Of Alan Wilkins, his autograph and biography

Raju Korti

If talking about sport is better than playing it, Alan Wilkins should be its best example. This smiling Welshman has been a very eloquent face on the small screen for over 20 years now. My cricketing instincts brought up and fed on the iconic voices of John Arlott, Brian Johnston, Alan McGilvray, Trevor Bailey, Fred Truman, Christopher Martin Jenkins and Henry Blofeld, could never reconcile with the commentators of the post 90s until Alan took over the mike with his subtle laconic humor.
Composed, relaxed and with a smiling visage, Alan glides the viewer with vividness and a narrative to match. The craft comes to him with a fluency that one rarely sees in those of his ilk now. I was witness to it once when I saw him sitting alongside Harsha Bhogle in the commentator's box. After Harsha was done with his garrulous self with the post-match description at the end of the day, the camera panned on to the Sun going down and Alan, true to his laconic style, latched onto that one like a trice: "The Sun sets on Harsha Bhogle", he said with a mischievous smile that he wears on his face all the time. As I gave him a thumbs up from close by he just smiled in acknowledgement.

Given his articulation as a commentator and his exemplary career as a bowler with Glamorgan and Gloucestershire, I wonder why his book is titled as "Easier Said Than Done: A Life in Sport". I suppose it has something to do with his anguish of a cricketing career cut short by a debilitating shoulder injury he couldn't cope up with. His shift from a prodigious swing bowler to an evocative commentator was seamless. It is no surprise that 35 years since he first stepped into the realm of sport broadcasting, the 64-year-old has now chronicled his journey from cricketer and rugby player to a broadcaster. My gut feeling is that his sense of anguish has now been eclipsed by his proficiency with the microphone and camera rather than with a bat and ball. And when you know he has a degree in Sports Science (Psychology), it is easy to understand why he has been able to forge great friendships with legends of the sporting world and put his finger on the pulse of the game. The "swing" of his life makes for an absorbing reading mainly because Alan keeps the narrative simple and flowing. Yet, Alan is much more than than the man we always see in front of the camera. Maybe that's how he justifies the title of the book.

When I saw the book at Crossword I did not even blink before buying it. The very thought of reading someone who spoke as well was tempting enough. As someone who often covered matches from the Press Box I crossed his path several times and even thought of meeting him for a write up but somehow it never happened.
The small consolation, however, is this book that he specially signed up for me yesterday. I am sure I will catch up with him in flesh and blood to partake of his playful witticism one day. That he continues to be a revelation each time I see him commentating is quite another story.

The politics of American aid to Pakistan

Raju Korti
If the past is anything to go by, the issue of American aid to Pakistan is an unending conundrum. I say this with a certain degree of authority because the US' relationship with Pakistan has always been a transactional one marked by mutual mistrust, marriages of convenience and mood swings.
The American administration has been providing economic and military aid to Pakistan right since 1947 but somehow this roller coaster ride has smoothed out in the end. It is therefore with some trepidation that I wonder about their decision to scrap USD 300 million aid to Pakistan on the assertion that the latter has not shown any intent in support of its strategy in the region. The US aid to Pakistan has a long political history and this is not the first time that money has been withheld.
With Pakistan the Americans have always been confronted with a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. From the days of Reagan and Bush, for reasons justifiable or not, the politics of American aid to Pakistan has made bigger headlines than its nitty gritty. Understandably, the decision to scrap aid comes after President Trump made it clear earlier this year that he would suspend nearly all security aid to Pakistan -- an across-the-board freeze that is the most tangible sign yet of Washington's frustration with the country's refusal to crack down on terrorist networks.
The move underlines how swiftly relations with Pakistan have deteriorated since Trump took office. However, it also echoes several previous rifts between the countries over Pakistan's role as sanctuary for extremist Jihadi groups -- a role that has poisoned Islamabad's relations with Washington since that attack of September 2001. It might be tempting to draw an assertive conclusion at this juncture because there is a catch that dilutes this hard line as it has done for decades. The US administration points out that this freeze is temporary and could be lifted if Pakistan changes its behavior. History has established that Pakistan has neither changed nor does it show any such inclination.
Pakistan receives foreign aid from many countries and international organizations. Since the start of Afghanistan war majority aid has come from now-ally-now enemy United States through the Coalition Support Fund. This fund is justified as reimbursement to Pakistan for counter-terrorism operations. Between 1948 and 2016, the US obligated nearly $ 80 billion to Pakistan. While it has stopped foreign aid this year, it continues to mull the idea of funding its so called anti-terror operations. Pakistan has also taken substantial loans from the International Monetary Fund. What Pakistan does with this aid remains mired in mystery although it is believed that this money is spent on acquiring arms, funding terrorists and institutional corruption.
Pakistan, however, lives in a perpetual denial mode. Given the country's track record there is understandable skepticism whether the new prime minister Imran Khan will be able to change things. In one of my earlier blogs I had written that the euphoria over an elected government in Pakistan evaporates in no time. On a different turf altogether, Khan's talk of building a new Pakistan will end up as another regulation speech. The damage has already been done. Pakistan's continued support for resurgent militant groups hostile to the US, coupled with warming US military and business relations with India is sharply diminishing Islamabad's strategic importance as an ally to Washington.
India has displayed uncharacteristic diplomacy by not jumping the gun on US scrapping aid when it has always accused Pakistan of harboring, training and infiltrating terrorists in Kashmir and elsewhere. There are enough cross currents as it is. The Pakistanis have a totally different perception. They generally believe that this is America's war and not a global or Pakistani war while in some US quarters, it is argued that it would be dangerous to allow relations with Pakistan to deteriorate further. Its Catch 22 situation though. The unvarnished truth is a prosperous Pakistan is as dangerous as a failed Pakistan -- fact Americans know but won't acknowledge.