Do you feel lucky, punk?

Pakistan Today, April 18, 2013

All manner of terrorists, ruffians, thieves, murderers, pillagers and assorted psychopaths are celebrating election season. You should too

Thanks to the march of democracy upon Pakistan, we have been blessed with two consecutive parliaments that have completed their tenures. One of them was a dictator’s parliament and is hence ineligible for any sorts of records, while the other marked the successful return to “proper democracy” that was envisioned by our sage political leaders. But is the current political process truly democratic? The answer, unfortunately, is that the best revenge need not be truly democratic. Just democratic enough to tick all the relevant boxes!

Face it. Over the past two decades, only one of two major political parties has held power: the conglomerated acronyms of the Pakistan People’s Party and the various karmic incarnations of the Pakistan Muslim League. This is not to say that they are the only two parties worth voting for in the country, nor is it a reflection on the quality of their “leadership”. It just means that they have the most effective electioneering infrastructure and they were the most broad-based of the available crop.

To be honest, I have nothing against the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Imran. Right before the 2002 elections, I remember a PTV crew approached me and a few friends and asked us who we would vote for. Without missing a beat, I remember saying, “Imran Khan, of course”. Today, I look back on that naïve remark and wonder, why not?

Truth be told, I will never really forgive the PTI for boycotting the 2008 general elections, because then, that uber-annoying slogan that all PTI-wallahs stuff down your throats today would’ve been off the table. I am, of course, referring to the, “Give us a chance, we’re still untested and untainted” mantra. It would’ve been far better for democracy had Imran and his allies jumped into the fray on the 18th of February, 2008 and hoped for the best. That they chose to boycott and deprived their (potential) voters of the chance to vote for a “real” third option is a slight I will not soon forget.

The democratic process, contrary to popular belief, is far more important than democracy itself. Grass-roots representation is the key to ensuring a level political playing-field for all segments of society. As it stands, the current polls seem to be yielding more of the same: sundry electables are being awarded tickets on all sides and the promised “change” is nowhere in sight. Yes, sure, the PTI will point to its youth leaders and the PML-N will point to its sidelining of stalwarts such as Ayaz Amir in the favour of “fresh blood”, but the truth is, this is just more of the same.

The greatest political tragedy of our country is that the democratic process was never allowed to continue, democracy was not allowed to nurture leaders. Today, politics is a kin-based and bankrolled affair. The independents, by and large, do not stand a chance. Opportunists such as Shah Mehmood Qureshi and others who seek to caucus with the winning party post-polling, rather than contest on one predetermined platform, are doing exactly what I would’ve thought they would. The 18th Amendment was a masterstroke of exclusionary politics and the anti-horse trading stipulation will sideline and expose the selfish streak in many-a politician. Our people, however, fail to see through the façade.

Anecdotally, I have heard from many observers that those who have no sustained access to media, mainstream, social or otherwise, are far more informed in their political decisions. I would have to agree. Politics is a constituency-to-constituency game. There is no such thing as national politics, except maybe at the center. Of course, you need leaders with a national vision to run the country, but the process they must follow to rise to the top must be one that is entrenched in – not divorced from – local politics at the grass-roots. The man at the constituency level understands this; the social media pundit from Islamabad is still struggling with the concept.

All manner of terrorists, ruffians, thieves, murderers, pillagers and assorted psychopaths are celebrating election season. You should too. Not because you have a death wish, but because you don’t. Stay home for fear of death and you’ll rue your life for the next five years. You may end up ruing it anyway, but at least if you vote – and that too for a candidate of your choosing, you’ll be able to sleep better at night. The objective of all detractors, no matter what their methods, is to stall, delay or guillotine the electoral process. The more they attack, the more their desperation shows. The only way to defeat them is to stand up to them. We cannot cower at home while these scumbags run amok. The show must go on.

Come election day, every stained thumb is as good as a beaten and bruised terrorist. Remember that.

A staged drama?

Pique Magazine, April 2013

@AbidSherAli: “Ask your mom if I am burden? She will say hell no.” 

The social media, much like Forrest Gump’s life, is like a box of chocolates: you can never tell a good one from a bad one just by looking at the instructions on cover. Actually you can, but Forrest Gump was ‘special’ and hence did not know better. We in Cyberistan refer to these bad Kinder eggs as ‘trolls’. They are usually anonymous and have very little in the way of a real identity, choosing instead to hide behind monikers such as ‘StoodUpForChange’ and ‘Out_to_kill’. My personal favorite is ‘Tsunami786’, an obvious homage to the terrible power of the Almighty that inflicts natural disasters such as the PTI upon us. But I digress.

The hallmarks of a textbook troll are:

1.     An inability to conduct a civil conversation

2.     A reliance on slogans and empty rhetoric

3.     An unyielding sense of moral certitude

4.     An unflinching belief in the power of their political/religious system

5.     A tendency to descend into trash-talk rather quickly

Such sociopathic qualities may qualify any normal human being for a psychiatric evaluation. However, it’s all fun and games as long as their identities are anonymous and there’s no physical harm being done. After all, public figures and celebrities have to put up with a fair amount of unfair scrutiny, criticism and abuse from sad, anonymous folk as it is. However, it is a different story altogether when the source of that abuse is a known entity. All pretense of normalcy flies out the window by the time that you discover that the troll is actually a prominent figure and, up until recently, the holder of a very high public office.

Cervantes’ greatest work

Enter Abid Sher Ali, or Sher, as he likes to identify himself on Twitter. Rambunctious, pugnacious and vicious; the Sher is a vehement Noon Leaguer and a (now former) member of the National Assembly from the Punjabi heartland. Sher rose to prominence as a self-styled vigilante, a Quixotic figure charging the windmills of corruption, wherever he found them. His political allegiances and in his capacity as chairman of the house Standing Committee on Education, it was a little obvious whose windmills he would be charging.

Ancient history

In 2009, he picked Farrah Dogar, the daughter of Mr Abdul Hameed ‘Stricken-From-Judicial-History’ Dogar, as his first victim. Daddy’s girl had her heart set on going to medical school. But the evil examiners at the Intermediate Board did not see it that way. Like any ambitious little girl, Farrah went to daddy for help. He leant on a few cronies at the Inter Board, who called in the ruthless examiners, gave them a good talking to and told them to mark Farrah’s papers correctly. Our hero singled out Ms Dogar because she was a soft target tied to a big fish. The controversy dragged on for nearly a year, and many a talk show host and newspaper columnist, especially National Conspiracy Custodian Ansar Abbasi, made hay with the allegations and the media circus that ensued.

This is not all. The next year, the Don chose to play More-Literate-Than-Thou and using his brand new MBA from the Punjab University (Pakistan’s most credible degree awarding institution), decided to open the can of tapeworms known otherwise as the Fake Degrees Case. Yes, the same life-changing  event that yielded hits such as Degree, Degree Hoti Hai! by the Fresh Prince of Raisani and DJ Dasti’s Love of the Common People. Many expected the lion to go as red-faced as Rudolph the Reindeer when it was eventually discovered that most of the offenders actually belonged to his party. That, sadly, was not to be. And one by one, all fakers were shown the door.

So far, you might think that this chap sounds like a stand-up guy. And he would’ve been too, had it not been for his penchant for shooting right from the hip. You see, Punjabis have never been really good marksmen. Which is why the predominantly Punjabi army has been unable to hit a single key militant hideout in over five years of fighting in FATA. But they find the officer’s clubs and messes with the grace of a vampire bat, bouncing sonar off treacherous mountainsides in zero visibility. But that’s beside the point. The key thing you must remember here is that the right honourable Sher is from Faisalabad.

Faisalabad and the great Punjabi tradition

Often dubbed the Manchester of Pakistan, Faisalabad is known for exporting two things: textiles and jugtain. The former are globally marketed products which earn millions in valuable foreign exchange for our GDP, and the latter earn the intended target a fair bit of ridicule and the assailant a good laugh.

For generations, the people of Punjab have been using the art of jugatbaazi to cut the more arrogant down to size. There are those who think this practice crass and vulgar, but the fact is that hundreds of thousands of people across the country buy, rent or steal CDs and DVDs of Punjabi stage dramas. In fact, Punjabi stage dramas are a big hit around the world as well.

It starts with the mannerisms and the appearance. One can wax poetic about the state of the victim’s hair and look for resemblances with disheveled farm animals. One can also explore the possibility of cross-breeding, at which point the entire family tree gets dragged in to the discussion. Then the discourse descends into the fantastical and hypothetical world of interspecies matchmaking.

Thinly veiled barbs regarding virility and spousal satisfaction levels are traded and a winner is declared based on the perceived length of one’s manhood after the first thirty-seven salvos. This is not much different from the old days, when kite-flyers would yell observations about their opponents’ wives and sisters’ characters across rooftops. In such cases, the unmarried, only-child is the automatic winner.

Jugatbaazi does not require a degree in rocket science. Just a razor sharp wit and a way with images. One of the greatest exponents of this art, Tariq Teddy, also hails from Abid’s hometown. Once the scourge of the stage drama circuit, his on-stage rivalry with the late great Mastana was the stuff of lore.Other famous comedians from Faisalabad include Rana Sanaullah and Raja Riaz – the Heckle and Jeckle of the Punjab Assembly. But unlike stand-up comedy, which is hard work, you don’t need research to indulge in some good jugatbaazi. In fact, the more outrageous the quip, the heartier the laughs. Needless to say, no one escapes with both their honour and manhood intact.

Man against the world

Anyone who owns a TV set has probably seen the maestro in action at one time or the other. A thorough ladies’ man when on TV, the Sher turns on his charm. The likes of Kashmala Tariq, Sharmila Faruqi, Fehmida Mirza and even the late Fauzia Wahab were all too familiar with his wily ways. On Twitter too, the Sher’s colourful character (unrestrained by censor laws) flows as freely as diarrhea. To date, the Sher has dubbed Fawad Chaudhry a canine, Mubasher Lucman a purveyor of loose women, Altaf Hussain a primate and has been continuously asking Imran Khan to work on his “no balls”, whatever that’s supposed to mean.

The right honourable gentleman from Faisalabad makes it a point to refer to the inferior genetic makeup of most of his detractors, often asking them to check their parentage and boasting about having had relations with their mothers and sisters. He has also volunteered to “fix” many, including women, leading casual observers to believe that he may have a motor workshop and spare parts racket on the side somewhere.

But not everyone appreciates the Sher’s comic genius. Zainab Jameel, one of the pretty faces on the primetime satire show Khabarnaak, recently complained that Sher was “mannerless… and mentally sick”. The fact that she regularly shares the screen with four of the most uncouth Punjabi stage comedians in the industry today should not throw you off. Sher’s misogyny is a class apart.

Recently, with the mushroom growth of pretty young things in news anchor slots, the Sher has taken to prowling the timelines of the likes of Geo rookie Rabia Anum and SAMAA veteran Nida Sameer. He is also known to spar with Dr Shahid Masood, Mansoor Ali Khan and Gharida Farooqi. It’s not always pretty, but it makes for entertaining reading. Phrases such as “Listen don’t make me squeal you like a pig. And I will” are pure gold. But the Sher reserves a special space in his heart for that most dou number of talk show hosts, Mubasher Lucman. One-time Twitter chums, Lucman and Sher are now arch-rivals. Their contempt for each other is matched only by the contempt the early Bond villains had for all things MI6. Indeed, the Sher makes potty-mouth Lucman seem tame in comparison.

Too good to be true?

When the account first surfaced in late 2012, many were skeptical about the authenticity of the Sher’s identity. Most dismissed it as a phony, but some followed it in silent horror. Over the course of the last few months, it has slowly started to sink in: this is The Real AbidSher Ali. Sources within his party confirm that not only do the tweets come straight from the horse’s mouth (or smartphone, as the case may be), they are stomach-churningly hilarious and provide a steady stream of entertainment for party workers and spectators alike.

What has been most distressing, however, is the rate at which Sher is taking down women. By early March 2013, statistics collected by various fake accounts showed that Abid Sher Ali had offended nearly 73.4 percent of all women on Twitter, as far afield as North America and Europe. This is a very disturbing trend, especially for eligible bachelors who support the Noon-League. Pretty soon, feminists and normal people will be starting Change.org petitions against the Lionheart of Faisalabad and will seek to have him removed from the public eye.

Such forces cannot be allowed to succeed. In today’s world of political correctness and diplomacy, where nobody’s shit stinks, there no one tells it like it is anymore. Sometimes, trapped in the utopian social media bubble of tranquility, people lose sight of ground realities.

Once among the sea of accepting voices, we forget that out there is a sea of piranhas, bottom-feeders and wolves in lion’s clothing. Abid Sher Ali serves as a reminder of all those things and more: he keeps us in check. One day, in the not too distant future, mothers will tell their sons cautionary tales of the man who had no respect for women, children or the elderly.

They will tell of a politician so outspoken that he talked his way out of parliament. One day, not too far into the future, we will reminisce of an outstanding statesman whose ego (and mouth) wrote checks his party couldn’t cash, and had to pay the price for. Someday, they will write of Abid Sher Ali, the greatest stage artist to ever come out of Faisalabad. I just hope that I’m still around to set the record straight.

Enough is enough

Pakistan Today, March 6, 2013

Sri Lanka knew it was fighting the Tamil Tigers. We don’t seem to have a clue who the enemy is

I feel that I must make it clear that I am not a FATA expert. Nor am I in any way an informed commentator who can wax poetic about the evils of tacit military support for homegrown extremists. Neither can I trace with expert deftness the etymology of the various terror groups that abound in our fair backwater today and tell you with pin-point precision who-is-in-bed-with-who and who-finances-whose-gun running-operation.

In fact, this article will teach you nothing new. To those of you who were expecting this to become an army-apologist or a Taliban-apologist piece, I extend my sincerest apologies. Today, I must pose a vexing and pertinent-question; one which you are unlikely to be able to answer. If you do have an answer, please tell me before you have me summarily executed for treason; I’d hate to die without knowing.

Over the past half decade, our bastion of Islam has been plagued by insurgency, terrorist activity, sectarian strife, political subterfuge and ethnic genocide. While this is just the top 5, and the charts include hits such as necrophiliacs, “husband-curry” specialists and rapists of an order lower than the molten core of the earth, it is the more political forms of violence that interest me today.

GHQ, Kamra, PNS Mehran, Peshawar airbase, FIA headquarters; these were the attacks orchestrated against some of the country’s most well-protected security and defence installations. Alamdar Road, Hazara Town, Abbas Town; these were three of the deadliest attacks ever carried out against the Shia minority in our country. The attacks on polio workers, explosions at girls’ schools in KPK and FATA, the near-fatal attempt on Malala Yousafzai, the execution of Shia passengers in Mustung and Babusar Top, the assassination of Bashir Bilour; these were all some of the most high profile acts of violence committed in the past year, give or take. While this is not a representative sample by any stretch of the imagination, nor does it meet the rigorous requirements of comparative quantitative analysis, it will serve to illustrate my point.

The question that I pose to you today, dear readers, is this: Who was responsible for these attacks? It’s alright, take your time. There are no right answers to this question. This, in my humble and irrelevant opinion, is the single biggest threat facing our country today. Under Rajapakse, the government of Sri Lanka knew that it was fighting the Tamil Tigers. In Yugoslavia, NATO knew it was fighting Milosevic’s forces. On Omaha Beach, the Allies knew they were fighting the Germans and on the high seas, the Spanish Armada knew they were fighting everyone else. We, however, don’t seem to have a clue.

This is because ours is not a traditional war. It is not even a traditional guerrilla war. When ‘our’ Taliban were paradropped into Afghanistan in the 90s to capture Kabul, the Afghans had a fair idea of who was behind this rising tide of extremism and violence. But today, as the forces of evil overrun our towns and cities, we are no closer to understanding the complexity of the threat facing us. Tehreek-e-Taliban, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Islami; these are all simply names. We are yet to establish what their motives are and are reduced to playing amateur Cluedo with each incident, as it happens, in order to piece together whatever rudimentary understanding we have of these groups and their methods.

The media has a bigger part to play in this game that you would think. Day after day, blind murders and senseless killings are slotted into the attic of “terrorist attacks” and “target killings”, simply because it is too risky to dig any deeper. I have spoken to many journalists who, when they cover these incidents, can piece together pretty well the “who, why, what and wherewithal” of the typical hit. However, because the information they have is mostly hearsay or because they cannot afford to take that sort of pressure from unsavoury types, they are forced to report within the given template that characterises reportage of such attacks.

This is crucial, mostly because media coverage of attacks and bombings is admissible in court. It also serves as a historical record for people who want to retrospectively study the violence that plagues our country. When their sample is unnecessarily skewed by the countless “unknowns” and “unidentifieds”, it is difficult to imagine how anyone, let alone those that make and break policy in our state, can have a clear idea of who or what they are up against. Even intelligence briefings handed to senior security personnel consist of newspaper articles and TV reports.

This is not all there is to it. But information, or the lack thereof, is a major failing of our state and society as a whole. That those who have the knowledge are not talking to those who can actually do something with that knowledge is criminal. While I know that I sound like I’m making the case for security agencies picking up more journalists, I am actually calling for the opposite. Rather than taking an adversarial approach, the law enforcement apparatus needs to understand that a symbiotic relationship with the media will benefit it far more than an adversarial one. I know of many journalists who still have faith in the state and are willing to go that extra mile to make sure justice is served. After all, one can only see so much senseless killing in a lifetime before one decides enough is enough. It’s time the state and its various arms did the same.

And now for something completely different...

Pakistan Today, February 12, 2013

You can never be truly objective and some stories are more equal than others

“Good evening and welcome to another edition of Monty Python’s Flying Circus,” would actually be a better opening for most of the talk shows that adorn our TV channels. Fortunately, the news is an even bigger joke. Speculation masquerading as reportage and opinion being presented as fact is an all-too familiar sight on our hapless TV screens. And if you’re watching any of the decibel queens of primetime TV in High Definition, may God have mercy on your soul.

But it’s not like they can help it. A 24-hour news channel is an insatiable beast, it just wants more and more. No matter how big the story, it will be a ‘Macarena’ before you can say “follow-up”. Investigative journalism is only a distant dream at this point and the public interest is bastardised every day by a two-bit sermonising televangelist. The three-ring circus of Tahirul Qadri and the coverage around it left a bad taste in one’s mouth; and it’s not over yet.

Partisan media is a by-product of the profit incentive: you can never be truly objective because some stories are more equal than others. Especially those stories that feature parties that advertise with you. The same can also be said of stories about people who pay you to play them up. While paid content is as old as the mass media itself, paid content that is not identified as paid content poses the real moral quagmire. Unfortunately, this practice is not uncommon: the incentives need not even be tangible either. It could be as simple as a reporter favouring the candidate he/she has a personal liking for. The same could be said for the owner of a media outlet. Personal bias, then, is irremovable from journalist practice.

The same cannot be said of rigour, or the lack thereof. TV news today is a shambles. Reporters, in their race to get the story first, will twist facts and present half-truths. This is most true of court reporters and those on the “political beat”. While the former are guilty mostly of errors committed in haste, the latter have real license to play it fast and loose with the facts. Each channel has a handful of ‘political correspondents’, people who “have their fingers on the pulse” of the capital. These sensationalising sideshows are what keep talk shows and news bulletins on the air. In real life, things are not as glorious as it would seem. These beat reporters will do anything to spin a story today and graduate to their own primetime TV shows in a few years, where they will hold forth.

I have the (perhaps unfortunate) privilege of being personally acquainted with some of our younger talk show hosts. They are usually good people led astray in the pursuit of the bigger payout. Take Iqrarul Hassan, who hosts ‘Sar-e-Aam’ on ARY News. A seasoned news anchor, Iqrar is a knowledgeable young man with a clear head and fiery oratory skills to boot. However, what comes off onscreen is so far removed from this reality and all we see is a man with a mic running around town chasing down bad guys like he were Chuck Norris. Jasmine Manzoor is another, whose penchant for high decibel discourse drowns out whatever noble intentions she may have. Kashif Abbasi looks like he’s given up trying to host his show at all. While his guests scream incoherently in separate windows, he sits there unwilling to moderate, content in the knowledge that the ratings will keep coming in.

It is ironic that in the midst of this melodrama, voices such as the infamous Hamid Mir seem to be the most rational. A far cry from his days of sensation-mongering, Mir has emerged a changed man. His stance on many issues has demonstrated a clear break from the state-oriented conservative agenda that used to be his hallmark. Granted, that this change has not come overnight and this certainly does not mean that he is somehow above all the malpractices that characterise our news media. However, it does herald a new era, one where experience and analysis is valued above the volume of one’s voice.

But one reformed actor is not enough. The culture of catering to the People’s Meter needs overhauling. Public interest programming and investigative journalism need to foster and media owners need to be bold if they are to captivate their ever-increasing audiences. But until this happens, take your news with a pinch of salt and the Flying Circus as just that, nothing more.

Masseuse-ment

Pakistan Today, February 5, 2013

Does no one see the dirty double game being played by our TV channels?

It all begins with the ratings dwindling. Then, advertisers start being stingy with their money. Salaries are delayed. Lay-offs ensue. Content suffers and the channel is struggling. The talk shows don’t pack as much of a punch as their competitors’ melodramatic offerings.

That is when the bosses decide they need to spice things up.

Enter Dr Maria Zulfiqar Khan. An experienced newsreader, Dr Maria honed her skills anchoring the primetime 9PM bulletin of Express 24/7, at one time Pakistan’s only English news channel. Also the least watched one. But after the sudden demise of the English-language dream, Dr Maria is forced to hawk her wares in Urdu. It begins with her filling in for absent talk show pundits, presenting “specials” on “issues that no one talks about”. Her big break comes when she invites certain “transvestites” to her show to discuss the problems facing “their kind”. A fight breaks out and during the physical altercation; the combatants begin to deprive each other of articles of clothing. And thus, Dr Maria Zulfiqar Khan is launched into the world of talk shows as the intrepid reporter who loves nothing better than to expose the seedy, taboo underbelly of Pakistan.

To be fair, the good doctor knows her audience. In a span of four months, she does shows titled ‘How do ‘blue films’ of Pakistani girls make it onto the Internet?’, ‘Criminal negligence by medical practitioners’, ‘Sexual abuse against women’, ‘Cyber sex at an all time high’, ‘Vulgarity: our compulsion, your pleasure’. Some of these topics represent valid avenues for debate, discourse around which is central to a healthy society. But sifting through the smut to get to the good bits, one would be hard pressed to see the humanist or journalistic angles in these broadcasts.

However, Herr Dokter finds herself in a fix now. She is being shunned and crucified by social media hacks and civil society activists for her latest, Maya-esque episode on illicit massage parlours. In the episode, Dr Maria Zulfiqar raids (alongside police) a private residence purported to be a brothel, running under the guise of a massage parlour. At the outset, the good doctor claims to be working on a tip off received from one of the women who were being forced into prostitution at the massage parlour. However, when she arrives at the scene, she has all the airs of a provincial chief minster about her, ordering people into custody and yelling moral dogma at hapless ‘sex workers’. She then goes on a moralising spree, all but cussing out everyone from girls’ parents to the proprietors of the ‘establishment’. The show ends with a soliloquy on the evils that have permeated our society and the need to rid ourselves of such unclean practices.

Imagine if you will, a private residence. It can be located in any part of our fair backwater where normal, Pakistani law applies. In order to enter the residence, you must either be an owner, a guest or someone invited into the premises for a specific task i.e., housemaid, plumber, cable TV operator etc. The only way law enforcement agencies can obtain access to said premises is to obtain a warrant. In civilised society, there is really no other way of entering private property. You would think that like law enforcement officials, journalists would hold themselves to a higher standard and not resort to cheap, crowd-pleasing tactics. Well, you’d be wrong. This is a far cry from when the Burqa-brigade from Jamia Hafsa began kidnapping Chinese masseuses and triggered world war three in the heart of the capital; it is now morally justified for a rogue TV show host to barge into private property and accuse the occupants of running a brothel and operating a prostitution ring.

I exaggerate, of course. But so does the right honourable doctor, employed by the Red-and-White Media Group. Yes, the same people who brought you hits such as Maya Khan’s Emmy nominated apology, Veena Malik’s demolition of a religious cleric with penchant for ogling beautiful women and the on-air intimidation of already-marginalised Baloch leaders by one Barrister Saif, now present (for your viewing pleasure) a foray into the seedy, X-rated underbelly of Pakistani society.

Does no one see the dirty double game being played here by her employers? By taking these taboo subjects and airing the dirty linen in primetime, the channel is, in fact, catering to the perversions of the very segment of society that they seek to decry i.e., the sleazy, seedy and uncouth individuals who would take pleasure in watching such stories of depravity are the same people who this show is trying to villainise. With each show, the intent seems to be, more and more, to tantalise and titillate rather than educate or liberate.

Maria Zulfiqar Khan is just a pawn in this dangerous game of “my morality is bigger than yours”. It’s time we woke up and smelt the coffee. The moral fabric of our society is being replaced by outrage, pure adulterated and misguided outrage. And like a homing missile without a target, such outrage can only do more damage.

Idiocracy

Pakistan Today, October 23, 2012

We are one of the few countries that hate the US with a vengeance, yet persist on calling ourselves ‘allies’

Between Barack Hussein Obama and Willard Mitt Romney, the latter is the last person you’d think has anything in common with a stereotypical Muslim. But given the fact that if he were to win Indecision 2012 and then croak, the White House would have a first, second and third lady: he is very much in the Muslim vein of things. If you do not know what this means, congratulations; you know even less about the most irrelevant US presidential election in recent history than I do.

Comparing Obama’s first outing to this, his re-election bid, would be like comparing an India-Pakistan cricket match to a Norwich-Swansea football match: it would sound just plain dumb. It is a foregone conclusion that the incumbent has about as much interest in this race as a beaver would have in the Greek financial crisis. Relying heavily on the “I killed Osama” card is a mistake that the Obama camp is surely making. Or so the numbers say.

To be fair, the money bags-Mormon tag team are worthy opponents. Money may not buy happiness, but it does get one a decent shot at winning a popular election. Ask any Pakistani MNA. However, what is surprising is that Pakistani politics is not being overrun by analogies and parallels to the US presidential race. There are no wordplays around the “Yes we can” tagline, and the promise of change, having been successfully hijacked by Imran Khan, is the furthest thing from people’s minds right now.

Critics of my viewpoint may say that Pakistan has a lot riding on the elections, and will further argue that any ‘excitement’ among Pakistanis (or the lack thereof) is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things because this is, after all, the US presidential elections and not the local body polls in Karachi. But it is interesting how people are no longer asking each other, “Did you watch the town hall last night?”

The facts are quite simple. Obama has abandoned his tall claims of ‘change we could possibly at one time have believed in’ and is counting on his successes and the weakness of the GOP to lead him to an easy victory. Even CNN is not doing the complicated electoral college projections that were staple fare ahead of the 2008 elections. Add to that a lacklustre round of debates on abstract issues between two unimpressive candidates and this officially becomes a snoozefest.

From a purely Pakistani perspective, there is not going to be a change. Romney overtly endorsed Obama’s rocky relationship with our fair backwater, going so far as to say that he “understands” the incumbent’s frustration with its most unwilling of allies. This, unfortunately, is true. We are, for better or for worse, one of the few countries that hate the United States with a vengeance, yet persist on calling ourselves ‘allies’. Being in the same list as Saudi Arabia isn’t really something to be proud of.

On everything from drone attacks and economic aid to travel restrictions and broader diplomatic relations, both candidates seem to be reading from the same playbook. Gone are the days when Clinton and Bush had polarizing views and approaches to dealing with Pakistan. Washington today has even less context about Islamabad and the things it does than any of their predecessors. And this is not without reason. The only way to achieve nuance is through continued engagement at a peer-to-peer level. However, the US is increasingly treating Pakistan as an academic anomaly, something which is to be studied, not engaged with. Most of the folks up in DC would much rather ask academics what to do with Pakistan rather than asking Pakistanis. And to be fair, we should give them a dose of their own medicine.

I hope you understand that my lack of grasp (or rather, an unwillingness to grasp) the bigger picture in the case of Indecision 2012 stems not from ignorance but indifference. The picture is not changing, only the frame. Come November, we’re just gonna have another guy who refuses to come to Pakistan because of “security concerns” and will probably be making the pilgrimage to Delhi three or more times during the course of his term. Obama was toothless when it came to tension in the subcontinent and from the looks of things Romney is going to be more of the same, only more overtly pro-India. He already has his eyes on our “100 plus” nuclear weapons stockpile and has made it clear that he’s still not convinced that the democratically elected civilians are fully in charge of things.

Given the state of the idiocracy, I don’t think we should get our hopes up. It’s not even a question of the lesser evil. More like the lesser dumbass. And that’s not good.

Harf-e-aakhir

Pakistan Today, October 17, 2012

Your guess is as good as mine, although mine may be just a fraction better because I’ve done a little more leg work on it than you have

Journalism, fortunately, does not operate on the principles of faith. You are not required to believe in everything you read in the paper or see in the news. The audience is always presented with three things: facts, opinions and conclusions. While the first is objective, the latter two are necessarily subjective and are included to help the audience make a decision. In most (if not all) cases, the choice of which shades of opinion to present and what kind of a conclusion to draw from the presented facts and opinions ties in directly to a channel/publication’s own slant or leanings. This is not ‘unethical journalism’, it is simply ‘journalism’.

Human beings are peculiar creatures. They can see causal and logical linkages where none may exist. This is because post-hoc rationalization is something we are quite adept at i.e., the ability to mould facts, events and speculation to suit our own point of view is something that comes as naturally and involuntarily to us as breathing. Therefore, it is obvious that many reporters and opinion writers produce pieces that are little better than James Joyce’s stream-of-consciousness ramblings in Ulysses: they may look like the best-written words of the century, but they’re not.

‘Thick-skinned’ is a term that is used to describe someone who is impervious to senseless abuse and unconstructive criticism. But the number of thick-skinned individuals in our society has seen a drastic decline ever since the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf reared its head in Pakistan’s politicosphere. It would be unfair on my part to say that every other party has been far more tolerant of criticism, since once-prime minister famously targeted the Jang Group and had Mr Najam Sethi ‘picked up’, ostensibly for “doing their job”. Similarly, Herr Musharraf imposed a mini-martial law on November 3, 2007, because the media wouldn’t stop telling him just how big of an ass he was being. The MQM has often used its ‘clout’ with cable operators to pull certain unfriendly content off the air, most famously in the case of Amir Khan, whose press conferences (before he re-joined the party fold), were blacked out by allied cable-wallahs across the city. Even the current PPP government, which has been most unhappy with the Jang Group of late, violated its commitment to free press when it ordered that Geo be taken off the air on repeated occasions. And these are just the examples that readily spring to mind.

The point is, being reactive to criticism isn’t a characteristic of a certain group or party: it applies across the board on all individuals. When a story or a barb hits too close to home, everyone and anyone clams up and becomes hostile. But it has always been the more level-headed among all parties that have eventually prevailed; it is always those with a sense of humour and irony who can best answer pointed questions. Take spin-doctor extraordinaire Qamar Zaman Kaira’s putting-down of Kamran Khan on the eve of the contempt verdict against erstwhile premier Gilani. Or Sherry Rehman and Husain Haqqani’s handling of the media following the multiple crises that they have had to face. Effective media management and damage control is a skill that is essential to today’s politics. Even the PML-N has its Saad Rafiques and Khawaja Asifs to pacify the media monster; the ANP has Shahi Syed and the MQM is a trained jamaat of veritable talkshow pundits. But few others do.

People should remember that a free press means the freedom to do all sorts of things. It can also be used to further all sorts of interests and agendas. However, unlike the United States, where airtime is openly purchased by political parties for their campaigns, things in Pakistan are a little more under-the-table. Since media organizations are less straightforward about why they are representing a certain opinion, it is up to the audience to decide whether they want to side with the talking head on screen, or not. While this presupposes the intelligent viewer, it does not liberate the media from ethical limitations: no one is arguing for the abolition of PEMRA, just for the institution of better mental checks for readers themselves.

The intelligent reader is not a myth. Habitual newspaper readers and TV viewers become accustomed to a certain style of presentation and begin to read between the lines once they are familiar enough with a certain publication/channel’s style. This is what separates them from the masses who treat all they see on TV as harf-e-aakhir, when in fact, there is no such thing.

The lesson we must take from this diatribe is this: the fourth estate is part and parcel of the democratic (sic!) setup. There will forever be accusations of bias, yellow journalism, slander and unfair criticism against it, but that will never change the way it does business. Like so many other professionals, media moguls don’t particularly like being told what to do and consider it their sworn duty to tell others just how they should be running their affairs. It’s not a perfect arrangement, but it does work most of the time.

Fellow columnist Nadir Hassan once remarked, “Imagine what our opinion pages and TV shows would be like if people were more comfortable with expressing doubt”. While losing the pulpit of punditry may compromise the credibility of many a two-penny writer, the general rule is quite consistent. No one is an expert on everything and no one has any crystal balls. Your guess is as good as mine, although mine may be just a fraction better because I’ve done a little more leg work on it than you have. This is what the narrative of the media in Pakistan should be like. Any attempts to contradict this will only amount to severe stupidity.