The Pakistan Cricket Board’s (PCB) domestic cricket underwent radical overhauling last year when the departmental system was scrapped in favour of a new regional cricket structure. The old departmental cricket system, which had been the backbone of the local cricket scene since the early 1970s, featured 16 first-class teams that belonged to private organisations such as the Khan Research Laboratories and Habib Bank Limited. However, with the introduction of the new system, the number of teams has been reduced to six provincial squads, with Punjab sporting two teams and the sixth team catering to the cricketers of the northern areas such as Gilgit-Baltistan and Kashmir.
The PCB has also reorganised district level cricket into a three tier bottom-up system. The bottom tier consists of 90 city cricket associations that will supervise school and club cricket in their respective domains. The winners from this round will proceed to the middle tier to take part in inter-city tournaments. The winners at this level will tehn be eligible to play for their respective provincial team, if they are selected.
The six cricket associations will ensure that the affairs of the associations at city level are regulated. They are also expected to frame policies that will develop cricket at the grassroots, manage club cricket in collaboration with the city associations and also oversee intra-city competitions. More importantly, they have also been made responsible for revenue generation through sponsorship, marketing and strategic collaborations with business conglomerates. Each provincial association now has a chief executive officer and a management committee that has been tasked with supervising all cricketing activities. These changes have been made by the PCB in order to decentralise the administrative body so that it can limit itself to a supervisory role by delegating responsibilities related to the development of the sport to the provincial associations.
The framework is undoubtedly detailed and robust, but will require continual monitoring from the PCB for at least the next couple of years in order to ensure that the newly implemented system stays on a trajectory that will allow it to eventually pay dividends by producing quality players on a consistent basis.
Admittedly, the revamped structure does have its fair share of detractors with legendary cricketer Javed Miandad criticising the new system for depriving budding cricketers of opportunities and employment. The world-cup winning batsman stated:
“I played for Habib Bank Limited which elevated me to the senior vice president position and enabled me to provide top education to my children. Therefore, these departments, by providing jobs to sports persons, are taking care of their necessities.”
In order to ascertain whether the above criticism holds water, let us briefly compare the defunct departmental system and the new revamped structure. The departmental system used to have 16 teams which employed roughly 350 cricketers. However, in the new structure, each team has 32 players on their books out of which 16 are first team members while the remaining are reserves. This means that a total of 192 players have been retained whereas at least 160 cricketers have been let go. The decrease in the number of cricketers is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it will increase competition for places and ideally, bring the best out of the players. At the same time, fringe cricketers who have been unable to cement a guaranteed spot in the teams may choose not to toil in the domestic circuit because doing so could become financially unviable, especially if their socioeconomic status is not solid to begin with.
Fazal Subhan, who represented Pakistan at the under 19 and ‘A’ team levels, is one such cricketer who has been forced to look for alternate employment after the dissolution of departmental cricket. Veteran cricketer Mohammad Hafeez shared a video on his twitter account where Subhan can been seen driving a mini-truck to make ends meet. Hafeez expressed his disappointment at Subhan’s situation, said,
“Like him, many others are suffering [as well]. The new system will look after 200 players, but thousands of cricketers and management staff have become unemployed because of this new model. I don’t know who will take responsibility of this unemployment of the cricketing fraternity…”
This is the sad reality for some of the players who have not been selected by the provincial cricketing associations. However, those who have made the cut will see their monetary situation greatly improve with the onset of the new domestic pay scale. For starters, each of the 32 players have been put on a newly introduced monthly retainer of Rs50,000. This amount excludes match fees, prize money and allowances which will be paid separately. Additionally, the fees for four-day matches has been increased from Rs50,000 to Rs75,000 whereas the remuneration for one day matches, be it a T20 match or a 50-over match, has been improved to Rs40,000. Therefore, the first team players stand to earn approximately Rs2-2.5 million per annum as opposed to Rs1.2 million which was on offer previously. Moreover, the reserve players, who once earned Rs0.5 million, can now earn up to Rs1.2 million.
As a result, those who manage to make the cut will have a better pay structure and a larger share of the pie. That being said, it is pertinent to ask as to who will ensure that player recruitment is carried out on the basis of merit so that only deserving players, regardless of their family background, get a place in the 32-man squad? This question is extremely relevant seeing as how our cricketing system is notorious for its inability to guard itself against the evil of nepotism when considering players for selection, both domestically and on the international stage.
It is also important to remember that the PCB will inject Rs1.1 billion for the first three years and then pull out their financial support, with the expectation that the provincial associations will become financially sustainable within this period. The private departments, or rather, organisations that owned the teams in the previous setup, have been formally shown the door which could dissuade them from investing in the new cricket system simply because the companies may feel that they will not get the same return in the form of public relations and advertising that they used to previously. This could prove to be worrisome for the cricketing associations who may be looking to partner themselves with such companies in order to become sustainable, profit making entities. If the six domestic cricket associations are unable to do so, this new and improved pay scale could come crashing down along with the domestic structure itself.
Admittedly, the current patron-in-chief of the PCB, Prime Minister Imran Khan has always propagated the introduction of this new domestic structure which draws inspiration from Australia’s Sheffield Shield. The Australian structure, which has churned out exceptional cricketing talent over the years, also features six teams, one for each state or province. However, the one glaring question that is yet to be answered is this; can the Australian six team model that caters to a country of 24.6 million people be considered suitable for Pakistan which has a burgeoning population of 220 million and counting?
Saifullah Paracha’s 18 years in an unjust system
Guantanamo is an example of state-sponsored terror and a stain on the credibility of the US against its war on terror.
It has been more than 20 years since the war in Afghanistan started. Although the war came to an end last year, what outlasted it is the Guantanamo Bay Detention Centre, hereafter referred to as ‘Gitmo’.
Gitmo was set up in January 2002 in a United States (US) naval base in Cuba to serve as the primary detention centre for suspected terrorists arrested by the US armed forces and intelligence from around the world. Undoubtedly, the American people suffered greatly during the 9/11 attacks but the subsequent methods applied by American stakeholders, especially regarding their exchanges and engagements with prisoners, raises serious questions about the United States’ credibility as a responsible state and whether it respects basic human rights as much as it boasts about them?
Shreds of evidence, unfortunately for the US, prove that there was utter disregard for the human rights or rights of Prisoners of War (POW). A clear example of that is Saifullah Paracha’s experience at Gitmo, who was arbitrarily detained, contrary and against international/domestic law. He remained at Gitmo from 2004 up until the end of October 2022, having lost 18 years of his life without any trial. What is more outrageous was his inability to appeal on November 10, 2005, as the US Senate approved an amendment that barred detainees’ right to challenge their detention via habeas corpus pleas.
Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
In the early 2000s, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) came up with what it termed “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” which were aimed at enabling the interrogators to extract as much information as they could from a detainee. However, in pursuance of those techniques, the interrogators became involved in practices that amounted to gross violations of human rights. The techniques included placing detainees in stressful positions for prolonged periods, holding them in solitary confinement, threats of further torture, exposure to extreme temperatures, and sleep deprivation for days. Psychological torture was practised along with physical torture to coerce the detainees to incriminate themselves, even if they had nothing to do with terrorism in the first place.
In the words of Oves Anwar, who serves as the director of research at the Research Society of International Law, describes Gitmo as “a stain on international justice” and a “black spot in the history of United States’ delivery of justice”. Military commissions have legally failed to serve their purpose which was to try detainees. Out of the 780 detainees, only one has been convicted by the federal court and two by the military commission. Measures were also taken to sustain Gitmo’s operation that was contrary to the international law of war detention, international human rights laws, conventions, and treaties. These systematic measures included both legislation and executive presidential orders.
According to US Vice President Dick Cheney on September 16, 2001:
“We have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will… if we’re going to be successful. That’s the world these folks operate in, and so it’s going to be vital for the US to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective.”
The US, through the years, has gradually lost its credibility as a responsible nation that respects international law, the law of individuals, and the laws of prisoners of war. Its inhumane treatment of inmates in Guantanamo serves as sufficient proof. No civilised country can have the moral courage to undertake such arbitrary measures against foreign suspects, especially such suspects who, more often than not, were mistaken individuals or people who had nothing at all to do with Al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks.
What happened in Guantanamo and other places similar to it amount to heinous crimes against humanity and gross violations of a person’s dignity, mental health and self-respect. Had these actions been undertaken by a country other than the US, the human rights regimes and organisations would have lobbied to such an extent against it that it would have induced condemnation from across the globe, the government would have been labelled extremist, and a regime change would have taken place in the name of freedom of individuals and their human rights. All states hold equal status as per International Law and there is no reason why the US should be treated extraordinarily.
Guantanamo is a classic example of state-sponsored terror and a stain on the credibility of the war on terror. Violence only begets more violence, and as far as Gitmo is concerned, it has only added fuel to the fire of hatred against the West.
Some films are too hard to kill
It is still a Pakistani film made by Pakistanis, filmed in Pakistan and depicting it. Shouldn’t that be reason enough?
From Cannes to Cairo, Joyland gave Pakistan many moments to be proud of, with a possible Oscar on the horizon. However, the hopes of having the film screened in Pakistan were shot down, and the Central Board of Film Censors (CBFC) played the smoking gun.
Let’s be honest though, does censorship even matter? Is it rational to have fear over a trans-love film? The belief that the film is inciting moral indecency and predilections are just a shy way of hiding the fear of a growing empathy for the transgender community, especially when this community dates far longer than the inception of this country.
The film’s exhibition licence was issued in August 2022 and was set to be screened on November 18, 2022. But in a not-so-shocking turn of events, CBFC issued a censor of the film on November 11th. A tweet from Jamaat-e-Islami Senator Mushtaq Ahmed on November 12th revealed Joyland’s censor certificate. The certificate grounds its reasons for written complaints, referring that the film did not conform to social and moral standards, citing Section 9 of the Motion Picture Ordinance 1979, to validate their action. An outcry for the injustice and alleged unconstitutional move made by CBFC had fans of Joyland and its cast/crew flocking to social media seeking vindication.
The main detractors of the film point out how the film is a glorification of immorality, all complaints without ever even watching the film. However, this film is not the first in Pakistan to depict a transgender person, where the majority would depict said character as the butt of the joke. I had the fortunate opportunity to watch the film, although heavily edited, and in one scene of the film, Biba (Alina Khan) overhears jokes about “what is in her pants”. She does not take that joke lightly and grabs one of the men and holds him against the wall, her hand on his neck. Biba’s response is the response of all transgender people in Pakistan: they are not a joke. Joyland’s direction places a love story between Haider and Biba, but in this case, the film does not treat it as a joke.
Violence, rape or social critique, we are not unfamiliar with; the news doesn’t hide it and WhatsApp conspiracy theory group chats don’t either. Why selective censorship, especially when promoting it would be beneficial to society and the country’s image at large?
Recently, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act (2018) was rehashed for debate, as some religious groups called the bill a promotion of ‘homosexuality’ and, again, social immorality. Plain and simple, the bill ensures that those who fall under the category of transgender, by self-determination, will be guaranteed their rights are protected and can function as a citizen within Pakistan (on paper at least).
When Biba retorts to the jokes about her, her response reflects the ridicule and criticism her gender since time immemorial. This film does promote transgender rights, building society’s empathy. There is nothing glorious about being disinherited and disowned by your family, having a higher chance of being murdered, being outcast by society and much more. The film doesn’t glorify immorality but shows the injustice and harsh judgement that minority groups such as the transgender community face on a daily basis. We as a society bottleneck minority groups believing that it’s their choice to face such a life, but for them, it is the reality, not a choice.
Censorship does not protect people from the worst parts of life. Movies such as Javed Iqbal (2022), which was censored, retell actual events of a serial killer who killed 100 young boys in Lahore. The reality of those boys being brutally murdered does not change with censorship; society has not forgotten, and certainly the boys’ families have not either. Joyland’s censorship only covers a fraction of the injustice towards the transgender community.
This film matters a great deal internationally, winning accolades from prestigious foreign film organisations, but it matters so much more for Pakistan. Its recognition highlights a chance to show the world something – the culmination of six long years from its cast and crew. One cast member, Sarwat Gilani, pleads saying,
“Don’t take away this moment of pride and joy from our people!”
It is not only about the film’s story, but Pakistan is currently having a moment to take pride in its hard work. The sweat, time, effort and tears of its film industry.
No matter the complaints, it is still a Pakistani film made by Pakistanis, filmed in Pakistan and depicting a part of Pakistan. Shouldn’t that be reason enough? While CBFC censoring the film doesn’t disqualify it from being an Oscar contender; in fact, the film has plans to screen in France on November 22nd. The traction the film is receiving hasn’t ceased, and a “high-level committee” reviewed CBFC’s decision and overturned it, allowing Pakistan a screening, and as of November 16th, the film is cleared to screen nationally. However, despite overruling CBFC’s decision, the Punjab government has promptly revoked its decision to screen Joyland in the province, while Sindh will follow through with its release.
Before the CBFC’s ban, the director of Joyland, Saim Sadiq, went on to say that the film is still legally certified to release in Punjab and Sindh. He further added that CBFC’s action was unconstitutional, saying,
“The 18th Amendment in the Constitution gives all provinces the autonomy to make their own decision.”
On the provincial level, the film was approved for screening on November 18th (prior to CBFC’s ban), so this draws the question of how the film could be banned after receiving approval.
The internet gives people many avenues to access such movies, and Joyland being screened elsewhere could segway to movie piracy. Film or no film, there will always be more people who will shed light on the plight of the transgender community and other injustices. Censorship only diverts rather than act as a preventative, and is especially pointless given the access internet provides. If the world wants to watch the film, why wouldn’t Pakistan? It is the responsibility and prerogative of the individual to decide if they want to watch the film, not some written complaints.
Video leaks for character assassination: A disgusting tactic
Engaging in such malpractices to disempower opponents reflects a sick mentality and the ugliness of Pakistani society.
Pakistan’s politics of late has become extremely ugly. In addition to the threat to the lives of politicians, the recent practice of leaking indecent videos against political figures has become quite rampant. This new trend in Pakistan’s politics is quite dangerous, and if it goes unchecked, the country will soon become hostage to anarchist forces.
Pakistan, which has seen its large swathes of land swept over by flood water, its economy floundering, its society and its politics increasingly becoming polarised, its journalists harassed and killed, had yet to see more ugliness as if it hadn’t had enough of it already.
Sadly, this trend started with the leaking of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) stalwart Muhammad Zubair’s improper video. Soon after the video made rounds on social media, Zubair’s opposition was in a glee, not knowing that one day the same will happen to them. This was followed by a brief lull, until a crude video was leaked featuring Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) senator Azam Khan Swati and his wife.
It was such an unfortunate incident that the PTI senator wept publicly and demanded that such malign practices should stop. Earlier, the same senator alleged he was picked up and tortured by intelligence officials. Such was the impact of the torture and video leak that the senator publicly named those who were involved.
Unfortunately, the trend didn’t stop here, as recently another video was seen making rounds featuring the former senator and PML-N leader Pervaiz Rashid.
Engaging in such malpractices to disempower political opponents reflects a sick mentality, which further sheds light on the ugliness of Pakistani society. Wresting power from political opponents can be done in another and far cleaner manner, without resorting to such mean and disgusting methods. Character assassination is not an old practice in Pakistan, but the recent normalisation of leaking videos to tarnish the characters of political figures is something to be worried about.
Before the video leaks, audio tapes of various political leaders were leaked. Ironically, even the most secure office in Pakistan, the Prime Minister’s office, couldn’t save itself from the assault. Moreover, the audio leaks were intended to attach illegitimacy to the political figures and thereby diminish public support. However, this didn’t produce the desired results.
These desperate attempts of democratic and non-democratic forces bode ill for the Pakistani society. The already fragile socio-political system cannot withstand further inventions in political ugliness and indecency. More ugliness will be followed by more weakness and polarisation.
The recent riverine floods left the country devastated. As a consequence, masses have been dislocated, and most of them are shelterless, without any possible relief from their woes in sight. What is worrying, however, is that there is a surge in diseases which would badly affect the infants in flood-hit areas. Not only this, but the economy is in utter disrepair, with the country’s youth growing increasingly disappointed with the rising inflation and unemployment. These concerns have, however, taken a back seat while what is more important for the political class is power grab. This struggle for power has turned uglier, leading to demeaning video leaks surfacing in abundance.
In such an asphyxiating political environment, there is no space for any progress; rather, society regresses further. Ethical limitations do exist in politics across the world, but here in Pakistan, such a concept is nowhere to be seen. In Pakistan, it is considered rather an achievement to demolish someone’s character for political gains than something to be ashamed of.
Conclusively, what is needed at this hour is a consensus among all the political parties that despite of their political differences, there should be no space allowed for an assault on the opposing political figure’s character, and an agreed upon charter should be formulated and implemented which would enumerate limitations not to be crossed by any political figure for the sake of attaining power and support. This could prove effective in reducing the intensity of the prevailing political ugliness in Pakistan.
Imran’s right of defence struck out in defamation case
Pakistan to send armed helicopter unit to UN peacekeeping mission
Imran urges ‘all Pakistanis to participate’ in PTI long march
Twitter alternatives that users are turning to
help your child connect with care
Twitter’s new verification system to have two tiers
Technology2 weeks ago
Twitter alternatives that users are turning to
Technology3 weeks ago
help your child connect with care
Technology2 weeks ago
Twitter’s new verification system to have two tiers
Business3 weeks ago
People to get insurance claims soon
Blogs3 weeks ago
Are you ready to see Blake Lively kick some butt
Pakistan2 weeks ago
Govt insists new Reko Diq deal is transparent
Business2 weeks ago
UAE says will carry on pumping oil responsibly
Pakistan2 weeks ago
Winter showers add more to miseries of flood-hit people