Essays

You are currently browsing the archive for the Essays category.

feerpks.pdf

Far Eastern Economic Review

By Sadanand Dhume

On April 17, an estimated 200,000 slogan-chanting protesters—the men in white, the women in headscarves— converged upon the heavily guarded U.S. Embassy in Jakarta. Speakers castigated the U.S. for supporting Israel. Banners held aloft in the crowd accused the U.S. and Israel of being “the real terrorists.” Others proclaimed the protesters’ readiness to free (from Israel) the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, Islam’s third holiest site. Similar processions wound their way simultaneously through other Indonesian cities, including Surabaya in East Java and Makassar in South Sulawesi.

Wire services reported the Jakarta protests as the largest in years, but what made them remarkable was not their size but their timing. They came a week after a senior leader of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas had called upon Muslims around the world to protest a planned demonstration at al-Aqsa by Jews dedicated to reclaiming the site. The mosque occupies the most sacred spot in Judaism, the site of the ancient Temple of Solomon.

How does an appeal by a Palestinian in Jerusalem translate a week later into hundreds of thousands of people jamming the streets of downtown Jakarta? It’s a question that can’t be answered without examining the group behind the protests, the Justice and Prosperity Party. In the seven years since it was founded, the Justice Party has emerged as the best organized political force in the country. In 1999, it attracted less than 1.5% of the vote and won a meager seven seats in parliament. By last year, its share of the vote swelled to nearly 7.5%; with 45 seats it’s the seventh largest party in the 550-seat parliament.

The Justice Party has built its following on a reputation for incorruptibility, a record of social work and an attachment to Islamic causes. Less known is the fact that it draws its ideology and organizational structure from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the group whose ideas spawned, among others, Hamas, Sudan’s National Islamic Front and, most famously, al Qaeda.

Until now the Justice Party has attracted much less international attention than Jemaah Islamiyah, the al Qaeda offshoot headed by jailed Muslim preacher Abu Bakar Baasyir. Jemaah Islamiyah stands for suicide bombings, the Justice Party for peaceful protests. Yet both subscribe to the same fundamentally antimodern worldview. And in the long term, the Justice Party poses the greater threat to Indonesia’s tradition of pluralism, its stability and its prospects for economic growth.

“ISLAM IS THE SOLUTION”

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, a school teacher who believed that Islam was not merely a religion, but a way of life. Its ideology is encapsulated in the Brotherhood’s slogan: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

The Brotherhood’s most influential thinker was the Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966). In 1948, Qutb, then an official in the Egyptian Ministry of Education, was sent to the U.S. to study for a master’s degree in education. In Greeley, Colorado, the small town where he lived, there were no bars; hemlines fell well below the knee. But to read Qutb you would think he had stumbled upon the set of Desperate Housewives.

He interpreted the manicured lawns of Greeley as evidence of insatiable American greed. He saw the entire country as soulless, materialistic and depraved. As for Jews, they were a craven and slavish people who couldn’t grasp the idea of a life with dignity. They were to blame for materialism (Marx) and sexual permissiveness (Freud). Worst of all, they were the sworn enemies of Islam: “History has recorded the wicked opposition of the Jews to Islam right from its first day in Medina.”

After returning to Egypt in 1950 Qutb quickly became the Brotherhood’s principal ideologue. For him, as for Islamists everywhere, God’s laws (sharia) were superior to man’s laws. The answer to all of society’s problems lay in Islam. It belonged not merely in the mosque, but in the classroom and the boardroom; in banks, in courts, in movie theaters. Qutb reinterpreted the Arabic word jahiliyya, traditionally used by Muslims to describe the ignorance of pre-Islamic Arabs, to describe Egypt’s secular rulers. He wrote his most influential

book Milestones (sometimes called Signposts on the Road) for a vanguard of Muslims, men animated by the spirit of the Prophet and his seventh century companions, and committed to the establishment of an Islamic state. Jihad for such a cause was noble. For Qutb, those who died in the cause were not truly dead; their actions outlived their bodies. Not surprisingly, the Brotherhood came into conflict with Egypt’s secular government. Qutb was accused of plotting to assassinate President Nasser and hanged in 1966. Many followers, including his younger brother Muhammad Qutb, fled to Saudi Arabia, where they were welcomed by a monarchy flush with petrodollars and eager to add intellectual heft to its own premodern ideas of Islamic purity.

Muslim Brothers founded the University of Medina and swelled the faculties of other Saudi universities. Muhammad Qutb’s most famous student was Osama bin Laden. Another of Mr. bin Laden’s teachers was Abdullah Azzam, a Jordanian member of the Brotherhood widely revered by Islamists as the architect of the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. Saudi money gave Sayyid Qutb’s ideas a platform. Students from South and Southeast Asia, many on Saudi scholarships, poured into its universities. At the same time, Saudis and other like-minded Arabs funded mosques, madrassas (Islamic boarding schools) and universities throughout the Muslim world.

FROM HINDUS TO HAJJIS

On the face of it, Indonesia was unpromising ground for a movement anchored in the certainties of seventh century Arabia. After Islam took root in the 14th century, Allah had to keep company with the likes of Dewi, goddess of the rice paddy; Nyai Loro Kidul, Queen of the South Seas; and Nini Tawek, the angel of the Javanese kitchen. Most Indonesians took pride in their past, in the civilization that built Borobudur, the world’s largest Buddhist monument, and in the Majapahit empire, a Javanese Hindu kingdom whose influence stretched to present-day Cambodia.

Moreover, Islam was by then already a civilization in global decline. By the early 1500s, Portuguese gunships had entered Southeast Asian waters. A century later the Dutch established their headquarters on the site of today’s Jakarta. The triumph of European arms and technology meant that Islam did not enjoy the long political supremacy in Indonesia that it did in the rest of the Muslim world.

In 1945, following a three-year occupation by the Japanese during World War II, Indonesia declared independence from the Dutch. Sukarno, the country’s preeminent freedom fighter and first president, was a secular nationalist. He helped scuttle an early Islamist attempt to force Muslims to follow Islamic law. Instead, the new nation adopted the doctrine of Pancasila, which guarantees the equality of the country’s five recognized religions: Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism and Protestantism. The constitution offers no special place to Islam, the professed faith of almost nine out of ten Indonesians.

In 1966, amidst claims of an attempted communist-backed coup—and the subsequent annihilation of the largest communist party in the noncommunist world, 500,000 suspected leftists killed in five months—Sukarno was eased aside by General Suharto. The new ruler replaced socialism with market economics, and a tilt toward Beijing and Moscow with one toward Washington. But he did little to tamper with Sukarno’s secular nationalism.

To many devout Muslims, President Suharto’s regime was, if not anti-Muslim, at the very least un-Islamic. Mr. Suharto prided himself on his knowledge of Javanese philosophy and sometimes retreated to a remote cave to meditate. He banned religious symbols in campaigning for the sham national elections held every five years to legitimize his rule. He picked a Christian to head the army. In the mid-1980s, Mr. Suharto decreed that all organizations—including Islamic ones—had to adopt Pancasila as their only ideology.

Beneath the surface, however, Indonesian society had begun to change. Rapid economic growth brought literacy and health care, factories and foreign investment. But it also spurred migration and urbanization, and with them came bars and discotheques, drugs and rampant prostitution. Paranoid about a communist comeback, the Suharto regime had instituted uniform religious education in schools. At the same time mosques and schools bankrolled by oil-rich Arabs propagated what they considered a purer, more authentic, version of the faith, adding heft to a homegrown movement called Muhammadiyah that had long pursued similar goals.

By the mid-1980s, the piety became visible. In kindergartens, Arab names began to replace Sanskrit names. In offices, the greeting assalamu alaikum vied with the religiously neutral selamat pagi (good morning). More women donned the headscarf. Prayers five times a day, fasting during Ramadan and the hajj pilgrimage ceased to be oddities.

In the 1990s, perhaps in acknowledgment of these social changes, perhaps seeking to balance the power of an army whose support he could no longer take for granted, President Suharto reached out to Islam. He backed the creation of a high-profile association of Muslim intellectuals, an Islamic bank and an Islamic newspaper. He allowed the editor of a popular tabloid to be jailed for daring to publish a readers’ poll of most admired figures in which the Prophet Mohammed placed a lowly 11th. He donned the simple white robes of a pilgrim and flew to Mecca, television crews in tow. Some called it the first ever hajj by a reigning Javanese king.

After the Asian financial meltdown, which saw Mr. Suharto step down in May 1998, the advent of democracy was supposed to bring back peace and prosperity. Instead, it created an anything-goes atmosphere. A volunteer army called Laskar Jihad shipped hundreds of machete-wielding young men dressed in Arab robes to wage a holy war against Christians in the eastern province of Maluku. Another group, the Islamic Defenders Front, or FPI, made a habit of trashing Jakarta bars and discos.

Radical Islamic clerics such as Mr. Baasyir, who had fled overseas during the Suharto years, felt safe to return. Christmas Eve in 2000 was welcomed in nine cities with bomb blasts at churches that killed 19 people; two years later more than 200 died in the Bali bombings, the world’s deadliest terrorist attack since 9/11. Both the Christmas Eve and Bali bombings were blamed on Jemaah Islamiyah. Under international pressure, Indonesia cracked down on the organization, and Mr. Baasyir remains in prison today.

THOUSAND-MILE JOURNEY

By most accounts Sayyid Qutb’s ideas reached Indonesia only in the late 1970s. At the leafy Dutch-built campus of the Bandung Institute of Technology, one of the country’s most prestigious universities, two activists linked to the Saudi-sponsored Islamic World League began indoctrinating small groups with Brotherhood materials. Like the Brotherhood, they organized in secret cells, each with a leader and between five and 15 members. They borrowed the Brotherhood word for these cells, the Arabic usroh, or family. Members met once a week to discuss Islam and to learn how to develop a proper “Islamic personality.” They studied the works of al-Banna and Qutb. The movement itself was called Tarbiyah, Arabic for education.

In the 1980s Indonesia was rapidly urbanizing. Political life on campus was sharply curtailed. Many college students were the first in their families to acquire a higher education or, for that matter, to live in a city. The Tarbiyah movement quickly caught on. It gave its members a sense of purpose and dignity, simple ideas of right and wrong, a framework for understanding the changes taking place around them. From Bandung it spread to the rest of the archipelago. By the early 1990s it controlled student movements in virtually all of Indonesia’s largest and most prestigious public universities.

By 1998, the first generation of Tarbiyah activists had risen to positions of influence in the bureaucracy, in universities, in state-owned corporations. That year, with the end of the Suharto era, they emerged in the open with their own political party. They called it the Justice Party. Its symbol: a stalk of rice—Indonesia’s staple food—flanked by two crescent moons symbolizing Islam. In 1999, the new party won only 1.4% of the vote, below the 2% threshold to participate in the next election. Undeterred, it simply sidestepped the law by changing its name to the Justice and Prosperity Party.

Acutely aware of the Brotherhood’s suppression by the Egyptian army and fearing a similar backlash in Indonesia, the Justice Party has shied away from showing its Islamist hand too plainly. Instead, party leaders tend to couch their statements in ambiguity designed to calm Western and secular Indonesian fears while at the same time reassuring the party’s base about its goals—the Islamization of Indonesian society culminating in the imposition of a state based on sharia.

Ask a Justice Party leader about amputating hands for thievery—the punishment practiced in Saudi Arabia—and he’s likely to respond as the party’s secretary-general, Anis Matta, did to The Wall Street Journal: “I’d have to cut off the hands of most Indonesians. Indonesia and Islam do not want that.” The message to the outside world: We’re really quite reasonable. The message to the party faithful: The country’s not ready yet, but one day it will be.

In 2003, Hidayat Nur Wahid, then chairman of the party, co-authored an article for the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C., titled “The Justice Party and Democracy: A Journey of a Thousand Miles Starts with a Single Step.” It’s hard for an outside observer to grasp the journey’s destination; it’s hard for anyone familiar with Milestones to miss it. The Justice Party’s engagement with democracy has the blessing of today’s most prominent Muslim Brother, the Egyptian-born cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi . Mr. Qaradawi, who is barred from entering the U.S. for his espousal of violence, hosts an immensely popular talk show in Arabic on the Qatar-based television network Al Jazeera. He is considered a moderate, at least by Qutb’s standards, which is to say he backs suicide bombings against civilians in Israel and attacks on Americans in Iraq, but condemned the 9/11 attacks.

Unlike Qutb, Mr. Qaradawi believes that democracy and Islam are compatible, or that democratic means can be used to pursue Islamist ends. He has visited Indonesia several times over the last twenty years and is quoted in the Justice Party’s founding manifesto. Though few Indonesians watch Al Jazeera, translations of Mr. Qaradawi’s shows and books are widely available.

CELL PHONES AND HEADSCARVES

The Justice Party’s top leadership is steeped in Brotherhood ideology. Mr. Nur Wahid, who resigned from the party chairmanship last year to take over as the leader of Indonesia’s highest legislative body, the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), holds a B.A., M.A. and Ph.D. from the Brotherhood-founded University of Medina in Saudi Arabia. Party Secretary-General Matta graduated from the Jakarta branch of Riyadh’s Al-Imam Muhammad bin Saud University, described by the International Crisis Group, a think tank headquartered in Brussels, as having close links with the Brotherhood.

The Justice Party is the only cadrebased party in the country; their strength has grown to 300,000 in 2003 from 60,000 in 1999. These well-trained party workers tend to be younger and better educated than followers of mainstream parties such as Golkar and PDI-P. Some of them have degrees from the U.S., England or Japan. Many are graduates from Indonesia’s top engineering and medical schools. In Justice Party circles, as in Indonesia in general, liberal arts are considered inferior to science, and the Tarbiyah movement is strongest in technical and scientific departments. As a result, party cadres tend to be technologically savvy, equally at home with text messaging and Web-site design.

The party takes its self-image as the party of moral reform seriously. In a land suffused with the smell of clove cigarettes, it’s virtually impossible to find a Justice Party member who smokes. While most women are still bareheaded, you won’t find a female party member without the headscarf. Sayyid Qutb despised gems and jewelry. Scour a room full of male Justice Party members and you won’t find a gold wedding band. When there’s a natural disaster, such as the tsunami that devastated north Sumatra in December, party volunteers are among the first at the scene, delivering emergency relief and setting up mobile medical clinics.

To be fair, many of those who join the Justice Party are animated more by a desire to do good for their faith and country than by a blood-tinged fantasy of chopping off hands and stoning adulterers to death. In a country where the lure of public service often appears to be an air-conditioned Volvo and businessman-sponsored shopping sprees in Singapore, the Justice Party offers faith, morality and discipline.

Its legislators routinely donate a percentage of their salaries to the party. In contrast to the nepotism of other parties, advancement in the Justice Party depends on hard work and ideological commitment. And though female party members must cover their hair and stand behind men at party gatherings, it’s also true that, proportionally, the party offered more parliamentary seats to women candidates than most others.

Idealism and public service are coupled with a flair for publicity. The party takes every opportunity to flaunt its anti-corruption credentials. In 2003, the refusal by its legislators in South Sumatra to accept a hefty cash bonus out of government funds was widely reported. Before last year’s parliamentary election, candidates signed pledges to refuse bribes. They campaigned on the slogan “clean and caring.” As a consequence, there’s very little serious debate in Indonesia about what the party means for the country’s future. Christian-owned newspapers have long been cowed by Islamist street power. Mainstream journalists, urban and lower middle class like the Justice Party, tend to be sympathetic.

For all its efforts to moderate its image, the Justice Party has not been able to distance itself entirely from violence. Mr. Nur Wahid and other party leaders are among Mr. Baasyir’s most vocal supporters. Once you get away from the party elite at Jakarta headquarters, the language becomes even less circumspect. Paranoia about Jewish bankers and Freemason plotters, Chinese tycoons and Christian crusaders is rampant among the party rank and file. The U.S., of course, is evil incarnate.

The popular weekly magazine Sabili, sold outside mosques all over the country, acts as the party’s de facto mouthpiece. It propounded the theory that the Bali bombing was the work of a missile fired from a foreign ship. A few months later it named Mr. Baasyir its man of the year. During the conflict between Muslims and Christians in Maluku, Sabili called for jihad and backed it by publishing relevant verses from the Koran. Some of the magazine’s propaganda is picked up from Middle Eastern Web sites.

MARCHERS VERSUS BOMBERS

The Islamist movement’s biggest success in Indonesia has been in setting the terms of debate. In reality, there’s a lot less separating Jemaah Islamiyah and the Justice Party than is generally known. Like Jemaah Islamiyah, in its founding manifesto the Justice Party calls for the creation of an Islamic caliphate. Like Jemaah Islamiyah, it has placed secrecy—the cell structure both groups borrowed from the Brotherhood—at the heart of its organization. Both offer a selective vision of modernity, one in which Western science and technology are welcome, but Western values are shunned. The main difference between them is not of goals, but of methods. Jemaah Islamiyah is revolutionary; the Justice Party is evolutionary.

Yet, while Jemaah Islamiyah garners the headlines, the Justice Party poses a far larger threat to Indonesia. With its attacks on hotels and embassies Jemaah Islamiyah has set itself up for a confrontation with the government that it cannot hope to win. No state tolerates that kind of violence and anarchy. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak’s government crushed the violent Islamist groups Gama’a Islamiyya and Islamic Jihad. The Algerian army did the same to its own proponents of Islamic terrorism. An uprising in 1982 by the Syrian branch of the Brotherhood led the government to flatten an entire city in retaliation.

In contrast, the Justice Party can use its position in parliament and its metastasizing network of cadres to advance the same goals incrementally, one victory at a time. By throwing its weight behind the likes of Mr. Baasyir, the party complicates the government’s efforts to crack down on terrorists. At the same time it works tirelessly to propagate the Brotherhood’s core beliefs. The party doesn’t need to commit itself to violence. The more people who believe that the problem with society is too much modernity and not too little, the more who feel that a purified Islam is an answer to 21st century problems, the more who are angered by the sight of a bare female head or a bottle of beer, the more likely it is that hotheads among them will use terrorism to achieve their goals.

The Justice Party threatens Indonesia’s hard-won economic development. Despite the web sites and the technical degrees, the party’s outlook is anchored in personal piety and international Islamism rather than in public policy and the national interest. Instead of focusing on lifting Indonesians out of rice paddies and into factories and offices, the Justice Party remains preoccupied with combustible issues—forcing Muslim clerics into Christian schools, and protesting Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza.

Moreover, the party’s beliefs fly in the face of what the rest of the world has learned about economic development—that you can’t alleviate poverty without high rates of savings, openness to trade and investment, and female education resulting in lower birth rates. Like Islamists everywhere, Justice Party members oppose birth control on religious grounds. In a capital-starved country, the party doesn’t exactly inspire investor confidence. Indonesia needs domestic capitalists—many of whom are Buddhist and Christian ethnic Chinese. It also needs foreigners—Singaporeans, Japanese, Americans and Koreans.

Businessmen might not have the inclination to pore over Qutb’s writings or Mr. Qaradawi’s fatwas, but they know there’s a problem when the leader of a country’s parliament is an outspoken supporter of a man widely believed to head al Qaeda in Southeast Asia. To put it simply, the more the Justice Party grows, the less competitive Indonesia becomes. While Vietnamese workers race to boost productivity, the Chinese practice their English and Indians pour into software training programs, the party’s success sends the message that Indonesia’s capital can be paralyzed by events in Gaza or Baghdad.

THE MALL AND THE MOSQUE

Less than a decade ago, Indonesia appeared likely to evolve as a Muslim version of Thailand—culturally self-confident, economically dynamic, comfortable with both an ancient past and a modern future. Today the odds favor an Indonesia that looks more like a Southeast Asian Pakistan—culturally confused, economically stagnant, caught between a modern elite and medieval clerics, a recipient of foreign aid rather than foreign investment.

Needless to say, the Justice Party is not the only hard-line Islamist group in Indonesia. But because it’s easily the most powerful, its success or failure will be the most reliable bellwether of Islamic extremism in the country.

The party’s road to power is unlikely to be smooth. Even optimists in the party don’t think they have a realistic shot at the presidency or a majority in parliament before 2014. Despite their gains, Muslim fundamentalists in Indonesia—violent and nonviolent—remain a minority.

Most Indonesians feel no instinctive hostility toward modernity. Supermarkets stock beer; Ramadan sales include discounts on Capri pants; state-owned television is home to a weekly show called Country Road—90 minutes of Indonesians in denims and Stetsons line dancing, whirling imaginary lassos and crooning hits from deepest Texas and New Orleans. Sooner or later Indonesia’s cultural pluralism—a cheerful acceptance of Taiwanese pop groups, Japanese Hello Kitty dolls and Bollywood movies—will run up against the Justice Party’s drab fidelity to Arab culture alone.

Second, more than one in 10 Indonesians is a non-Muslim. Thanks partly to the legacy of Pancasila, most Indonesians still see Catholic Javanese, Protestant Bataks and Balinese Hindus as equal citizens rather than as representatives of subservient faiths. Apart from secular Indonesians, religious minorities have the most to lose from the Justice Party’s agenda; they will resist it the most fiercely.

Then there’s the army. In the post-Suharto era, elements within it have supported Islamist violence, but the movement is too new to have penetrated it in any meaningful way. In the past the army has acted, like in Turkey, as the ultimate guarantor of the country’s secular ethos.

Finally, the party faces an internal challenge. It needs to reach out to new supporters while maintaining both discipline and ideological coherence. This means devising ways to satisfy cadres without alienating less committed voters. Expect more anti-Israel demonstrations in front of the U.S. Embassy.

For now, however, the Justice Party is on the march. It faces an incoherent opposition and can count on the support of influential elements in the press and civil society. Tarbiyah groups continue to proliferate on campuses; the black and yellow party flag flutters in more and more towns across the country. For Sayyid Qutb’s Indonesian heirs the journey of a thousand miles has just begun. What happens along the way will be the single biggest determinant of Indonesia’s future.

Kircket!

Little India

Reflections of an overseas Indian cricket fan.

By Sadanand Dhume

All the plastic chairs are taken, but I haven’t stayed an extra day in Singapore just to stand for eight hours with the baking sun on my neck. The ticket seller, a stern looking woman with a blood-red bindi, has warned me not to enter the cordoned off section of the Ceylon Sports Club marked “members only.” But as soon as she resumes plucking tickets out of a small green booklet I grab my chance and part the crowd with a few well placed excuse-me’s.

I settle into a chair with faded pink upholstery and chipped varnish. Though I’m a little worried about impending humiliation-a tap on the shoulder and a nod toward the exit-it seems worth the risk. From here I have a clear view of a rolled down television screen on which eleven men in green and two in blue have entered a packed stadium in distant Karachi, Pakistan.

On screen, Sachin Tendulkar lashes the ball to the fence. On my right, six rows of men on molded plastic chairs erupt: “HOI, HOI, HOI, HOI.”

“They are Indian workers,” explains the man next to me, a retired Singapore-Indian civil servant with two-day stubble and a rolled up newspaper with a picture of a Chinese girl in an orange lollipop-swirl bikini. “They come whenever there’s a match.”

There are about 350 of them, migrant construction workers from Tamil Nadu, India’s southern-most state; small, gaunt men with toes poking out of scuffed sandals or rubber flip-flops. The lucky ones have claimed the white plastic chairs behind a red tape barrier. The rest stand knitted together at the back or spill out cross-legged on the floor, squeezed against the bar to my left and several rows deep in the space between the screen and the first faded pink chairs.

This is not the first time I’ve hunted down a cricket match in a city not my own. Almost exactly a year ago, I was on the edge of my seat in a stranger’s darkened apartment in New York as India and Pakistan clashed in South Africa in the World Cup. I’ve lingered over matches in hotel rooms in Kuala Lumpur, smoke-filled sports bars in Jakarta, messy dorm rooms in Princeton.

But this match is special. India are playing in Pakistan for the first time in seven years. A lot has happened in the interim: nuclear weapons tests, a mini-war in Kashmir, an Indian plane hijacked to Afghanistan, a terrorist attack on India’s parliament, more than a million soldiers eyeball to eyeball on the border for the better part of a year.

India get off to the kind of start television commentators like to call explosive. Or the kind they might call explosive if I could hear them. Where I sit you can watch, but you can’t listen. The speakers are positioned somewhere in the sea of white plastic chairs, as though to reward the ears of those whose eyes must strain the most, though I’m not sure that anyone can hear a word above the clapping, whistling and hooting.

Of all of India’s defeats, none is seared as deeply in our collective memory as the one in Sharjah in 1986. After that day Sharjah was no longer a place-an Arab city where they sometimes import cricketers to entertain the Indians and Pakistanis who do all the work-but a byword for India’s infinite capacity to lose.

One man in the crowd stands out. A coarse green shirt hangs on his narrow shoulders and his eyes look like he awakes to nightmares.

“Boundary-aa!” he exhorts the Indian batsmen to pummel Pakistan some more. “Boundary-aa, Six-aa! Boundary-aa, Six-aa! Boundary-aa, Six-aa!”

The man charged with meeting his demand is Sachin Tendulkar, perhaps the most iconic figure in India. If you were to combine the popularity of Babe Ruth and Michael Jordan at the height of their powers you might get an approximation of what Tendulkar means to about a billion Indians. It has been 14 years since he first appeared on our TV screens, a scrawny 16-year-old with golliwog hair who could already wield a bat like an executioner’s axe or an opera conductor’s baton.

Pitted against him is Shoaib Akhtar, nicknamed the Rawalpindi Express, the latest in a long line of marauding Pakistani quicks. Akhtar shakes his movie star mane and steams in to bowl-to hurl a white ball across 22 yards at almost 100 miles per hour.

“BOUNDARY-AA, SIX-AA!” screams the man in the green shirt.

Tendulkar smashes the ball and it soars into the Karachi stands. 350 Indians in Singapore are on their feet, their arms outstretched skywards.

“WHOA, WHOA, WHOA, WHOA,” I bark, pumping my clenched right fist.

My first memories of cricket go back to 1978. Another contest between India and Pakistan, this one after a 17-year hiatus in which the two countries had done their fighting on the battlefield rather than the cricket field. I was almost ten-years-old in 1978. My brother had just been born, and my mother was on maternity leave from her government job. I have this picture in my head of walking from the black and white Philips TV in the living room-we called it the drawing room- and coming to a stop outside a bathroom door with peeling white paint to ask my mother a question. I can’t quite remember what it was-maybe the meaning of LBW or the difference between off spin and leg spin-but I’m pretty sure that she knew the answer.

Apart from a girl in third grade, whose name I wrote over and over in a narrow school diary covered with blue plastic, cricket first revealed my obsessive side. I memorized nicknames of West Indians who had played before I was born and batting averages of South Africans whose careers were short-circuited by apartheid. I collected little black and white photos of cricketers in floppy caps and gambled (only with duplicates) with the neighborhood urchins, throwing a picture in the air and shouting “chit” or “photo” as it spiraled to the ground. I lacquered my bat with too much linseed oil and spent scorching summer afternoons thwacking it with a cricket ball in an old sock to improve its “stroke.” I discovered that my mother really didn’t know that much.

Tendulkar gets out. There’s a moment of stunned silence, then another player walks in to wild applause. This time the loss does nothing to slow India’s momentum. Another Indian batsman slams the ball across the ropes and the man in the green shirt is on his feet slicing the air with his arm as he mimics the umpire’s signal for four. “No single! Only four and six!” The camera cuts to a pair of commentators-an Australian and a Pakistani. “Manjrekar coming! Manjrekar coming!” shouts the man in the green shirt invoking the name of an Indian commentator.

You can tell a lot about an overseas Indian by his relationship with cricket. There are those who give up their Indian passports but never give up on the team. To them I ascribe qualities like self-awareness and self-confidence. The other type is personified by the Indian who lands up in Silicon Valley, wipes his mind clean of cricket as though he’s rebooting a hard drive, and starts cheering for the San Francisco Giants or the 49ers. He embodies the slavish side of the Indian personality, the capacity to be dazzled by toilet paper and Burger King.

India lose a few wickets and the tempo slows. The man has slipped off his sandals and unbuttoned his green shirt. He slouches in his plastic chair sipping a large brown bottle of Baron’s beer with a yellow straw. He says something out loud in Tamil. A man with neatly combed hair sitting behind me leans forward.

“You see even an illiterate fellow like this has good knowledge about the game,” he says.

“He’s probably not illiterate. Most South Indians are literate these days,” I respond.

“Okay, but I mean he’s not educated but he still knows a lot about the game. What he is saying is absolutely correct.”

You can tell a lot about an overseas Indian by his relationship with cricket. There are those who give up their Indian passports but never give up on the team. To them I ascribe qualities like self-awareness and self-confidence. The other type is personified by the Indian who lands up in Silicon Valley, wipes his mind clean of cricket as though he’s rebooting a hard drive, and starts cheering for the San Francisco Giants or the 49ers. He embodies the slavish side of the Indian personality, the capacity to be dazzled by toilet paper and Burger King.

The arbiter of correctness is named Keerthi and works as a software manager for the Singapore branch of Halliburton, Dick Cheney’s Halliburton.

By now I’m quite sure that the stern lady with the red bindi is not going to kick me out. I get up to find something to eat and the cross-legged men on the floor pull up their bony knees to let me pass. In a shaded corner just outside the viewing area, large bowls of food sit in a glass cabinet. I pay five Singapore dollars for a paper plate piled with steaming rice, a yellow daal with small pieces of eggplant, shredded cabbage with onions and cumin seeds, and curried mutton ribs. I ask the girl behind the counter to halve the mountain of rice on my plate and she repeats this to the man who had scooped it out from a hot box with an urgency that says she approves of such forbearance.

The Indian batsmen fail to step things up in the last five overs but, thanks to the electric start, they still manage to pile up 349. To overhaul it, Pakistan will have to make the highest score ever for a team batting second. The players file off the field and the screen fills with a commercial for Molty Multifoam Mattress, apparently the best guarantor of a good night’s rest in Pakistan. The man in green has rebuttoned his shirt. He smokes a cigarette, drained, as though a battery in the back of his head has died.

*     *     *

It has been more than four hours since the match began, but the crowd’s enthusiasm shows no signs of flagging. An Indian bowler, Zaheer Khan, strides halfway down the pitch to glare at a Pakistani batsman in the exaggerated way the hero in a Hindi movie glares at the villain. The construction workers titter like schoolgirls. A little later, L. Balaji, a new boy from Tamil Nadu, claims the first Pakistani wicket, sending a batsman’s off stump cartwheeling. We stand up and roar.

“Tamil Nadu Singhamda,” screams the man in green.

“That means Lion of Tamil Nadu,” explains Keerthi.

Another wicket falls, the scoring rate remains tepid, and it begins to look like this match will be one-sided. The Pakistani batsmen are wading into quicksand. They must score quickly to have any hope of reaching the target, but the more they hurry the more likely they are to lose wickets. I’m happy. I haven’t come seeking a cliffhanger.

My throat feels sore so I step outside again for something to drink. When I return, clutching a Styrofoam cup filled with tea, I see a white plastic chair being passed down a row of workers.

I reach out and pass it on as well before settling down to sip my tea, sweet, milky and especially satisfying for having cost only one dollar. It’s only a few minutes later that I notice that the man in the green shirt has disappeared.

“Where’s he gone?” I ask Keerthi, pointing with my eyes to where he had been, to my right, in the first row behind the tape barrier.

We’ve grown so accustomed to failure that some of India’s most cherished sporting accomplishments are defeats–Milkha Singh edged out of the 400 meters bronze at the Rome Olympics, P.T. Usha breasting the tape fourth at the 1984 Los Angeles games. People still talk about almost winning that game against England at the Oval in 1979. Long ago, I concluded that as a nation we actually prefer the sweet sorrow of the near miss to the unfamiliar tang of victory.

“He said something unsportsmanlike so they decided to punish him. That was his chair they were passing around.”

“What did he say?”

“He said something like ‘You Pakistanis, learn to play.’”

“That doesn’t sound that terrible.”

“It’s not sportsmanlike. His friends are the ones who decided to punish him by taking away his chair.”

Keerthi says this with pride. I can’t see what the fuss is about. In my book as long as you cheer the Indian players equally, as long as you cheer the Muslims as you cheer the Hindus, and Tamils and Punjabis as you cheer Maharashtrians and Kannadigas and even the slacker Bengali captain, it doesn’t really matter what you say about the other side. I wish the man in green would come back.

The game is comfortably headed India’s way and then suddenly it isn’t. The quicksand that ought to have reached the Pakistani batsmen’s thighs by now is still below their knees. They plunder India’s captain for 14 runs in one over. We can see Pakistanis dancing in the stands in Karachi. The Ceylon Sports Club is hushed.

Being an Indian is probably easier than being a Pakistani, especially now that we’re known for software and their biggest exports are nukes and terrorists. But being an Indian cricket fan has always been a tribulation, and there isn’t a single one out there who doesn’t have scars on his soul. We lost that series in 1978, going down 2-0 in three matches. In the third, at the same stadium in Karachi as today’s game, two cocky Pakistanis-Imran Khan and Javed Miandad-mauled the Indian captain Bishen Singh Bedi’s lazy, loopy bowling, effectively ending his career. Bedi’s son was in my school at the time. He was a quiet boy, maybe six or seven years old, probably dealing in his own way with being the only person on the planet named Gavasinder. I remember him being pushed around in the schoolyard by a couple of my classmates.

The disappointments kept coming. A year after that tour to Pakistan, I sat up late in the kitchen one night, a crackly transistor radio glued to my ear as India came up nine short of an improbable 438 for victory against England. A quarter century later, I can still hear a Hindi commentator repeating over and over that “India’s position is rather fragile,” words that would etch themselves deeper in my brain with each passing year. In 1983 India pulled off one of cricket’s storied upsets by winning the World Cup.

Yet, though I rejoiced with the rest, in my heart it always felt like a fluke, God’s private joke allowing a group of mild-mannered trundlers to put a spoke in the mighty West Indies machine.

At last, the man in green returns. He has recovered his chair and moved it a little to improve his view. He stretches his legs and smokes a bidi.

“Sachin coming four wickets,” he declares. “No six, only wicket! No chance four, no chance six. Only wicket. Wicket! No six, no chance pa. Confirmed wicket.”

As though by magic, Sachin Tendulkar is handed the ball. He’s a pedestrian bowler, but the man in green has acted as an oracle before and our spines stiffen with anticipation. Tendulkar ambles in and bowls. Yousuf Youhana lifts the ball into the air. It lands in the stands-six runs! The man in green slams his hand on his chair so hard that I worry the plastic may crack.

“SACHIN WICKET!” he screams.

The prayer goes unanswered. Tendulkar continues to take a pounding. After a while, Keerthi leans forward again.

When a match goes down to the wire like this, Indians smell defeat. “Indians lack killer instinct,” someone in the audience will inevitably say, or “Pakistanis are fighters.”
I’ve heard these words as a graduate student in America, where cricket was all that filled the silence on the rare occasion that I found myself at a dinner table with Indian engineers or physicists. I’ve heard it in Jakarta, at the restaurant with lace curtains and too much green chili in the saag where I sometimes watch matches. I’ve probably said it a few times myself, and I’ve always believed it.

“Tendulkar is going for good-length balls and Inzy is hooking them off,” he says. “Instead he should go for a short delivery.”

Keerthi not only knows a lot about cricket; apparently he also knows a lot of cricketers. He used to live in Madras and can reel off names of friends in the Tamil Nadu side. There’s a V. Sivaramakrishnan, who once toured Sri Lanka with the Indian team. He’s not related to L. Sivaramakrishnan, the famous leg-spinner. There’s someone name Girish, who I haven’t heard of either. I ask Keerthi if he knows Sadagoppan Ramesh, a classy left-hand batsman in and out of the national squad. He says they’re good friends.

Balaji returns to bowl again. “Tamil Nadu Singham,” shouts the man in green. But this time Balaji is bludgeoned. A Pakistani slaps the ball for the second four of the over. “Good shot,” says Keerthi. The British packed their bags 54 years ago, but he’s still bent on watching the gentleman’s sport like a gentleman. I wish he would go home.

The camera turns to the Karachi crowd. They’re waving green and white Pakistani flags. A man in a loose salwar kameez whirls like a dervish. I read the lips of a little boy mouthing “Pak-is-tan, Pak-is-tan.”

Of all of India’s defeats, none is seared as deeply in our collective memory as the one in Sharjah in 1986. After that day Sharjah was no longer a place-an Arab city where they sometimes import cricketers to entertain the Indians and Pakistanis who do all the work-but a byword for India’s infinite capacity to lose.

It was a tournament final and for much of the day India looked the better team. But Pakistan fought back until finally they needed four runs off the last ball, not impossible but far from easy. India’s captain pushed his fielders to the boundary ropes in a defensive ring. Chetan Sharma, an innocuous striver, the only kind of fast bowler India seems capable of producing, ran up to bowl to Javed Miandad, the same Miandad who had thrashed the Indian bowlers in that series in Pakistan eight years earlier.

Miandad calmly lifted the ball over midwicket for six. In India, the next day’s papers reported people dying of heart failure brought on by the excitement, though maybe it was really grief that killed them.

It was around that time that I stopped playing cricket. I was never terribly good at it-the bottom always dropped out of my stomach when I faced pace-and then one summer I discovered, of all things, table tennis. You could play TT, as we called it, no matter the weather, and the room with the lopsided table where I whiled away evenings smashing forehands and slicing backhands was right next to the mud-floored court where the neighborhood girls played badminton.

Someone bowls a good over. Keerthi says, “Come on guys. Conserve the next four overs exactly like this. Don’t give runs.” This redeems him a little in my eyes, but then a Pakistani batsman cracks a four and Keerthi says “very good shot.”

Javed Miandad has long retired, but he refuses to go away. The Indian newspapers I read online every morning are full of stories about him in his new incarnation as Pakistan’s coach. Just the other day, Miandad mocked one of India’s promising new fast bowlers as the sort of kid you can find in every back alley in Pakistan. It hurts because it’s probably true. The camera zooms to the Pakistani dressing room balcony. Miandad waves his arms wildly at the batsmen in the middle.

“Oyeh, oyeh,” hiss the construction workers. Their loathing is mixed with fear. It’s as though Miandad is a cricketing version of Freddy Kruger, back to preside over a new generation of our nightmares.

Pakistan need 34 of 24 balls. A comparison chart comes on screen and you can see the Pakistani worm stabbing upwards toward India’s. When a match goes down to the wire like this, Indians smell defeat. “Indians lack killer instinct,” someone in the audience will inevitably say, or “Pakistanis are fighters.”

I’ve heard these words as a graduate student in America, where cricket was all that filled the silence on the rare occasion that I found myself at a dinner table with Indian engineers or physicists. I’ve heard it in Jakarta, at the restaurant with lace curtains and too much green chili in the saag where I sometimes watch matches. I’ve probably said it a few times myself, and I’ve always believed it.

A Pakistani wicket falls. We get up and scream. I shake hands with the man in front of me, an older man in ironed blue jeans and laundered white Nikes. “I think we’ve just broken the sound barrier,” he jokes. But he’s not smiling. It’s pitch dark outside now and pouring. The workers who had started the day with the sun on their backs have inched deeper into the clubhouse.

We’ve grown so accustomed to failure that some of India’s most cherished sporting accomplishments are defeats–Milkha Singh edged out of the 400 meters bronze at the Rome Olympics, P.T. Usha breasting the tape fourth at the 1984 Los Angeles games. People still talk about almost winning that game against England at the Oval in 1979. Long ago, I concluded that as a nation we actually prefer the sweet sorrow of the near miss to the unfamiliar tang of victory.

Yet, I can’t help but notice that something might have changed. Even as Pakistan lope toward the target the Indians refuse to give up. For the first time I can count half a dozen players in the Indian team whose shoulders never droop, who don’t look defeated. They form the core of a side that has notched up a few big wins: beating England in England two years ago, pulverizing Pakistan in last year’s World Cup, squaring a test series against mighty Australia.

Perhaps it’s economic reform that has instilled this new self-confidence. When I was growing up, in Indira Gandhi’s socialist India, we were somehow aware that Pakistanis drove better cars and ate real ketchup. Our only consolation was that we made our own cars and our own crappy ketchup-so what if it tasted like pumpkin.

But India now has beauty pageants and coffee bars. The average Indian has become wealthier than the average Pakistani, or at least less poor. India still makes cars and ketchup, but real cars and real ketchup. Judging by the commercials, across the border they sleep on Molty foam mattresses and wash their hair with English Anti-lice shampoo.

Pakistan need 17 runs off 12 balls with four wickets in hand. Keerthi’s phone rings. “Hello…Ayo, very neck to neck now. India can lose… Ayo, bad.”

Ten runs needed off eight balls. The batsman hits the ball hard and high. Two Indian fielders race toward it. One slides away at the last minute and Mohammad Kaif, the safest pair of hands in the Indian side, pounces on the ball. Out! The Pakistanis in the stadium are silent. So are we, too tense to celebrate. The man in green sits squashed against a corner of his chair, fingers locked.

Nine needed off the last six balls. They get three and then it’s Sharjah all over again. Pakistan need six runs off the last ball. A pace bowler from Delhi (Ashish Nehra) will bowl to an experienced Pakistani batsman (Moin Khan). Nehra bowls. Moin swings. The ball soars into the sky-and straight into an Indian fielder’s hands.

My eyes linger on the screen for a few second to make sure that it’s really over. Then I look for the man in the green shirt and open my arms. His head barely reaches my shoulder, but he lifts me below the waist and whirls me in the air — round and round and round.

« Older entries

Archives