician in this country has had to bear with misogynistic remarks, has had to face attacks such as not being fit to rule because of course she is a woman. Ms Bhutto paid with her life after all. Don’t take me in the wrong sense, I do not mean to say that women can not rise above all of this or that they haven’t been able to ever, but we need to understand the fact that just because that they do, does not mean that the problem does not exist. When a sitting Defence Minister can refer to a woman as a ‘tractor trolley’ to shut her up, to silence her voice, or when the leader of the opposition can crack a joke at the expense of women in a ‘light mood’, because it’s annoying when women speak, it’s obviously business only when men speak, It does help in bringing me back to this harsh reality.

For as long as Asma Jehangir’s refusal to compromise on principles means being ‘uptight’, for as long as Malala is just another foreign agent along with her partner in crime Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy, as long as parents continue to stop their daughters from going out for an education, even in urban centres, and people continue to turn a blind eye we can not hope to progress. This battle is not and was not one to be fought alone by Ms Jinnah, Mehtab Rashdi or Nazia Hassan trying to break cultural norms, this is not just ‘a women problem’, this is a moral problem and we all must be a part of this movement, to break the patriarchy and to call out misogyny.

 

The iconic Dupatta burning protest by Pakistani Feminists in 1983 against the military dictator Zia, this later became a symbol for resistance and freedom

 

Advertisements

The Liberal Dilemma

It can be reasonably assumed that the ideology of ‘liberalism’ is on a downward trend globally. In most parts of the world, more and more ‘conservative’ or ‘right wing’ candidates have seen success as opposed to their ‘liberal’ counterparts. The ‘Left’ is losing the battle against the ‘Right’. Let’s focus on why that is so, why is it that ‘liberals’ have started to become demonized in many societies? They are ‘anti-national’, they represent ‘foreign agendas’ and work against the overall national supremacy of their home country under the guise of human rights is what is now being associated with ‘liberals’. I am mostly referring to social liberalism rather than economic liberalism here, although economic liberalism is too on the downfall but that’s another discussion for another day.

Lets take Pakistan for example. Usually, ‘liberals’ are seen as Kaafirs(Infidels), people under the payroll of the evil west whose sole agenda is to derail the religious values of society. Terms such as ‘libtards’ or ‘liberal fascists’ are used quite often to describe social activists campaigning for secular values, criticizing the military, calling out religious extremism rigidly and perhaps even at times calling for improved relations and greater art exchange with our alleged enemies from across the border. In highlighting all the problems that exist within the country, speaking on sensitive religious issues, the ‘liberals’ are often charged with defaming the country globally, speaking the tongue of our enemies. Critiquing the military, which has a cult like following is also viewed as an anti-national activity. So because of all of these reasons within a generally conservative society, the word ‘liberal’ has become something of a slur. It is true that often people on one side of the spectrum don’t really give due consideration or respect to opinions on the other side of the spectrum and eventually fuel tension. This perhaps can also be seen the United States, when the ‘liberals’ were charged with demonizing Trump and his ‘deplorables'(followers) too much, not willing to hear out their concerns or what circumstances they come from.

I think we all need to consider and look at what being a ‘liberal’ generally means and whether or not the generalizations and/or demonization of this term is justified or not. Even here in Pakistan, the general liberal would be a supporter of a secular government, would want a tough crackdown against sectarian terror groups and the freedom to practice your religion without prejudice. Most people would probably agree in principle with all of these ideas, just like most people would agree that sexism and racism are unacceptable acts. The problem comes about in actually going into these subjects in detail: ‘Does the state have the right to declare someone an infidel?’, ‘Should women have the freedom to dress however they want in public?’, ‘Should a non-muslim be eligible to becoming the head of the state?’. Most people would have strong unfavourable opinions towards these questions and most people would get offended when someone tries to debate these issues, as most of these ideas are grounded within the religious belief of that person and anything that even comes close to questioning that offends them deeply. This offense is then translated into anger towards the debate generator, which is in most cases a self described or publically accepted form of a ‘liberal’. It is because of this offense and anger that people have moved away from the principle of liberalism and have started to view liberalism as something that is generally against their religious beliefs and against their national identity as well. When that is all liberalism is limited to, it automatically becomes a slur, because in the mind of the ‘non-liberal’, it doesn’t represent anything more than that. In a society that has generally been suspicious of the west, does not do so well with ‘liberalism’ especially when it is viewed as the brainchild of the west.

I think, for liberalism to be successful as a movement there needs to be a change in approach. There needs to be less ridiculing of other ideas to prove their ideas correct and more of trying to understand the opposing ideas and gradually try to alter them. Most Facebook pages campaigning for liberal values often end up becoming echo chambers after they successfully offend and push away most of the opposite spectrum. Radicalism and misplaced nationalism is allowed to grow and consolidate power when ‘liberalism’ alienates most people. In the American elections, most people took to ridiculing the opposite spectrum so much so with the holier than thou attitude, it actually brought about results that no one anticipated. The idea of liberalism means a generally free society, a society where everyone is equal and no one is the sacred cow. That doesn’t sound all that bad, we need to make sure that this is what it is in the minds of the people to bring about a progressive change. When activist Jibran Nasir’s posts ranging from the environment to radicalism are all met with only ‘anti liberal’ slurs, we must acknowledge that the term ‘liberal’ isn’t really a positive one in the minds of the people and we must help change it to mean what it actually is.

Violence, Do we really love it?

Strangely, the world has always had this uncanny attraction towards violence. From the medieval times all the way to modern times. It however needs to be acknowledged at some level, society today does strive and campaigns for peace, governments may(honestly) not, but society does(majority). This idea brings my attention to our society, sub-continental or Pakistani society, do we really prefer peace or are we inherently lovers of violent ideologies? I do understand that such generalizations are not accurate pictures of our society but considering it is important for the sake of understanding the issue at hand and to place it accurately within the sections of society. It is often seen on social forums that even to condemn violence, people often call for violence, that too, extremely brutal forms of it. People would suggest without shame the public hanging, stoning, amputation, gutting and at times even the burning of alleged perpetrators of violent crime and would even garner considerable support for such ideas. We as a nation actively suggest/support the brutal ‘crushing’ of all elements that we view or grow to view as ‘Anti-state’ ones, we do not think about ideological issues, we do not look towards permanent reconciliation of grieved parties or even perhaps structural development at a scale that would erase the ability of the said actors to operate with success. Our most easy and desired solution has always been ‘bombing them into oblivion’. It is important to note that I am not denying the need for armed force against groups that principally aim to oppress and murder innocents but what I am saying is, can it work independently without structural, social, economic and ideological changes in the narrative? Another question, do we really admire the brutal crushing of elements that are at odds with our morals? Do we see our military ability and viciousness as a source of pride? If Yes, then there exactly we have a problem. I understand that these questions may hold true for most societies around the world and under such circumstances we have a general problem around the world of rise in the culture of militancy, however the degree to which it is deeply entrenched into the minds of the people tends to be greater in regions that are war torn, have a poor literacy rate and extreme inequality or wealth and opportunities. I mean to place a lesser emphasis on ‘violence’ on let’s say on the border involved between forces of two nations or militant groups, but I wish to emphasize on acts of communal violence, oppressive state violence against innocents which tend to garner support from the masses, justifications such as, ‘They asked for it!’, ‘Should not do something that hurts others’ sentiments in the first place’.

(Public flogging in Pakistan, 1980s) *TZA does not own the picture*
                                 (Public flogging in Pakistan, 1980s) *TZA does not own the picture*

During the 80s military government in Pakistan, protesters were often flogged in public, those who had the courage to speak up were thrown into jail cells, tortured and starved there. The state was extremely brutal and did not flinch in using violence to suppress or even ‘eliminate’ those who hurt the ‘social order’. Lawyer, poets, journalists and free thinkers were brutalized,censored and labelled traitors. Yet people would come out in hundreds onto the streets to watch the public floggings and hangings as if it were a spectacle, a large section of society would continue to justify the state’s actions, even sections in today’s society continue to justify those past atrocities. When the state butchered and suppressed countless innocents in the former East-Pakistan, even then there were champions of nationalistic causes who referred to the brutality as ‘saving the country’. Such violence was not even toned down by future democratic regimes, police brutality was always an acceptable force to crush those who were a ‘National threat’. Even today, a large section of the country lives as the oppressed, thousands live under forced bonded slavery, women are killed and burnt to death for honor. Violence gradually over all this time has become embedded into our society and we don’t even realize it. The oppressed are traitors when they demand rights and the women are immoral when they demand rights. Those who speak up are traitors and are often called to be ‘hanged to death’ very casually on social forums. Those who even die in violent crimes, state or third party are casually flicked away by statements such as, ‘They must’ve done something’, ‘He/She should not have done or said that anyways’, ‘He/She did not posses a good moral character anyways, why do we even care?’, ‘I condemn it, but you know he/she was partially at fault too’. I don’t only mean social activists, journalists and politicians, I also mean alleged criminals, killers and alike. Why do we/can we as a nation justify violence so casually as if it is completely normal to us and happens all the time. Have the years of state violence and war on terror truly desensitized us to violence?

Is it suddenly ‘not that bad’ to kill just because ‘She asked for it’?  Why does it matter who the victim is? I understand that the world is not all rainbows and flowers, I understand that violence, crime and hate is also a large reality within it but does that really justify us being okay with it? Even if it is, does it then go far enough to be justified for us to be celebrating it? Why has, ‘Hang all you people’ become the default counter to most opinions and ideologies that are not in line with yours? Showcase of arms and ammunition and ‘hawayi firing’ (shooting bullets into the sky just for the fun of it) have become rituals and symbols of pride. So the question comes about, do we really enjoy it? Do we love it when violence is practiced against those who are not us nor dear to us? We are truly onto the path towards an increasingly militaristic society without us even realizing it, we can not expect social development and progress until and unless we realize it and take corrective measure to gradually change the narrative, just like it has gradually been constructed with the passage of time.

 

Ho Mann Jahaan: Refreshing, Beautiful & Entertaining.

56151a1d47b48Refreshing Start, immersive throughout, excellent execution and beautiful music.

Ho Mann Jahaan had everything that a modern day movie should have. It was relatable, it was not far fetched and it all seemed honest. This was a movie based on the life of three friends from College,  how their lives were interconnected and how events unfolded as time progressed. I know it all sounds like an over used and cliché idea. But the way it was executed, connecting with how the different facets of society and family structures in Pakistan operate did not allow the viewer to think ‘cliché’ even once. And the way it was panned out, it all linked back together like a well direction-ed, well steered boat. In the end Converging together with the initial message of the film, ‘dosti'(Friendship).

Ignoring the occasional flaw when the musician’s fingers or hands were not moving on the guitar yet the tune was altering. The direction, the location and the way in which the film was paced was impeccable. It did seem a bit of a drag a little before and after the intermission, but that effect was unnoticeable when fused with beautiful yet refreshing music. And understandably it seemed vital to the stroy, the film would have felt incomplete without all those little scenes, connections and details.

None of the characters seemed unnecessary, everyone on-screen had some part to play. And everyone played their part near perfect. Be it the evergreen Bushra Ansari, the beautiful Mahira Khan, Adeel Hussain or Sheheryar Munawar. Each actor had a distinctive character, no one seemed to be put on the sideline and none of the characters seemed fake. Which is extremely important because the actors need to believe in characters as a start to even have a chance of making the audience believe.

The music was the undisputed star of this movie. Considering that the plot was largely based on music, the art itself. The film shined in the music that it brought forward. Be it the beautiful Balochi tunes, Atif aslam’s Dil Kare, the pure entertainer Shakar Wanda or most importantly the classical Revitalized Zoheb Hassan and Nazia Hassan’s ‘Dosti’. This particular song may I add fit perfectly with the story line of the movie.

Besides all the technical aspects of the movie. In the end what does it or breaks it for the viewer is whether he/she is able to ‘feel’ with the movie. Does the viewer walk out of the theater with a smile on his/her face? This movie was able to create that feel and that is why I loved this movie.

This is indeed a wonderful start to the New Year and a wonderful first step of the year in the revival of the Pakistani Film Industry.

4.5*/5*

Front line aggressor or the Middleman?

So today the world faces with yet another conflict, yet again in the middle east. As Saudi Arabia allied with the United States dives into Yemen to take total control and ‘save’ the people of Yemen, one cant help but think of so many other points in history where the United States was committed to saving states from collapsing into total chaos, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan being prime examples, Afghanistan to a lesser extent. Iraq today is in ruins, as the people were ‘saved from the tyrants’, they were left in chaos  and no sense of control, only to be conquered by a great tyrant. The primary reason for the rise of the ISIS is because Iraq was left an unstable and weak state when the US left after oil exploring endeavors, the new Libyan state still awaits to face that new tyrant while it goes through total chaos and no stability in the entire state.

The United States has been carrying out drone strikes in Yemen for quite some time in order to counter the presence of the Al-Qaida in Yemen, one of Al-Qaida’s strongest presence. Continuous terror activities and not efficient counter terrorism has left Yemen as a weak and unstable state. As Yemen lost stability by the progression of time, it came with the rise of the Houthi Rebels. The Houthis have been rebelling against the Yemeni government on grounds of being unable to handle the current situation in the country and failure to protect the rights of the Shia minority. It shook the world when the Houthi rebels took control of the Yemenite Capital Sa’naa after a few month long advance, later a peace treaty was brokered by the UN to establish a balance of power in the country. This deal not only removed the tag of Houthi rebels being non state actors, it made them a stakeholder in the government and showed to the world that the UN was willing to consider the Houthi demands as they may have seen some sense in it.

Yet regardless of the progress that has been made, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia launched airstrikes against Yemen, supported wholeheartedly by the US. One must understand that this aggression took its course as the Yemenite population needed to be ‘Saved’, as claimed by the aggressors. Saved from whom? The houthi rebels? Maybe. But what about the Al-Qaida? In a bid to save the crumbling Sunni government of President Hadi, the Shia aggressor must be stopped as they pose a threat to the people of Yemen, this has effectively diverted the world’s war against terrorism, the Al-Qaida is not the main party that is being attacked, it is indeed the Houthis, so today the US-Saudi alliance has set its priorities straight, crushing rebellions rather than crushing terrorism, this conflict of the Houthis and Saudi Arabia is only going to help and strengthen Al Qaida as they will no longer be the main target of aggression, it is likely that they will be asked for help in the fight against the houthis as we saw in the training of the mujahideen army during the Afghan war or supporting of the rebels in Syria, who were also aided by terrorist organizations. This conflict has no longer been allowed to remain a rebellion by the people against the government, it has unfortunately turned into a sectarian clash between the Shias and the Sunnis, a battle front for a proxy war between Iran(supportive of the houthi rebels) and US-Saudi Alliance. It is extremely important for the Shias and Sunnis to keep aside their differences and unite in order to ensure peace, although this seems like a distant dream when so many nations are committed to keeping the two sects apart. We have seen major shifts in the policies of the United States when they chose to support rebel groups in Syria, they claimed that a tyrannical ruler must fall, here they fight against the rebels where they claim that rebels are the true tyrants, however one element remains consistent, fighting a proxy war between Iran and its allies, regardless of consequences.

As the Saudi kingship prepares for a ground offensive against Yemen, they have asked The Pakistan government for military help in order to fight this ‘menace’. Pakistan today stands on cross roads, which way will Pakistan choose to progress? Will it take the route it took with the Afghan conflict? actively engage in the battle front and fight until victory is achieved or will Pakistan stand on the sidelines? Pakistan has made very clear that the territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia will be protected and upheld by them if the time came, but what about the territorial integrity of Yemen? Will Pakistan go down the same road as it did with the Afghan war and see itself become the victim of vicious tyrants when the world allies are done and leave impending doom? Pakistan today has the chance of either going towards Saudi Arabia, this will effectively put to ruins its relations with neighboring Iran or Pakistan can chose to mediate peace between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which it is in a position to do so due to strong ties with both nations. Right now Pakistan fights a war against terror in its own country, terrorist groups are being targeted and crushed in the tribal areas, major cities being cleaned up by targetted operation, a rebellion in its western Province of Balochistan and regular border skirmishes with arch rival India also a continuous fight in the North, at Siachen.  Pakistan already has too much on its plate, will Pakistan still progress towards filling up her plate even more by taking the front line in this battle to ‘Save’ Yemen or choose to learn from the mistakes of its past. The world needs a stable middle east, regions such as Iraq and Syria only add to the impending doom of the continent and bring the third great war closer and closer. Launching ground offensives against various groups in countries just because they do not agree with the West will not contribute to stability, the only ones who gain from it are enemies of peace and perpetrators of violence, the terrorists. In Yemen’s case, indeed Al-Qaida will be the chief benefactor.What step Pakistan decides to take will be extremely important in deciding where this conflict leads to. Which path will Pakistan take? Front line aggressor or the Middleman?

Pakistan. The Ideology.

This picture is not owned by thezaidahmed.wordpress.com
This picture is not owned by thezaidahmed.wordpress.com

Just 75 years ago, at Minto Park, Lahore (it is now called Iqbal park) where the Minaret-e-Pakistan stands, the Lahore Resolution was passed. That day decided the future course of action for the All-India Muslim League, it was that day officially when the battle for Pakistan had begun. However one must realize that the battle for ‘freedom’ had begun  much before that time. It had started when Sir Syed Ahmed pushed the Muslims of India towards education, when Iqbal made that Allahabad address and when the ‘Now  or Never’ pamphlet was published by Chaudri Rehmat Ali. It was in fact freedom that was the struggle, Pakistan, a separate homeland happened to become that freedom eventually for the Muslims of India. But did we really achieve that freedom which was to be the struggle? Did some view the Lahore resolution document differently than some? The original document mentioned the term, ‘Independent State(s)’, was that something that the Muslims of Bengal held dearly but ignored by those on the other Muslim majority front?

What was penned down that day in that document, does it really stand true today? Does one really have the freedom that was decided to be pursued on that day? Did The Lahore Resolution, the spiritual birth of Pakistan really define the ideology of Pakistan? or was that course taken at a later point in history? Perhaps these questions will  never be truly answered, all we can do is assess history and reach an appropriate answer. Today Pakistan is going towards the depth of extremism day by day, a member of a religious minority does not have  the right to be elected head of state, questions are raised and petitions are filed when a member of the minority community rises to the Chief Justice of Pakistan(Acting). Democracy has been inconsistent in Pakistan, the Constitution has been amended countless times to favor timely rulers. Even when there is democracy, it is plagued with very high censorship(Censorship often takes place due to fear, as those speaking out against fundamentalist extremism are often banned. As of now WordPress is also banned, the reason for which I cant point a finger at), the electoral process is far from free and fair, violence and intolerance fuels in society. This is certainly not what was aimed on that day in 1940, but was it was also something not foreseen when the objective Resolution was passed in 1949 by then Prime Minister of the newly free country. This document(Objectives Resolution) made several previsions for religious clerics to have a say in the government. Perhaps it is on that day when the aim towards freedom, tolerance, co-existence and equality was shifted, since that day it has been tilting and tilting going towards directions which are not those of tolerance.

The separate homeland was campaigned to be a ‘Muslim majority’ nation/nations, the idea behind this was that in a greater India, Muslims were oppressed by the Hindu majority, in a Muslim majority homeland, they will not be oppressed(But certainly, the principle extended on to the idea that since Muslims were persecuted in a greater India, in this new nation, no minority shall be persecuted on their beliefs). The Quaid-e-Azam stressed upon religious tolerance in society and stood strong on his principles that no one shall be prosecuted due to their beliefs in the free country, views that are commendable, views that were lost somewhere after he passed way after his life long struggle for freedom. Religion was made to justify military regimes after it took over several times from the alleged democracy. Religion has been used at many points in the history of Pakistan to discredit opponents and strengthen oneself, it has been used to fuel hatred within communities and allowed individuals to act as saviors and protectors from ‘enemy beliefs’ while in fact they are the real enemies.

So what is the Ideology of Pakistan? Is it freedom that the Muslims did not get in India or is the dominance that the Muslims did not get in India? I choose to believe the former although history and the current situation guides me to the latter. 23rd March is the spiritual Birth of Pakistan, what has happened, is gone, we can not change it. But what we can do is look back and learn from our mistakes and come out as better, stronger and united citizen of Pakistan. We owe it to our future generations and those who sacrificed themselves for this Land and its people. It is the people in essence that define the ideology of a country, ours should be that of tolerance and being strong. State propaganda throughout time to create an environment to support and justify themselves by infusing hatred against other groups in society can not be accepted and can not decide a country’s ideology. We must take it upon ourselves to make Pakistan a better place, we must fight the enemies of our state, we must not let anyone rob us of our democratic, civil and human rights using the banner of religion or democracy itself. Pakistan must rise, it is our job to ensure that the rise happens. Prosecution of minorities, killing of innocents, killing for political gains, fueling ethnic hatred to be crowned saviors, oppression based on gender and hiding due to the fear of extremist outcries must not be continued, we must stand against injustice. No longer is it okay for the state to drop the curtains rather than confront the radical and extremist voices in society, that only aim to oppress the vulnerable. 

Freedom poet Habib Jalib,  

Khuda tumhara nahi hai khuda hamara hai
Use zamin pe yeh zulm kab gawara hai

Lahoo piyoge kahan tak hamara dhanwano
Badhao apni dukan seem-o zar ke deewano
Nishan kahin na rahega tumhara shaitano
Hamein yaqeen hai ke insaan usko pyara hai
Khuda tumhara nahin hai khuda hamara hai
Use zameen pe yeh zulm kab gaawara hai

Translation:

God is not yours, to Him we have access
He does not look kindly on those who oppress

How long, you men of pelf, will you bleed us white
Get off our backs, you who in filthy lucre take delight
You satans it is dust that you will soon bite
We believe that He treats mankind with loving tenderness
He does not look kindly on those who oppress

The Hero Pakistan Loves to Hate

Image not property of zaidahmed
Image not property of zaidahmed

As the world cup comes near, Pakistan prepares for their favorite sport. Although, like always the odds are against the national team, the nation can’t help but hope for a repeat of the 1992 glory. The nation is all geared and waiting for Shahid Afridi to walk to the crease or for Mohammad Irfan to run towards the wicket, they count their favorites and bet that they will take the team to success. One man never seems to make it to that list of favorites, perhaps he shall always be defined by that night in Mohali, 2011. The nation shall always look down at him, hate him and blame him for the debacle at Mohali. Perhaps this is what we do as a nation, we choose to judge and define an individual by one event and not appreciate him for what he has done regardless of so many contributions. The man that the nation does not expect from this world cup, the man that the nation hates for being captain and taking away that honor from their beloved Boom Boom is none other than our very own Misbah ul Haq, the hero we love to hate.

We choose to ignore that Misbah was Pakistan’s highest scorer in the inaugural T20 world cup, 3rd highest of the tournament and that he raised the fight in the final when the entire team had fallen, we fail to see his fight in the 2013 Champion’s trophy when he was the lone survivor in all the matches when once again the entire line up crumbled, we dismiss his fastest ton as a fluke and not skill, we forget that he has always played under pressure of a batting collapse but instead we choose to call him out on his calm, defensive nature, we call him out on not having made an ODI hundred, we call him out for not having a 100+ strike rate but mostly we hate him because of that night in Mohali. We choose to ignore Misbah’s undeniable success as a test captain and batsman, we want to call him out for driving the Pakistani cricket team towards doom in ODIs, perhaps we have been going towards that since what happened in Lord’s 2010, Misbah has managed to slow the pace towards that (ironic eh?), one can’t help but consider, will the current Pakistan team even make 200 runs in an ODI if Misbah ul Haq was not part of the line up? remove misbah’s contributions in the 2013 champion’s trophy and countless other ODIs and you will have your answer.

Hearts of millions of Pakistanis wish to see Pakistan achieve glory once again at the MCG, but so many of them can not fathom to see Misbah being the one lifting the world cup as they will no longer be able to despise him which they want to do so badly.

We as a nation have a set image for our heroes, they need to be aggressive, attacking players, our image of heroes is set as Miandad and Shahid Afridi. An individual who does not play aggressive cricket like them will most likely not be a hero to us even though he may deserve it. We fail to see the collective failure of our team and we point towards one man, one man only, Misbah ul Haq. We fail to see that he is always on the wrong side of a batting collapse and on most occasions he has been the one to stabilize it, he has always risen to the occasion and got the team somewhere rather then nowhere.

He is not a Miandad, he is not an Afridi, he never will be, he is a player of his own class, just like we may not ever see another Miandad or an Inzamam, we wont see another Misbah. He is that player in our team on whom we can rely on and who has the capability to turn the game around, Pakistan may be the minnows in this world cup but if we have any chance whatsoever of getting anywhere, it will be Misbah who will take us there, if not him then no one will. This world cup is his last campaign to solidify himself in the halls of fame of Pakistan cricket and perhaps the hearts of the Pakistani people, Pakistan’s chances in the world cup may not be bright, but whatever glow one sees, it is this man who forms a large part of it. In Misbah we trust.