mehreenkasana:

What I’m about to write is grisly but it’s based on reality and on war. And the word needs to get out. It’s about how wars distort the truth and how gender becomes a fancy topic to throw in when convenient.

Imagine. You are in Gardez, Afghanistan. You are celebrating the joyous arrival of a newborn - a little baby - in your house. You all speak Dari, one of the most beautiful languages spoken in Asia. There is music, there is dancing; All to welcome the birth of a child. You are happy. At midnight, a raid is carried out by US forces in your house because their (flawed) intelligence agencies claim there’s a meeting going on to prepare a suicide bomber. They don’t double check, they don’t verify but they carry weapons that can put holes in your bones so they go on anyway. They carry out a massacre in your house. Five people are killed. Three are women. One of them is pregnant. One of them is a senior Afghan police officer. One of the men is zip-cuffed up and watches in horror how US soldiers dig bullets out of his dead wife. They cover the entire incident up. It never reaches the news. When it does, it’s a quick flash. Most of us don’t even remember.

After the US soldiers - the Joints Special Operations Command members - raided that house, they take the remaining men into custody and interrogate them through barbaric means trying to get them to indicate that the family had a connection with the Taliban. Men who had nothing to do with the Taliban. In international press, the report is presented as: “US Forces stumble upon the aftermath of what looks like a Taliban honor killing.”

Honor killing. Feminists in the world roar. Liberal feminists want justice for these dead women. “Religion is oppressive! Those men killed these women for dancing, didn’t they? Those monsters!” Little do they know, the same saviors that were in the region to “rescue” women were the killers. But we see no link between dogma and gender when we look at the US Military; We are taught to see them as saviors, as warriors of justice. And so the leader of the JSOC, Vice Admiral William McRaven enters that village post-raid with scores of Afghan soldiers and American soldiers and offers a sheep to sacrifice - a tradition in Afghanistan and Pakistan that is done to gain one’s forgiveness after misconduct - in front of the family. A photographer snaps a photo of the reconciliation that is offered to the grieving family. All is well, all is good. At least according to selective media reports.

But it is never found out whether those soldiers were disciplined for killing innocent people. Whether they were held accountable for murder. Yes, murder. Call it what it is. And it goes on. A journalist who tries to present this brutal incident in public is instantly demonized and hushed. Similar to the case of the Yemeni journalist who was jailed - at Obama’s order - for exposing a US missile strike in Yemen that killed civilians.

The truth is obscured and distorted during war. It is presented in bits and pieces understated and overstated at will. But what is horrifying is how easily it is fed into a consumer’s mind. Imagine how many massacres have been hidden from us to keep a war going on and on and on.

Click the link.

2:25 am  •  23 January 2013  •  812 notes

“To the skeptics preparing to ask me whether I’d prefer to live in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan since I think the US is so awful, I wonder if you realize the level to which US foreign policy towards certain parts of the world has intensified violence against women. Backing sexist dictatorial rulers, knowingly arming religious fundamentalists who throw acid in women’s faces and forcing neoliberal economic policies that leave small farmers (most of whom are women) and their families starving; these are the policies that define the United States to many women abroad.”

—

US media portrays rape culture as a foreign problem. Here’s why they’re wrong. 

Better yet, check out the United States Military, where women in combat are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire; where ”soldier rapists have an 86.5% chance of keeping [his] crime a secret and a 92% chance of avoiding a court-martial“; where one out of three servicewomen are sexually assaulted, twice the rate for civilian women in the US; where 22,800 violent sex crimes were reported in the US military in 2011.

(via mehreenkasana)

(Source: democraticnonsense, via mehreenkasana)

8:05 pm  •  3 January 2013  •  996 notes

mehreenkasana:

I’ve been receiving comments and (accusatory) remarks from anonymous individuals wanting to know why I haven’t spoken about this yet. My friends and I have been working on reports involving these peaceful protests and how the international media is not reporting about them because they directly dismantle stereotypical images of Muslim “rage”. It takes time to curate images and receive from them individuals reporting on the spot. I’m only sharing one of the comments made, and I completely agree:

30 hours. It’s been more than 30 hours since the considerably large silent sit-in against the ongoing Shia Genocide started at Numaish, Karachi. Barely a word on the media. Because, what? The protesters are being peaceful and civil about it. They’re not forcefully shutting down shops, not destroying property? This HAS to stop. They sat through the night, they sat through the chaos that engulfed Karachi yesterday evening. There was gunfire in the vicinity, and they still stood strong. They’re standing up for their right midst a very hostile atmosphere. If the mainstream media doesn’t report this, we’ll be the reporters!

12:58 am  •  17 December 2012  •  48 notes

“I could venture into the deep thesis of Orientalism, but let me not. A simpler explanation is because the editors at these foreign publications demand a certain style. The foreign correspondents reporting from “exotic” locations, where a “life is cheaper than the bullet that takes it”, have to conform to corporate demands. Many have internalised this style, while others let the desk editors do the Stylebook adjectivisation. Some foreign correspondents have spent enough time in Pakistan to know its nuanced life, while other “parachute journalists” use adjectives as crutches to bolster their “fact-challenged” reportage. […] The result is a colourful picture of Pakistan for the world to read. Here “moustachioed” and “turbaned” men rub shoulders with “powerbrokers in pin-striped suits”, who are always fighting a losing battle with brass-laden generals who always “swagger”. […] Yes, this is a war we fight on a daily basis. It is a war of adjectives that slash like a whip and cut like a scimitar. At the end, the poor Pakistani journalists can only look at the foreign correspondent and say with a resigned shrug: “Saala angraizy kee maar dey giya” (He vanquished me with the English language).”

—

Pakistani journalist and anchorman Fahd Husain brilliantly slams English-speaking foreign correspondents in Pakistan for their Orientalist, reductive rhetoric.

Reading this brought true joy to me. More power to Fahd.

(via mehreenkasana)

1:15 am  •  13 December 2012  •  252 notes

mehreenkasana:

Tanqeed is an experiment in critical reflection on Pakistan. It is a blogzine, a scrapbook and a reporters’ notebook. From observations on politics, culture and media to podcasts, multimedia, and rejected pitches, Tanqeed takes account of a country that has hitherto been overtaken by its representations.

Tanqeed - Urdu for constructive criticism - is now on Tumblr! Initiated by Pakistani academicians and journalists, Tanqeed is a blogzine revolving around the political and cultural issues within Pakistan with an aim to create a forum engaging in long-form, in-depth journalism concerning under-reported and neglected stories. This is an excellent opportunity for those interested in studying Pakistani politics as well as global issues within a clearer and smarter context.

Follow Tanqeed on Tumblr | Twitter | Vimeo | Facebook. Subscribe to the main website here. Stay tuned for more updates!

5:06 pm  •  27 November 2012  •  68 notes

mehreenkasana:

This is so important especially after the incident involving Pakistani student Malala Yousafzai. I cannot stress upon on how dangerous the rhetoric around this event is considering how many have instantly resorted to support drone attacks. Journalist Urooj Zia states this simply: “Please, stop using the attack on Malala to justify drones. We’ve been ‘droned’ for years now, & freely. Are militants dead? No.”

Incidents like these need to be treated with caution and consideration by media given how the framing of a tragedy (especially a gendered tragedy) leads to the justification of foreign policies that, in the long run, prove to be highly detrimental. 

1:19 pm  •  10 October 2012  •  1,232 notes

“My only request would be: in the future, when a woman is crippled, maimed, raped or murdered in an exorcism ritual (and that happens often) think about the impact of the show you ran. The next time you hear of a violent act against a Hindu family in Pakistan, or that entire families are migrating to India seeking refuge from a nation filled with hate – think about this segment you were a part of, and the message it sent out.”

—

Shame on me for championing Veena Malik - Jahanzaib Haque.

Very important. This accurately describes why I was never keen on cheering for Veena Malik in the first place. Using religion and sensationalism for TV ratings? You don’t have my support. Using religion and sensationalism for TV ratings at the expense of a minority that is already harassed in Pakistan? You should be banned.

(via mehreenkasana)

12:40 pm  •  17 August 2012  •  59 notes

“Sadly, the media has ignored the universal elements of this story, distracted perhaps by the unfamiliar names and thick accents of the victims’ families. They present a narrative more reassuring to their viewers, one which rarely uses the word terrorism and which makes it clear that you have little to worry about if you’re not Sikh or Muslim.”

—

Naunihal Singh argues the media treated the shootings in Oak Creek and Aurora very differently — in The New Yorker (via azmatzahra)

“One which rarely uses the word terrorism and which makes it clear that you have little to worry about if you’re not Sikh or Muslim.”

“One which rarely uses the word terrorism and which makes it clear that you have little to worry about if you’re not Sikh or Muslim.”

“One which rarely uses the word terrorism and which makes it clear that you have little to worry about if you’re not Sikh or Muslim.”

There’s the truth.

(via mehreenkasana)

(via mehreenkasana)

3:24 pm  •  14 August 2012  •  100 notes

mehreenkasana:

What hurts me the most, Maya, is how you have – like many others – used my faith for consumerism, for shoddy attempts at gaining more ratings and ravings. It hurts me when a friend of mine – a Christian – confides in me that she knows that most of the Muslim population in Pakistan would be extremely outraged had a Muslim been converted on TV in a country where they were a minority. It hurts me when I read how people instantly start defaming Islam, my faith that has inculcated in me a profound respect and harmony for non-Muslims, despite knowing that it was not Islam that taught you to run a talk show on a live conversion but your greed for more hits and your insensitivity to the fact that minorities in Pakistan are already isolated and marginalized, that people of non-state religion already know when to keep their mouths shut, that these people will never know that there are people like me who resent you for you irresponsibility – people who are Muslims – and will never, ever condone such a blatant misuse of faith under the guise of ‘spirituality’ on a cheesy TV show. You hurt and maim what you claim to love – a faith that does not encourage relegating minorities into public objects for viewership. That their conversions are utmost private. That their forced conversions are utmost inhumane. Your idea has again, subsequently, backfired.

[full letter here]

Maya Khan did a morning show on a Hindu boy converting to Islam. The idea was not only controversial, and I say this as a Muslim, but deeply disrespectful to the marginalized minorities in Pakistan.

11:54 am  •  30 July 2012  •  40 notes

allherstars:

Yesterday I had the dubious pleasure of watching Oprah’s Next Chapter: India on TLC. The name of the programme is pretty self-explanatory. And I’d already heard of her series, Oprah’s Next Chapter in the US where she “steps outside of the studio for enlightening conversations with newsmakers, celebrities, thought leaders and real-life families”. I’ve never been a great fan of Oprah’s – and the fact that she truly follows and believes everything that Deepak Chopra and Dr Phil say has nothing to do with it. I do think though, that she’s a good interviewer, she’s well-informed, an easy conversationalist and is well-travelled. But all that has changed after watching Oprah’s Next Chapter: India.

Myopic, unaware, ignorant and gauche. This was Middle America at its best worst.

Two episodes make up the India episodes. The first being the one I saw and which I think was shot during her visit to the Jaipur Literature Festival this year. This was Oprah’s first visit to India. Now whenever an American or a British TV show host visits India, he or she is always accompanied on his travels through our very exotic land by someone living in India, a sort of cultural friend, philosopher and guide.

So was Oprah. She was taken on a guided tour through a slum in Bombay by the prince of poverty tourism – Gregory David Roberts. He of Shantaram and deplorable sentence construction fame. Who has anointed him tour guide to the slums of India?  Oprah seemed quite happy to have one of her ilk show her around through the by-lanes of the slum. And the slum is where Oprah’s “oh-my-god-how wonderfully-pathetically-quaint-to-be-so-poor” avatar stepped out in full glory.

So Oprah trooped into one of our vintage slums to meet a family – parents and three children – who live in a 10 square foot room. Now I’m not surprised that Oprah was surprised to see an entire family living in such tiny quarters. Although I’m sure she could find cramped ghettos in the States. What surprised me was the amazing lack of sensitivity to the children’s feelings or the feelings of the parents who’d opened up their home to her. All the children go to school, and were extremely well-mannered and seemed happy and quite carefree like children their age are meant to be. They didn’t seem to realise that their home was smaller than the homes of others. Or that their father didn’t earn as much as he could.

But not for long. Once Oprah got through with them, they must have committed seppuku.

She asked the children how they could live in such a “tiny” room and actually wanted to know, “Don’t you feel it’s too cramped?” She also asked the six-year-olds whether they were happy. Which must have made them wonder why they shouldn’t be. She then interrogated the father about whether he was happy and satisfied. He got teary-eyed and said that he wished he could earn more and provide for a more comfortable life for his children. After making him weep in front of his family, Oprah said that she knows how awful it is for children to see their father weep.

She did look for a shower head in the toilet and seem amazed to hear they bathed with a bucket. And she marveled at how all their clothes fit onto a small shelf. She pointedly avoided any mention the massive LCD TV which adorned their wall. That would have killed the sob story. When their older daughter told Oprah that she’d like to go to London to study further, Oprah also played her role as American ambassador to the hilt and said, “No. Come to America, it’s a lovely country. It’s the best”.

After visiting the strange exotic “slum people” who seemed to live on top of some magic faraway tree, she immediately proceeded to the home of one of Bombay’s richie-rich families. And then displayed her ignorance there as well.

The joint family which was dressed in full Indian regalia served her a meal on silver thalis and katoris. She looked at the food and then made her best statement of the entire episode – “So I hear some people in India STILL eat with their hands”. I don’t know what people in America are eating their hot dogs, pizzas and tacos with but perhaps Oprah’s home has evolved cutlery for all that. Then she told her viewers that ALL women in India live with their mothers-in-law and extended family.

Then to totally wash away all that grime of the slum, she got togged out in a Tarun Tahiliani sari to go and visit the home of the “Brad and Angelina of Bollywood”. Which if you didn’t realise, are Abhishek and Ash or as O puts it, Aaaarsh and Abheeeshuk whose child she said was “lit from within” whatever that means. I think it’s a condition that happens to children in Deepak Chopra’s homeland. Then she went to a party thrown in her honour by billionaire socialite Parmeshwar Godrej which was the first accurate description of a person in the entire episode. She did marvel at the paparazzi outside the Bachchan home, which is quite impressive on any given day. And then we got to see her say hello to Piggy Chops, Shiamak Dawar, Anil Kapoor and all the Bollywood glitterati. She interrogated A R Raman – as she calls him – and spoke to him about how even he lives with his mother and whether he loves his wife who he had an arranged marriage with. And after I barfed a little in my mouth, it was the end of her journey to Bombay.

The second episode will have her visit Taj Mahal – as she and every foreigner must. And I will watch the episode. Maybe she’ll tell some more unsuspecting people how poor and wretched their lives are, and also state how she’s heard that many Indians STILL don’t use toilet paper to wipe their bums. The possibilities are endless.

(Rajyasree Sen)

(via minevras)

11:27 am  •  22 July 2012  •  294 notes

sinidentidades:

COLOMBO — Sri Lankan police Friday shut down opposition news websites, accusing them of carrying “false and vulgar reports”, months after imposing censorship on news alerts issued by mobile phone companies.

Seven media organisations, including the Sri Lanka Working Journalists Association, condemned the closure of the Lanka Mirror and Lanka X News offices located within the same building in Colombo.

“A group of 25 officers from the police Criminal Investigation Department sealed the offices and nine employees were arrested,” the media organisations said in a joint statement. “We condemn this deadly assault on media freedom.”

The Sri Lankan defence ministry said the news organisations were shut down after officials obtained a court order to carry out searches and seize equipment.

Rights groups and employees said one website was the official news organ of the opposition United National Party (UNP), while the other website was also closely linked to the UNP.

“The CID sealed the offices of two websites carrying false and vulgar reports,” the ministry said in a statement. “People responsible for feeding information to the Internet through this office are being investigated.”

The sites have been highly critical of the government, which is already facing international censure over its human rights record and a string of unsolved murders of journalists and attacks on the independent media.

12:03 pm  •  2 July 2012  •  11 notes

pakistani:

Pakistani chef spices up American cooking show

“You want to go to university to become a bawarchi (cook)?” – This is the first reaction Fatima Ali, 22, would get when she would tell friends at a highly competitive school in Karachi about her aspirations to become a chef.

While friends were applying to Ivy Leagues and Oxbridge, up to five or six universities at a time, Ali applied to just one; a culinary institute in upstate New York.

While her mother supported her decision, her father, a well-known barrister in Lahore, initially urged her to apply to law schools instead, finally coming around after much persuasion. For 16-year-old Ali, there was no two ways about it – she started cooking at five and this would be her future.

Single-minded in her goal, her stubbornness combined with passion eventually helped her win an episode of the reality cooking show ‘Chopped’ which aired on June 12 on The Food Network in the United States. (complete news)

Follow us on Facebook | Twitter or Submit something or Just Ask! 

5:18 am  •  19 June 2012  •  62 notes

mehreenkasana:

theamericanbear:

“Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. …

“’It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,’ the official said. ’They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.’” — New York Times, 5/29/2012

Greenwald:

For the moment, leave the ethical issues to the side that arise from viewing “all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants”; that’s nothing less than sociopathic, a term I use advisedly, but I discuss that in the separate, longer piece I’m writing to be published a bit later this morning. For now, consider what this means for American media outlets. Any of them which use the term “militants” to describe those killed by U.S. strikes are knowingly disseminating a false and misleading term of propaganda. By “militant,” the Obama administration literally means nothing more than: any military-age male whom we kill, even when we know nothing else about them. They have no idea whether the person killed is really a militant: if they’re male and of a certain age they just call them one in order to whitewash their behavior and propagandize the citizenry (unless conclusive evidence somehow later emerges proving their innocence).

What kind of self-respecting media outlet would be party to this practice? Here’s the New York Times documenting that this is what the term “militant” means when used by government officials. Any media outlet that continues using it while knowing this is explicitly choosing to be an instrument for state propaganda — not that that’s anything new, but this makes this clearer than it’s ever been.

Read more →

“They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.”

Extremely important concerning South Asian politics wherein Pakistani and Afghan civilian lives have constantly been lost in “necessary strikes” by USA.

11:29 am  •  29 May 2012  •  47 notes

“While inquiries will be made into the apparent corruption of the Bhoja Air company and of the negligence exhibited by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and aircraft manufacturers, it could be rightfully said that a judicial commission ought to be formed into straightening out the disorderedly behavior displayed by our news channels. […] It’s simple: Get to the bottom of the case without getting under our skin. A citizen’s suffering is not your chance to increase ratings. Show some respect.”

—

My article in Express Tribune: Where Are Our Media Ethics?

This was written after viewing the highly inappropriate reportage by Geo TV, Dunya TV and ARY News when they placed sensationalist reporting above the basic privacy and comfort of those killed in the Bhoja Air crash and their grieving loved ones. It’s disappointing when you need to tell a reporter to look up common decency while covering a tragedy.

(via mehreenkasana)

7:42 am  •  24 April 2012  •  22 notes

mehreenkasana:

According to a Dawn statement, the body bore torture marks and the hands were tied. It appeared that Razvi had been strangled to death, but police have said that the real cause of death will be established after the post-mortem.

[x]

I just found out through a friend. This is horrible. What makes it a lot more disturbing is how Mr. Razvi had no animosity of any sort - political or otherwise. A great man with extensive knowledge on South Asian politics, Mr. Razvi wrote critical analysis on Musharraf’s regime. He is survived by his wife and three daughters. Rest in peace, sir.

2:31 pm  •  19 April 2012  •  15 notes