By Sonya Rehman

With internet usage on the rise, Pakistanis are turning to the blogosphere and citizen journalism to share their opinions. Hosh Media epitomizes the growing popularity of locally-based, online portals for citizen journalism in Pakistan.

According to the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), the number of broadband internet subscribers rose from 26,611 in 2005 to 1,656,800 in September 2011; an increase of 1.5 million subscribers. It is also estimated that as of 2011, Pakistan’s population stands at approximately 187 million; of this, the internet penetration is estimated at over 20 million.

Given the proliferation of internet usage in Pakistan, local citizen journalism portals have also seen a rise in popularity. SeenReport, Gawaahi, Maati TV, and other blogs and websites initiated by local media outlets and independent journalists/bloggers have given Pakistanis with access to the internet the chance to have their voices heard.

Hosh Media, though, has a specific focus as a citizen journalism portal. ‘Hosh’ is an Urdu word that loosely translated means ‘to awaken,’ and that is precisely what it hopes to do. By connecting the blogosphere and traditional reporting in Pakistan, founder and Pakistani journalist, Sahar Habib Ghazi, wanted to create a fresh way to engage the public while infusing news with youthful perspectives and voices.

Ghazi credits her time at Stanford University in California as a John S. Knight Journalism Fellow in 2010 for inspiring her to launch this citizen journalism initiative for Pakistanis.

“I came to Stanford with a proposal that aimed at countering the breaking news oriented tilt of our TV newsrooms,” Ghazi explained. “But the fellowship program exposed me to many exciting narratives on the digital and social media front. Within a few months, I was hooked. I decided I needed to bridge the divide between my people – journalists – and online communities – bloggers, activists and tweeters – in Pakistan. Stanford proved to be the perfect incubator for turning that concept into Hosh.”

While at Stanford, Ghazi met Syed Ali Abbas Zaidi and Shahid Saeed via blogging and tweeting. These two young Pakistanis proved to be vital to Hosh Media’s founding in May 2011, as well as its subsequent development.

Primarily known for his social activism in Pakistan, Zaidi is the portal’s Community Lead, while Saeed, a blogger, helped Ghazi establish the portal’s basic set-up. Saeed now works as an Archivist for Hosh along with Technical Lead Haleema Mehmood, Marketing Lead Farhan Kamal, and Operations Lead Nadia Zaffar.  All 5 employees comprise of the initiative’s core team of young Pakistanis.

“Our contributors – bloggers, students and activists – can now log onto hoshmedia.org and send in their videos, images and thoughts. Our team packages these crowd-sourced contributions into news stories for mainstream networks in Pakistan,” Ghazi stated in a Knight Fellowship talk.

Sahar Habib Ghazi during her Knight Fellowship talk

The role of citizen journalism in Pakistan today is “essential,” according to Ghazi. “The more voices straight from the ground,” she said, “the more representative and democratic our media will be.”

Hosh Media recently added six online journalism tutorials to its website which are short, interesting, well-packaged videos featuring veteran Pakistani journalist Abbas Nasir highlighting important subjects within journalism such as, “Covering Survivors of Abuse,” “Quoting Anonymous Sources,” and “News vs. Opinion,” among other topics. These tutorials serve as a reservoir of information and articulate instruction for budding citizen journalists and bloggers.

“Our larger goal is to make media in Pakistan more representative of the majority of Pakistan – the youth,” said Ghazi. “Two in three Pakistanis have yet to celebrate their thirtieth birthday; we are overwhelmingly a young country, and we believe these young voices need to be on the mainstream media.”

Hosh Media’s content is quickly gaining attention after its first digital article, “The Youth Speaks” was published on the website of the well-known Pakistani daily newspaper DAWN. The piece focused on youth reaction to the death of Osama bin Laden with crowd-sourced videos and text, according to Ghazi.

In response to that criticism citizen journalism lacks of objectivity, Ghazi argues that broadcast journalism in Pakistan can be biased too. “Our goal at Hosh is to take not one citizen report, but many crowd-sourced reports, curate and edit them into an objective, balanced news piece,” Ghazi said. “Take our story ‘The Youth Speaks,’ for example. It starts with a video featuring three individuals saying they don’t believe Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan, followed by another video featuring three individuals critiquing the army and the government’s role in the bin Laden affair. Balance is essential, and that is the value our editorial team adds to our crowd-sourced citizen reports.”

 AudienceScapes

By Hamza Usman

An inevitable question Pakistanis always ask me is, “what are you?” Often, I’ve wondered the same question. Besides ‘Pakistani,’ I don’t know what else to say.  I’m not Balochi or Sindhi. I can’t speak Punjabi. In my house, besides English, Urdu is the only other language spoken. When people ask me what language my parents speak, that’s what I tell them. Unlike many of my acquaintances, I don’t come from a town or village in interior Pakistan. Like millions in Pakistan, my family migrated from India. My grandparents’ families originate from Delhi, Lucknow and Aligarh, the bastions of Urdu-speaking peoples in India. In Pakistan, I am merely a ‘Muhajir;” an Urdu speaking migrant from India, now living in Karachi.

My family, like millions of others, came to Pakistan believing Jinnah’s ideal, searching for a homeland that was ours, for all Muslims, with freedom, tolerance and dignity. During those waning years of the British Empire, freedom across the Subcontinent was not a novel idea; it was a dream that had existed for decades. Students from the Aligarh Muslim University took up the cause of an independent homeland for Muslims; the university was known for the caliber and number of intellectuals it produced espousing the cause for an independent Muslim state to exist alongside a Hindu majority one in the Subcontinent. Thinkers like Mohammad Iqbal and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan were noted luminaries associated with the institution dubbed, ‘the Oxford of the East.’ Iqbal is largely celebrated in modern day Pakistan as the first ideologue championing a united Pakistan; today, his small rectangular tomb, a simple, stone structure in hues of dark crimson and burnt sienna, ensconced between the magnificent Badshahi Mosque and the grand Lahore Fort, welcomes visitors keen to learn about Pakistan’s past; a chapter of rich, Mughal heritage often obscured by the shame of Colonialism and the turbulence of Partition.

Other notable alumni of Aligarh Muslim University include Pakistan’s first Prime Minister, killed by an assassin’s bullet in 1951. In his place as Pakistan’s second Prime Minister came Khwaja Nazimuddin, another Aligarh alumnus who was Pakistan’s second, incumbent Governor General after Mr. Jinnah’s sudden death in 1948 less than a year after Pakistan’s creation. Ghulam Mohammad, Pakistan’s third and last Governor General was also an alumnus; Ghulam Mohammad’s legacy of unchecked corruption and senility  heralded the beginning of Pakistan’s trials by promoting vice-regal politics, weakening democracy and laying the seeds for President Iskander Mirza and Field Marshal Ayub Khan to set a notorious precedent and declare Martial Law in 1958.  Coincidentally, Ayub also attended Aligarh Muslim University briefly.

One lesser known alumnus was Abu Bakr Ahmad (A.B.A.) Haleem, a noted scholar and educationist. Professor Haleem began his career in the Department of Political Science and History at Aligarh in 1923. Ayub Khan was one of students. By 1934, he was Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University and played a pivotal role in Pakistan’s formation by serving with the All-India Muslim League until Partition. Writer Mukhtar Masood describes Professor Haleem’s welcome to Jinnah, stating, “Mr. Jinnah, we are teaching history and you are making it.” After the birth of Pakistan, Professor Haleem was appointed the first Vice-Chancellor of Sindh University at the behest of Jinnah and later, the first Vice-Chancellor of Karachi University thus filling the noble distinction of being the first Vice-Chancellor for both institutions. In addition, he served in a variety of different roles and positions for the purposes of propagating education and progress in Pakistan. I refer to Professor Haleem because he was a lesser-known luminary who contributed to forging Pakistan’s identity in its early years; he was also my Great-Grandfather.

Following in his footsteps, I too graduated in Political Science and History, and like him, moved to Paris. His association with the Sorbonne and the University of Paris inspired me as I strolled down the Boulevard St. Michel as he once would have decades before, deep in thought, stopping at the Jardins du Luxembourg to sit in silent contemplation amidst the babbling fountains and the verdant green grass. Like him, I spoke French almost fluently. Like him, I expressed a desire for multilingualism and learnt Italian. Professor Haleem spoke over five languages; he even spoke Mandarin. According to my grandfather, he was invited to China to give a speech to Chairman Mao-Zedong on Chinese history.

In the late Professor’s time, the concept of nationhood was being redefined and the notion of identity that still troubles Pakistanis surfaced.  Gandhi argued that religion could not imply a separate nation since language, customs and culture dictated that, not belief. Jinnah contended that religion defined values, customs, beliefs and ideals, thus characterizing Muslims as a separate nation. With neither side willing to budge from their respective positions, the outcome of this arduous conflict was the Partition of the Subcontinent in 1947.

Like me, Pakistan is still undergoing its identity crisis. Debate still looms whether the state is secular, as Jinnah envisioned, or Islamic, as his successors outlined. Its maturity and development into a cohesive nation has been hindered by weak democracy, military dominance in addition to poor governance, lack of resources and partisan politics. Like the former Yugoslavia, Pakistan is a federation of various ethnic groups, tribes, sects and peoples. The most poorly-defined of these groups are the so-called ‘Urdu-speaking’ Muslims that migrated to Pakistan after Partition from all over India. They are defined solely on the basis of language and stigmatized by the local, ethnic populations whose ancestors have pre-existed on Pakistani soil for centuries.

Urdu was a hybrid language growing in prominence under the Delhi Sultanate, but it wasn’t until the emergence of the Mughal Empire in 1527 that Urdu became a language of the regal court. It evolved from a derivative of Farsi to amalgamate Arabic, Sanskrit, Turkish and Hindi influences. As late as the siege of Delhi in 1857, Urdu remained a language of the elite and refined, lending much of its court-like stature to literature and poetry. Urdu speakers in places like Aligarh contributed greatly to Jinnah’s movement of an independent Muslim state in the Subcontinent. As a result, at Pakistan’s birth, Urdu was to be its lingua franca. Ostensibly, this would not only curtail any one ethnic group from dominating national affairs, it would also reinforce national identity through the use and extension of a common language, keeping the federation united.[1]

Naturally, this created tensions that still exist today. Pakistan at Partition was divided into East and West with only Urdu as its national language, however strong opposition and campaigning from Bengalis in East Pakistan made Bengali a national language during the 1950s. Pakistan’s Post-Colonial legacy ensured that English was not only its official language but lent its presence to its law courts, bureaucracy and military.  After its brutal Civil War in 1971, East Pakistan became Bangladesh and Pakistan was left with Urdu as its only national language. English remains the language of the elite, the powerful and the source of high-paying jobs. Prominent families send their children to English or American schools in the hope that acquiring this language will be a passport to success. As Zubeida Mustafa describes in The Guardian, “people believe that English is the magic wand that can open the door of prosperity. Policy-makers, the wielders of economic power and the social elites have also perpetuated this myth.[2]”

And this myth affects the language spoken in my home. Today, the Urdu around me is not the Urdu spoken during Partition. At that time, Urdu’s poetic language structure, its rich vocabulary and literature was common to most speakers. My generation has been fed a bastardized version of Urdu; an Urdu with informal tenses, new verbiage, interspersed with English to create what some call “minglish,” influenced by the melting pot of Karachi’s different cultures. The Urdu I speak can barely be called Urdu; it is Urdu to get by. I can order a cup of tea but I cannot wax eloquent on anything. When I watch television, news anchors speak a strange language and I struggle to read the ticker because I was never formally taught to read Urdu and I don’t know anyone who speaks the pure Urdu that once characterized my homeland.

Pakistan was envisioned as a poly-ethnic state where religion bound peoples together. The effect of nation-building has backfired since inception because ethnic identities remain prominent. Urdu has not achieved the massive national trickle-down effect it was intended to. Urdu is the first language of only 8% of Pakistanis whereas Punjabi, is spoken by almost 50% of the population.[3] In addition, over 70 smaller provincial languages and dialects exist in Pakistan.  Today, whilst much of the mainstream media as well as state-run public schools communicate in Urdu, it is not a first-language for Pakistanis by far. Those homes with access to English find a diminished impetus for learning Urdu as pragmatism and practical exigencies dictate the study of English, primarily because all higher examinations with the exception of Islamic studies in Pakistan are based on the Western models of education.

In my case, Urdu’s oral traditions and rich cultural legacy is lost to me. In Nehru’s words, “I have become a queer mixture of the East and the West, out of place everywhere, at home nowhere.”  I cannot read Ghalib unless it’s an English translation. I cannot even read the Urdu newspaper. I read Saadat Hassan Manto, revered as one of Pakistan’s greatest writers, in English. Often I wonder what richness of language is lost to me, what word play and complex grammatical structures I shall never understand, nor the depth of connotation that one Urdu word conveys but none in English compare.

Upon my return to Pakistan in 2009, I was faced with a quandary. I wanted to document the richness of this country and its cultural heritage; I wanted to highlight its history and its crumbling monuments, preserving those stories and retelling them for a new generation that doesn’t understand what Pakistan is, or what it once was. This new generation, fed on misinterpreted views of Islam accounts for much of the radicalization of the past few decades. I realized that if I needed to undo General Zia’s legacy of Islamization, I needed to show that the people living here weren’t always militant; that before there was a homeland for Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Hindus, Parsis to name a few lived side by side in peace with Muslims.

Working for a television station, I was making a documentary film but realized my shortcomings when my co-producer handed me a script to OK. The script was written in Urdu. Like a toddler struggling with an elementary primer, I held my finger over each word trying to decipher the script, until I gave up a few lines after and told him it seemed OK to me. What else could I do? When a colleague amazingly remarked that I could speak French and Italian, I turned to her and in my broken Urdu, asked what use was it if I couldn’t speak the language of my own people?

After a few months of struggle, I left the documentary film-making world because of my language handicap and ventured toward Communications. I struggled with the bitter taste of irony, that I, privileged, educated, capable of helping this country through the miasma of failure, extremism, violence and stagnation, was powerless because I couldn’t speak the language properly.  Unlike Professor Haleem who made a difference to change Pakistan for the better, I was restricted and hindered by the same hopeful language that gave this country a voice. Today, my Urdu is mish-mashed with English incorporating more colloquial slang than literal Urdu. Like my Urdu, I find myself a mix of different peoples and personalities, Pakistani at heart, but at home nowhere.

Beginning an online marketing campaign can seem overwhelming at first, but if you take the time to get organized from the beginning, it can be quite easy to keep your head in the game and take advantage of every opportunity you have before you. Here are some essential strategies for staying focused and organized and managing an effective marketing campaign.

Setting Goals and Objectives

It may not be a bad idea to start your online campaign by writing a list of goals. Whether you’re trying to get more visitors for your blog, more shoppers in your eStore, more social-networking users clicking your Facebook ad, or more clicks on your affiliate marketing blog. 1 to 3 goals should suffice. Ask yourself what you’re really trying to accomplish.

Whatever the end goal is, you need to think it through logically and set a few objectives in order to get there. You might not know what those objectives are just yet, and that’s where the strategies listed below will help you, but when you do have it figured out, breaking your goals down into a series of objectives gives you a road map of what to do to accomplish them.

Show the Right Face to the Right People

Your landing page is the face of your website. If you want to improve your conversion rate, try rearranging your landing page every now and then and keeping multiple landing pages on hand. If you were selling car insurance, you’d use a very different tone of voice whether you were selling to a minivan owner or a Mercedes owner, so obviously you’d want to show different ads to both and send both to a different landing page even if they’re buying the same product.

A versatile marketing campaign, one that can adapt to the user is vital in today’s fast paced media. If you’re not adjusting and adapting your campaign to the user then you’re alienating a potentially huge audience.

Position Yourself in a Niche

Positioning means that you need to determine what role you’re going to take on the scene. This has already been accomplished internally in the company. You have the vision for your company and your product, but people will start seeing it in an entirely new medium. When people see you online, you want them to see the vision you have. Is your company the cheap, affordable alternative? Are you at the top of the heap? Do you offer higher quality at a higher price for the demanding customer? Whatever it is, you need to determine who you are in the industry and work to get there, but in the meantime, start acting the part and eventually it becomes true.

Positioning is important. Positioning is the technique used by pro wrestling mogul Vince MacMahon. MacMahon positioned his company as the leading name in pro wrestling in the 1980′s. He wasn’t even in the top 5 at the time, but as he kept saying that his company was the most respected and admired in the industry, his confident positioning boosted his appeal in the mainstream media.

Keep Your End Goal in Mind

Whenever you’re adding some new step to your plan, ask yourself what it’s going to accomplish. Spending hours and hours on Facebook adding friends and updating your statuses is great if it’s going to help you increase sales, but there’s no point raising your visibility if you’re not turning all of those friends into customers.

Do Check: Secrets to Internet Marketing

Marketing is a two part process of turning a stranger into a friend and a friend into a customer. Keep that goal clearly in mind and it becomes much easier to develop and manage any online marketing campaign you might want to get started.

Author Bio: Sandra T. is a freelance writer and independent online marketing director. She enjoys developing herself as an artist and helps people save money on car insurance through simple online car insurance comparisons.

Similar Posts:

None Found

By Danish Khan:

In the apprentice of political economy, there are distinct theories to elucidate the lack of development in the developing countries. Some political economists point towards the colonial days to trace back the roots of the contemporary social and political institutions of the developing countries, while others rest blame on the geography of the developing world, and the variance to the doctrine of the free market capitalism as some of the possible sources of the nuance. The inclusion and the close examination of the social and political institutions of the developing countries are certainly worth discussing, while I cannot say same about the other posed explanations. One of the few possible explanations of the developing countries to being socially, politically and economically astern are their historical “extractive colonial institutions” which were established during the colonial times, and in most developing countries, they have stayed alive and functional in one way or other, even after the official withdrawal of the former colonial powers. Colossal wealth disparity, lack of modern infrastructure, and the diminutive industrialization are some of the cardinal features which have differentiated these countries from the developed part of the world. Certainly, I find legitimacy and rationale in this “institutional” framework explanation to understand the lack of development in most developing countries, and especially in Pakistan.  Comprehending the contemporary abject situation of Pakistan in the paradigm of the “Extractive Colonial Institutions” certainly helps us to understand this complex phenomenon of persistent under-development in Pakistan.

The abysmal socio-economic conditions in Pakistan are not a mere result of certain dissolute and adulterate politicians in power, although they are a part of the problem, but not a core problem. In Pakistan, the mainstream media and right-wing political parties tend to amalgamate all the problems in one basket, and then they dump that basket on the democratically elected government or generally on the politicians of the country. While during all this ambiguous and miserable socio-economic situation of the country, one institution of the country allays itself, and it is able to keep itself insulated from the brutal criticism of the mainstream media and the mainstream political parties. To not make it a riddle, I am talking about the Pakistani Army, if one institution that can help us in rationalizing the contemporary socio-politico and economic conditions of Pakistan; it would be none other than the Pak Army.

Although most liberals in Pakistan strongly condemn Martial Law, and any interference of military in the political affairs, but not many liberal commentators risk to go beyond this popular stance. By that I am referring to the fact that, military certainly makes things worse off by disrupting political process and violating the constitutional framework, but even during the epoch of the civil rule, when there is democratically elected government, military continues to play the integral role in formulating the socio-economic and foreign policy of the country. And this hegemonic power runs on the blood and sweat of the people of the Pakistan, figures vary around depending on the source, but most statisticians, politicians and economists would agree that around 75 percent of the national budget goes in to the tummies of the military of Pakistan. Furthermore, the huge sum of US dollars ends up in the hands of the army, and it makes the Pak Army one of the supreme and fortified post-colonial institutions of the country. The Army of Pakistan is not just an army anymore, it has become a one of the most powerful and hegemonic social, political and financial institution of the country. One might say, what’s wrong with that? Well, the constitution of the country, clearly defines concrete role of the army, and according to constitution, army is not supposed to be a real estate enterprise and those who have read Ayesha Siddiqa’s Military Inc., they do know what I am talking about. When military of a country turns in to Military Incorporated, then it should be imminent to the rational people from where the problems are originating. The narration of completely flawed and lethargic ideologies like, “Two Nation theory”, and “a persistent threat from our neighboring state India” have been the popular rhetoric of the military, and they have launched their political wing in the form of religious parties and ISI, and the right-wing religious forces second every single notion made by the Pak Army, and they spread and impose the word of the army on average citizen by amalgamating it with the religious sentiments of the people.

The assiduous people of Pakistan are sick and tired of their fathomless lives; it is quite pleasing and apposite that most folks in Pakistan are demanding a change. But unfortunately, the mainstream political parties, and the newly emerging political force like Tehreek-e-Insaaf are not challenging a status quo by questioning the social and political role of the military. On contrary, they are focusing on the peripheral issues, i.e. corruption, Zardari, etc. Thus, anybody who understands the socio-economic structure of the country finds it nothing but a mere rhetoric when Tehreek-e-Insaaf shouts out for a change and revolution. The change cannot be realized in Pakistan, unless the hegemony and absolute power of the military is not challenged. The dismal lives of the people of Pakistan cannot be altered, unless we transform and substitute the “extractive colonial institutions” with our own new institutions. The people of Pakistan cannot afford to write a hefty check to the military of the Pakistan to venture in to real estate, and other business ventures, i.e. cement industry, cereal industry, etc. It is the time that oppressed and downtrodden masses of the country challenge the extractive institutions which have been the dominant source of their distress and affliction. In our contemporary political situation of the country, it is only possible through a grass-root social and political movement of the tyrannized and exploited classes.

Danish Khan is a social and political activist, and a final year student at University of Utah, US, studying Economics and International Studies.

A morning show broadcast in Pakistan on Jan 17, 2012, on Samaa, a Pakistani television channel, has catalysed what could well be the beginning of a media consumer rights movement.

In the show, Subah Saverey Maya kay Sath (Early Morning with Maya), the host Maya Khan, charges through a public park looking for dating couples to interrogate. With her is a battalion of other women, who join her in self-righteously lecturing the couples they come across – does your family know you are here, why don’t you meet at home if you are engaged, and, most outrageously, if you are married, where is your nikahnama (marriage certificate)?

When the harassed couples ask for the camera to be turned off, the Samaa team pretends to acquiesce but carries on filming with sound. As several people have pointed out, this intrusive behaviour could result in putting those couples in life-threatening situations in a country where forced marriages and ‘honour killings’ continue to be the norm.

The first time I saw a link to this show was on Jan 22, shared on a facebook group, on Jan 21, 2012. I, and many others, began sharing the Youtube links on facebook and twitter. As it spread, the outrage grew. People were shocked at the level of intrusion and vigilantism on display. From India, came comments on twitter about the Saffron vigilante brigade that has been known to drag couples into temples and force them into instant marriage. Which reminded me that the mentality we are protesting is not limited to Pakistan – see my article ‘Peaceful Pink Panties to Tame Right-Wing Goons‘ about the Sri Ram Sene goons in India. This was in 2009 but I hear they’re gearing up again against Valentines Day… Of course it’s always the poor, who can’t meet in secure hotels and cafes, who are always most vulnerable against this kind of moral policing.

Maya Khan’s antics on Samaa TV triggered off several articles and reports – starting with blogger Mehreen Kasana letting rip in her post (with doodles) An Open Letter to Maya Khan, Jan 22, 2012.

But most importantly, the outrage was channelized into a loosely organised protest. Dozens of people sent in complaints to the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) at the online feedback form, shared quickly via facebook. On Jan 22, lawyer Osama Siddique drafted a brief letter expressing outrage at the  :highly intrusive, invasive and potentially irresponsible behavior on the part of the host – a kind of vigilantism no different than the Lal Masjid variety” (referring to the black-robed women armed with sticks called the Hafza Brigade, associated with the Red Mosque in Islamabad, who went around beating up and terrorizing women whose behaviour or looks they deemed ‘immoral’ or ‘unIslamic’).

The letter protested this moral policing, and pointed out that “this kind of programming is likely to also lead to legal action for violation of dignity of man under the Constitution – which legal action we as signatories will support, propagate and promote.” It demanded an end to “this irresponsible programming”.

A group of citizens emailed the letter to the Samaa head Zafar Siddiqi (President CNBC Pakistan, with which Samaa is affiliated), and an expatriate Pakistani in California, Ali Abbas Taj, uploaded it to Change.org as an petition titled STOP “Subah Saverey Maya kay Sath” vigilantism like Lal Masjid.

Within 24 hours, the online activism had the following unexpected effects:

* In about 24 hours, there were over 2000 signatures, and by the following day 4,800 people, in Pakistan and around the world, had endorsed it.

* Maya Khan’s facebook page was closed, probably in response to the number of comments being made on it. Some of those comments were highly abusive and threatening, which we condemn and have nothing to do with.

* Maya Khan on her show of Jan 23, 2012 acknowledged that what she did could have hurt people and said that was not her intention – but she has not apologised, and appears completely unrepentant and unaware of the dangers of her actions.

* CEO Samaa TV Zafar Siddiqi wrote back to the people who had emailed him saying:  ”I have travelled to Khi to look at this matter and yesterday Maya apologised in her program for this. I can assure this will never happen again. Samaa is a progressive channel.
“There are certain other directives that have been put into place as of yesterday.
“I thank everyone concerned in bringing this matter to my attention. It’s really appreciated.”

The citizens’ response:

* We do not accept Maya Khan’s statement in her show of Jan 23 as an apology. Nor are we satisfied with Mr Siddiqi’s attempts to placate us. We want an unconditional, public apology from both Maya Khan and Samaa TV.

* We do not hold Maya Khan solely responsible for her actions; it is the producer and channel owner who set policy and allow this kind of programming to happen. We want to know what steps are being taken and what policy directives given to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

* Maya Khan should apologise publically not just to viewers but also to the couples she harassed in the park.

* There’s also outrage against a 2010 moral policing show by ARY reporter Yasir Aqeel, who is if possible even more offensive than Maya Khan, and takes harassment to another level. We protest these intrusive tactics by TV channel owners to boost ratings by harassing peaceful, law-abiding citizens.

* We would like to know what ethical guidelines TV channel owners and producers are setting down to ensure that this doesn’t happen.

* We are in contact with the commercial sponsors of television shows and will impress upon them the need to pull advertising from programmes and channels that violate basic media ethics.

BOTTOM LINE: Media is not a business like any other. It carries greater responsibility and we want its workings to be transparent and ethical.

In addition:

A college student in Karachi, started a facebook ‘cause’ on Jan 24 demanding that Maya Khan apologise to the youth of Pakistan, especially Karachi

Some activists began an sms campaign, sharing Zafar Siddiqi’s Dubai cell number with this message: Please send this sms to Mr. Zafar Siddiqui, CEO SAMAA TV if you want to raise your voice against the moral policing by Maya Khan: “Dear Mr Siddiqi, pardon the intrusion. I’m part of a citizens’ group protesting Samaa TV and its host Maya Khan’s irresponsible ‘moral policing’. We expect an unconditional apology, and this show withdrawn or at least suspended until new parameters are worked out. Thank you. “

It hasn’t all been about anger and outrage though. Predictably, Pakistanis have derived considerable mirth from the situation, some of it rather unkindly expressed. There’s this outrageous post by Urooj Zia: Things Maya Missed (relevant to my Pink Chaddis report for IPS linked above).

Some funny graphics were created – like park signs saying “Beware of dog – and Maya Khan” (unkind, yes, but then, people are angry), posted by Arif Iqbal (@eusuphxai on twitter), who also posted this, that I especially liked: a still from the old Indian film “Bobby” with its famous song “Hum tum aik kamre mein band hon…” with the next line changed to “Aur Maya aa jaye” (the original line can be translated as: “what if we were locked up in a room… and the key got lost” – changed to: “… and Maya turned up”

There have also been some really nasty shares, including videos of Maya dancing, and an animation in which she gets slapped, but let’s ignore those for now, with just this comment, that we do not condone abusive language, personal insults or threats of violence.

More important, the issue has catalysed some relevant, thought-provoking reports, analyses and discussions, including those listed here:

Wusatullah Khan in BBC Urdu website, Jan 22, 2012: ‘Aap tau naib khuda hain’

BBC Urdu report, Jan 23, 2012: ‘TV channel ka anti-dating squad’

BBC Urdu Radio report, Jan 24, 2012: ‘Sawerey ka chapa’ par sakht tanqeed’ in which Samaa senior producer Sohail Zaidi rejects civil society concerns, defends show, saying, “I am not answerable to anyone”.

Vigil-aunties (a term coined by Anthony Permal) by Bina Shah, Jan 24, 2012: ‘At the very least, the channel and the anchorperson owe an apology, if not compensation, to those two individuals who had hurt nobody on that day when they were ambushed and harassed by the television anchor and her Moral Aunty Brigade. The irony is that she describes herself on her Facebook page as “very fair and honest in her dealings”. I think that girl in the niqab, crying in the park, and her blameless friend, as well as any sane person with a conscience and a respect for other people’s privacy, would beg to differ.’

‘Big Brother (and Sister) is watching you‘ – Nadeem F. Paracha, Jan 23, 2102, on the history of what he calls ‘pussycat vigilantism’ – “This strange phenomenon is not just about simple hypocrisy, it is also and actually about glorifying this hypocrisy through gung-ho acts in which pussycat media vigilantes prey upon soft targets to exhibit their ‘bravery’ but squeak away if ever an opportunity arises to do the same to those who can and will bite back.” He says the first reported case of moral vigilantism that he stumbled upon was reported in Dawn, 1980. Must read.

In the parks of Karachi, by Ejaz Haider, Jan 24, 2012 - “From the terrible scarcity of information we now have a nauseating excess of it.”

Media ethics and responsibility at Afia Salam and Faisal Qureshi’s online talk show Off the Cuff, discussing the need for a legal framework.

p.s. Well before this issue blew up, Hosh media, which aims to bridge the gap between online and mainstream media, sat down with veteran journalist and former Editor of Dawn, Abbas Nasir to initiate “a crash course in some of the stickiest subjects that journalism in Pakistan now faces”. Four of the six part series are online at the Hosh website, that Sahar Habib Ghazi wrote about at The great ethics debate (published Jan 23, 2012).

Updates will continue to be posted on the petition link. Watch this space.

originally written for The Pakistani Spectator.

It is an old news now and to be honest I know that very well. So far, a lot has been said and written on this sad incident, the youngest Microsoft professional Arfa Kareem died last week. I should have responded to this news earlier this week but I am purposefully writing about it now. Initially I planned to delay it a bit more but I do not want to be dishonest with the emotions and sadness this news has brought to me. Why I delayed this write-up has a reason connected to our national attitude and behaviour. As a nation we have a very strong problem with our memory. We forget developments, news, incidents, and even our heroes in no time. Just to keep that sad incident fresh and remembered I planned to write this post a little late.

Being the youngest Microsoft professional was Arfa’s biggest introduction, her achievements added glory to Pakistan as a country. She gained a lot that she truly disserved in her almost eighteen years of life. She also managed to get some national level awards, in her life, which many achievers never get lucky enough to receive personally.

Earlier, the news about her cardiac arrest was limited to social media only the mainstream media picked up the news later. That was the time when many heard her name for the first time and realized what importance she has. And many searched in their memories to recall ‘who this little innocent girl is/was’. That is the irony of ours as a nation, we forget everything, our memories are well aware of the things unless they are in news, and it is case of out of might as soon as it vanishes from the news .

Pakistan has been lucky enough to have many achievers who brought glory to this nation, but sadly, we hardly remember their names or their achievements. Honestly it is a shameful attitude, the day I got the news of Arfa’s death the first thing I prayed , after praying for peace for her soul, for enough strength to our memory that can remember who Arfa Kareem was. As a nation, we are selfish and that is the reason for such horrible memory we have, and I truly pray that Arfa and many other achievers do not fall victim of this national attitude of ours.

I am supporting the campaign going on facebook with the name “Nishan e Pakistan for Arfa Karim”. Arfa being no more with us might not need such awards and rewards personally but here is the question of needing something and deserving something. Awarding and giving due respect to someone shows that how much society and nation is alive actually. I also regard the decision by CM Punjab Mr. Shahbaz Sharif for renaming Lahore Information Technology Park after Arfa Kareem, and I regard the announcement of Arfa Kareem IT Media City in Karachi. By the time I am writing it news came that PM Gilani approves commemorative Arfa Kareem postage stamps. 

As I said earlier, what one disserves is far bigger than what one need and demand. All those who played their role in bringing glory towards Pakistan must get the well  deserved honour. In addition, we as a nation must give them a proper space in our memories that they truly disserve.

Related Articles

• Time for G+ing with Google+
• Earth Quake in Pakistan and our attitude
• Maya Khan – The imbalance of power and responsibility
• Heart Of Pakistan – Lahore
• You don’t need to be a doctor to save a life

By Aisling Byrne
Asia Times Online

"War with Iran is already here," wrote a leading Israeli commentator recently, describing "the combination of covert warfare and international pressure" being applied to Iran.

Although not mentioned, the "strategic prize" of the first stage of this war on Iran is Syria; the first campaign in a much wider sectarian power-bid. "Other than the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself," Saudi King Abdullah was reported to have said last summer, "nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syria." [1]

By December, senior United States officials were explicit about their regime change agenda for Syria: Tom Donilon, the US National Security Adviser, explained that the "end of the [President Bashar al-]Assad regime would constitute Iran’s greatest setback in the region yet – a strategic blow that will further shift the balance of power in the region against Iran."

Shortly before, a key official in terms of operationalizing this policy, Under Secretary of State for the Near East Jeffrey Feltman, had stated at a congressional hearing that the US would "relentlessly pursue our two-track strategy of supporting the opposition and diplomatically and financially strangling the [Syrian] regime until that outcome is achieved". [2]

What we are seeing in Syria is a deliberate and calculated campaign to bring down the Assad government so as to replace it with a regime "more compatible" with US interests in the region.

The blueprint for this project is essentially a report produced by the neo-conservative Brookings Institute for regime change in Iran in 2009. The report – "Which Path to Persia?" [3] – continues to be the generic strategic approach for US-led regime change in the region.

A rereading of it, together with the more recent "Towards a Post-Assad Syria" [4] (which adopts the same language and perspective, but focuses on Syria, and was recently produced by two US neo-conservative think-tanks) illustrates how developments in Syria have been shaped according to the step-by-step approach detailed in the "Paths to Persia" report with the same key objective: regime change.

The authors of these reports include, among others, John Hannah and Martin Indyk, both former senior neo-conservative officials from the George W Bush/Dick Cheney administration, and both advocates for regime change in Syria. [5] Not for the first time are we seeing a close alliance between US/British neo-cons with Islamists (including, reports show [6], some with links to al-Qaeda) working together to bring about regime change in an "enemy" state.

Arguably, the most important component in this struggle for the "strategic prize" has been the deliberate construction of a largely false narrative that pits unarmed democracy demonstrators being killed in their hundreds and thousands as they protest peacefully against an oppressive, violent regime, a "killing machine" [7] led by the "monster" [8] Assad.

Whereas in Libya, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) claimed it had "no confirmed reports of civilian casualties" because, as the New York Times wrote recently, "the alliance had created its own definition for ‘confirmed’: only a death that NATO itself investigated and corroborated could be called confirmed".

"But because the alliance declined to investigate allegations," the Times wrote, "its casualty tally by definition could not budge – from zero". [9]

In Syria, we see the exact opposite: the majority of Western mainstream media outlets, along with the media of the US’s allies in the region, particularly al-Jazeera and the Saudi-owned al-Arabiya TV channels, are effectively collaborating with the "regime change" narrative and agenda with a near-complete lack of questioning or investigation of statistics and information put out by organizations and media outlets that are either funded or owned by the US/European/Gulf alliance – the very same countries instigating the regime change project in the first place.

Claims of "massacres", "campaigns of rape targeting women and girls in predominantly Sunni towns" [10] "torture" and even "child-rape" [11] are reported by the international press based largely on two sources – the British-based Syrian Observatory of Human Rights and the Local Co-ordination Committees (LCCs) – with minimal additional checking or verification.

Hiding behind the rubric – "we are not able to verify these statistics" – the lack of integrity in reporting by the Western mainstream media has been starkly apparent since the onset of events in Syria. A decade after the Iraq war, it would seem that no lessons from 2003 – from the demonization of Saddam Hussein and his purported weapons of mass destruction – have been learnt.

Of the three main sources for all data on numbers of protesters killed and numbers of people attending demonstrations – the pillars of the narrative – all are part of the "regime change" alliance.

The Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, in particular, is reportedly funded through a Dubai-based fund with pooled (and therefore deniable) Western-Gulf money (Saudi Arabia alone has, according to Elliot Abrams [12] allocated US$130 billion to "palliate the masses" of the Arab Spring).

What appears to be a nondescript British-based organization, the Observatory has been pivotal in sustaining the narrative of the mass killing of thousands of peaceful protesters using inflated figures, "facts", and often exaggerated claims of "massacres" and even recently "genocide".

Although it claims to be based in its director’s house [13], the Observatory has been described as the "front office" of a large media propaganda set-up run by the Syrian opposition and its backers. The Russian Foreign Ministry [14] stated starkly:

The agenda of the [Syrian] transitional council [is] composed in London by the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights … It is also there where pictures of ‘horror’ in Syria are made to stir up hatred towards Assad’s regime.

The Observatory is not legally registered either as a company or charity in the United Kingdom, but operates informally; it has no office, no staff and its director is reportedly awash with funding.

It receives its information, it says, from a network of "activists" inside Syria; its English-language website is a single page with al-Jazeera instead hosting a minute-by-minute live blog page for it since the outset of protests. [15]

The second, the LCCs, are a more overt part of the opposition’s media infrastructure, and their figures and reporting is similarly encompassed only [16] within the context of this main narrative: in an analysis of their daily reports, I couldn’t find a single reference to any armed insurgents being killed: reported deaths are of "martyrs", "defector soldiers", people killed in "peaceful demonstrations" and similar descriptions.

The third is al-Jazeera, whose biased role in "reporting" the Awakenings has been well documented. Described by one seasoned media analyst [17] as the "sophisticated mouthpiece of the state of Qatar and its ambitious emir", al-Jazeera is integral to Qatar’s "foreign-policy aspirations".

Al-Jazeera has, and continues, [18] to provide technical support, equipment, hosting and "credibility" to Syrian opposition activists and organizations. Reports show that as early as March 2011, al-Jazeera was providing messaging and technical support to exiled Syrian opposition activists [19] , who even by January 2010 were co-ordinating their messaging activities from Doha.

Nearly 10 months on, however, and despite the daily international media onslaught, the project isn’t exactly going to plan: a YouGov poll commissioned by the Qatar Foundation [20] showed last week that 55% of Syrians do not want Assad to resign and 68% of Syrians disapprove of the Arab League sanctions imposed on their country.

According to the poll, Assad’s support has effectively increased since the onset of current events – 46% of Syrians felt Assad was a "good" president for Syria prior to current events in the country – something that certainly doesn’t fit with the false narrative being peddled.

As if trumpeting the success of their own propaganda campaign, the poll summary concludes:

The majority of Arabs believe Syria’s President Basher al-Assad should resign in the wake of the regime’s brutal treatment of protesters … 81% of Arabs [want] President Assad to step down. They believe Syria would be better off if free democratic elections were held under the supervision of a transitional government. [21]

One is left wondering who exactly is Assad accountable to – the Syrian people or the Arab public? A blurring of lines that might perhaps be useful as two main Syrian opposition groups have just announced [22] that while they are against foreign military intervention, they do not consider "Arab intervention" to be foreign.

Unsurprisingly, not a single mainstream major newspaper or news outlet reported the YouGov poll results – it doesn’t fit their narrative.

In the UK, the volunteer-run Muslim News [23] was the only newspaper to report the findings; yet only two weeks before in the immediate aftermath of the suicide explosions in Damascus, both the Guardian [24], like other outlets, within hours of the explosions were publishing sensational, unsubstantiated reports from bloggers, including one who was "sure that some of the bodies … were those of demonstrators".

"They have planted bodies before," he said; "they took dead people from Dera’a [in the south] and showed the media bodies in Jisr al-Shughour [near the Turkish border.]"

Recent reports have cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the false narrative peddled daily by the mainstream international press, in particular information put out by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the LCCs.

In December, the mainstream US intelligence group Stratfor cautioned:

Most of the [Syrian] opposition’s more serious claims have turned out to be grossly exaggerated or simply untrue … revealing more about the opposition’s weaknesses than the level of instability inside the Syrian regime. [25]

Throughout the nine-month uprising, Stratfor has advised caution on accuracy of the mainstream narrative on Syria: in September it commented that "with two sides to every war … the war of perceptions in Syria is no exception". [26]

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and LCC reports, "like those from the regime, should be viewed with skepticism", argues Stratfor; "the opposition understands that it needs external support, specifically financial support, if it is to be a more robust movement than it is now. To that end, it has every reason to present the facts on the ground in a way that makes the case for foreign backing."

As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov observed: "It is clear that the purpose is to provoke a humanitarian catastrophe, to get a pretext to demand external interference into this conflict." [27] Similarly, in mid-December, American Conservative reported:

CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] analysts are skeptical regarding the march to war. The frequently cited United Nations report that more than 3,500 civilians have been killed by Assad’s soldiers is based largely on rebel sources and is uncorroborated. The Agency has refused to sign off on the claims.

Likewise, accounts of mass defections from the Syrian army and pitched battles between deserters and loyal soldiers appear to be a fabrication, with few defections being confirmed independently. Syrian government claims that it is being assaulted by rebels who are armed, trained and financed by foreign governments are more true than false. [28]

As recently as November, the Free Syria Army implied their numbers would be larger, but, as they explained to one analyst, they are "advising sympathizers to delay their defection" until regional conditions improve. [29]

A guide to regime change

In relation to Syria, section three of the "Paths to Persia" report is particularly relevant – it is essentially a step-by-step guide detailing options for instigating and supporting a popular uprising, inspiring an insurgency and/or instigating a coup. The report comes complete with a "Pros and Cons" section:

An insurgency is often easier to instigate and support from abroad … Insurgencies are famously cheap to support … covert support to an insurgency would provide the United States with "plausibility deniability" … [with less] diplomatic and political backlash … than if the United States were to mount a direct military action … Once the regime suffers some major setback [this] provides an opportunity to act.

Military action, the report argues, would only be taken once other options had been tried and shown to have failed as the "international community" would then conclude of any attack that the government "brought it on themselves" by refusing a very good deal.

Key aspects for instigating a popular uprising and building a "full-fledged insurgency" are evident in relation to developments in Syria.

These include:

>> "Funding and helping organize domestic rivals of the regime" including using "unhappy" ethnic groups;

>> "Building the capacity of ‘effective oppositions’ with whom to work" in order to "create an alternative leadership to seize power";

>> Provision of equipment and covert backing to groups, including arms – either directly or indirectly, as well as "fax machines … Internet access, funds" (on Iran the report noted that the "CIA could take care of most of the supplies and training for these groups, as it has for decades all over the world");

>> Training and facilitation of messaging by opposition activists;

>> Constructing a narrative "with the support of US-backed media outlets could highlight regime shortcomings and make otherwise obscure critics more prominent" – "having the regime discredited among key ‘opinion shapers’ is critical to its collapse";

>> The creation of a large funding budget to fund a wide array of civil-society-led initiatives (a so-called "$75 million fund" created under former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice-funded civil society groups, including "a handful of Beltway-based think-tanks and institutions [which] announced new Iran desks)" [30];

>> The need for an adjacent land corridor in a neighboring country "to help develop an infrastructure to support operations".

"Beyond this," continues the report, "US economic pressure (and perhaps military pressure as well) can discredit the regime, making the population hungry for a rival leadership."

The US and its allies, particularly Britain [31] and France, have funded and helped "shape" the opposition from the outset – building both on attempts started by the US in 2006 to construct a unified front against the Assad government, and the perceived "success" of the Libyan Transitional National Council model. [32]

Despite months of attempts – predominately by the West – at cajoling the various groups into a unified, proficient opposition movement, they remain "a diverse group, representing the country’s ideological, sectarian and generational divides".

"There neither has been nor is [there] now any natural tendency towards unity between these groups, since they belong to totally different ideological backgrounds and have antagonistic political views," one analyst concluded. [33]

At a recent meeting with the British foreign secretary, the different groups would not even meet with William Hague together, instead meeting him separately. [34]

Nevertheless, despite a lack of cohesion, internal credibility and legitimacy, the opposition, predominately under the umbrella of the Syrian National Council (SNC), is being groomed for office. This includes capacity-building, as confirmed by the former Syrian ambassador to the US, Rafiq Juajati, now part of the opposition.

At a closed briefing in Washington DC in mid-December 2011, he confirmed that the US State Department and the SWP-German Institute for International and Security Affairs (a think-tank that provides foreign policy analysis to the German government) were funding a project that is managed by the US Institute for Peace and SWP, working in partnership with the SNC, to prepare the SNC for the takeover and running of Syria.

In a recent interview, SNC leader Burhan Ghaliyoun disclosed (so as to "speed up the process" of Assad’s fall) [35] the credentials expected of him: "There will be no special relationship with Iran," he said. "Breaking the exceptional relationship means breaking the strategic, military alliance," adding that "after the fall of the Syrian regime, [Hezbollah] won’t be the same." [36]

Described in Slate magazine [37] as the "most liberal and Western-friendly of the Arab Spring uprisings", Syrian opposition groups sound as compliant as their Libyan counterparts prior to the demise of Muammar Gaddafi, whom the New York Times described as "secular-minded professionals – lawyers, academics, businesspeople – who talk about democracy, transparency, human rights and the rule of law" [38]; that was, until reality transitioned to former leader of the Libyan Islamist Fighting Group Abdulhakim Belhaj and his jihadi colleagues.

The import of weapons, equipment, manpower (predominantly from Libya) [39] and training by governments and other groups linked to the US, NATO and their regional allies began in April-May 2011, [40] according to various reports [41], and is co-ordinated out of the US air force base at Incirlik in southern Turkey. From Incirlik, an information warfare division also directs communications to Syria via the Free Syria Army. This covert support continues, as American Conservative reported in mid-December:

Unmarked NATO warplanes are arriving at Turkish military bases close to Iskenderum on the Syrian border, delivering weapons … as well as volunteers from the Libyan Transitional National Council … Iskenderum is also the seat of the Free Syrian Army, the armed wing of the Syrian National Council. French and British special forces trainers are on the ground, assisting the Syrian rebels while the CIA and US Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers. [42]

The Washington Post exposed in April 2011 that recent WikiLeaks showed that the US State Department had been giving millions of dollars to various Syrian exile groups (including the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Movement for Justice and Development in London) and individuals since 2006 via its "Middle East Partnership Initiative" administered by a US foundation, the Democracy Council. [43]

Leaked WikiLeak cables confirmed that well into 2010, this funding was continuing, a trend that not only continues today but which has expanded in light of the shift to the "soft power" option aimed at regime change in Syria.

As this neo-con-led call for regime change in Syria gains strength within the US administration, [44] so too has this policy been institutionalized among leading US foreign policy think-tanks, many of whom have "Syria desks" or "Syria working groups" which collaborate closely with Syrian opposition groups and individuals (for example USIP [45] and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy) [46] and which have published a range of policy documents making the case for regime change.

In the UK, the similarly neo-con Henry Jackson Society (which "supports the maintenance of a strong military, by the United States, the countries of the European Union and other democratic powers, armed with expeditionary capabilities with a global reach" and which believes that "only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate") is similarly pushing the agenda for regime change in Syria [47].

This is in partnership with Syrian opposition figures including Ausama Monajed, [48] a former leader of the Syrian exile group, the Movement for Justice & Development, linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, which was funded by the US State Department from 2006, as we know from WikiLeaks.

Monajed, a member of the SNC, currently directs a public relations firm [49] recently established in London and incidentally was the first to use the term "genocide" in relation to events in Syria in a recent SNC press release. [50]

Since the outset, significant pressure has been brought to bear on Turkey to establish a "humanitarian corridor" along its southern border with Syria. The main aim of this, as the "Paths to Persia" report outlines, is to provide a base from which the externally-backed insurgency can be launched and based.

The objective of this "humanitarian corridor" is about as humanitarian as the four-week NATO bombing of Sirte when NATO exercised its "responsibility to protect" mandate, as approved by the UN Security Council.

All this is not to say that there isn’t a genuine popular demand for change in Syria against the repressive security-dominated infrastructure that dominates every aspect of people’s lives, nor that gross human-rights violations have not been committed, both by the Syrian security forces, armed opposition insurgents, as well as mysterious third force characters operating since the onset of the crisis in Syria, including insurgents, [51] mostly jihadis from neighboring Iraq and Lebanon, as well as more recently Libya, among others.

Such abuses are inevitable in low-intensity conflict. Leading critics [52] of this US-France-UK-Gulf-led regime change project have, from the outset, called for full accountability and punishment for any security or other official "however senior", found to have committed any human-rights abuses.

Ibrahim al-Amine writes that some in the regime have conceded "that the security remedy was damaging in many cases and regions [and] that the response to the popular protests was mistaken … it would have been possible to contain the situation via clear and firm practical measures – such as arresting those responsible for torturing children in Deraa". And it argues that the demand for political pluralism and an end to the all-encompassing repression is both vital and urgent. [53]

But what may have began as popular protests, initially focused on local issues and incidents (including the case of the torture of young boys in Dera’a by security forces) were rapidly hijacked by this wider strategic project for regime change. Five years ago, I worked in northern Syria with the United Nations managing a large community development project.

After evening community meetings, it wasn’t uncommon to find the mukhabarat (military intelligence) waiting for us to vacate the room so they could scan flipcharts posted on the walls. That almost every aspect of people’s daily lives was regulated by a sclerotic dysfunctional Ba’ath party/security bureaucracy, devoid of any ideology apart from the inevitable corruption and nepotism that comes with authoritarian power, was apparent in every feature of people’s lives.

Tuesday, December 20 was reportedly the "deadliest day of the nine-month [Syrian] uprising "with the "organized massacre" of a "mass defection" of army deserters widely reported by the international press in Idlib, northern Syria. Claiming that areas of Syria were now "exposed to large-scale genocide", the SNC lamented the "250 fallen heroes during a 48-hour period", citing figures provided by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. [54] Quoting the same source, the Guardian reported that the Syrian army was:

… hunt[ing] down deserters after troops … killed close to 150 men who had fled their base". A picture has emerged … of a mass defection … that went badly wrong … with loyalist forces positioned to mow down large numbers of defectors as they fled a military base. Those who managed to escape were later hunted down in hideouts in nearby mountains, multiple sources have reported. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimated that 100 deserters were besieged, then killed or wounded. Regular troops allegedly also hunted down residents who had given shelter to the deserters. [55]

The Guardian’s live blog-quoted AVAAZ, the citizen political advocacy/public relations group, which "claimed 269 people had been killed in the clashes", and cited AVAAZ’s precise breakdown of casualties: "163 armed revolutionaries, 97 government troops and 9 civilians". [56] They noted that AVAAZ "provided nothing to corroborate the claim".

The Washington Post reported only that they had spoken to "an activist with the rights group AVAAZ [who] said he had spoken to local activists and medical groups who put the death toll in that area Tuesday at 269". [57]

A day after initial reports of the massacre of fleeing deserters, however, the story had changed. On December 23, the Telegraph reported:

At first they were said to be army deserters attempting to break into Turkey to join the FSA [Free Syrian Army], but they are now said to be unarmed civilians and activists attempting to escape the army’s attempts to bring the province back under control. They were surrounded by troops and tanks and gunned down until there were no survivors, according to reports. [58]

The New York Times had, on December 21, reported that the "massacre", citing the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, was of "unarmed civilians and activists, with no armed military defectors among them, the rights groups said".

It quoted the head of the Observatory who described it as "an organized massacre" and said his account corroborated a Kfar Owaid witness’ account: "The security forces had lists of names of those who organized massive anti-regime protests … the troops then opened fire with tanks, rockets and heavy machine guns [and], bombs filled with nails to increase the number of casualties. [59]

The LA Times quoted an activist it had spoken to via satellite connection who, from his position "sheltering in the woods" commented: "The word ‘massacre’ seems like too small a word to describe what happened." Meanwhile, the Syrian government reported that on December 19 and 20, it had killed "tens" of members of "armed terrorist gangs" in both Homs and Idlib, and had arrested many wanted individuals. [60]

The truth of these two "deadly" days will probably never be known – the figures cited above (between 10-163 armed insurgents, 9-111 unarmed civilians and 0-97 government forces) differ so significantly in both numbers reported killed and who they were, that the "truth" is impossible to establish.

In relation to an earlier purported "massacre" in Homs, a Stratfor investigation found "no signs of a massacre", concluding that "opposition forces have an interest in portraying an impending massacre, hoping to mimic the conditions that propelled a foreign military intervention in Libya". [61]

Nevertheless, the "massacre" of December 19-20 in Idlib was reported as fact, and was etched into the narrative of Assad’s "killing machine".

Both the recent UN Human Rights Commissioner’s report and a recent data blog report [62] on reported deaths in "Syria’s bloody uprising" by the Guardian (published December 13) – two examples of attempts to establish the truth about numbers killed in the Syrian conflict – rely almost exclusively on opposition-provided data: interviews with 233 alleged "army defectors" in the case of the UN report, and on reports from the Syrian Human Rights Observatory, the LCCs and al-Jazeera in the case of the Guardian’s data blog.

The Guardian reports a total of 1,414.5 people (sic) killed – including 144 Syrian security personnel – between January and November 21, 2011. Based solely on press reports, the report contains a number of basic inaccuracies (eg sources not matching numbers killed with places cited in original sources): their total includes 23 Syrians killed by the Israeli army in June on the Golan Heights; 25 people reported "wounded" are included in total figures for those killed, as are many people reported shot.

The report makes no reference to any killings of armed insurgents during the entire 10-month period – all victims are "protesters", "civilians" or "people" – apart from the 144 security personnel.

Seventy percent of the report’s data sources are from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the LCCs and "activists"; 38% of press reports are from al-Jazeera, 3% from Amnesty International and 1.5% from official Syrian sources.

In response to the UN Commissioner’s report, Syria’s ambassador to the UN commented: "How could defectors give positive testimonies on the Syrian government? Of course they will give negative testimonies against the Syrian government. They are defectors."

In the effort to inflate figures of casualties, the public relations-activist group AVAAZ has consistently outstripped even the UN. AVAAZ has publicly stated it is involved in "smuggling activists … out of the country", running "secret safe houses to shelter … top activists from regime thugs" and that one "AVAAZ citizen journalist" "discover[ed] a mass grave". [63]

It states proudly that the BBC and CNN have said that AVAAZ data amounts to some 30% of their news coverage of Syria. The Guardian reported AVAAZ’s latest claim to have "evidence" of killings of some 6,200 people (including security forces and including 400 children), claiming 617 of whom died under torture [64] – their justification to have verified each single death with confirmation by three people, "including a relative and a cleric who handled the body" is improbable in the extreme.

The killing of one brigadier-general and his children in April last year in Homs illustrates how near impossible it is, particularly during sectarian conflict, to verify even one killing – in this case, a man and his children:

The general, believed to be Abdu Tallawi, was killed with his children and nephew while passing through an agitated neighborhood. There are two accounts of what happened to him and his family, and they differ about the victim’s sect.

Regime loyalists say that he was killed by takfiris – hardline Islamists who accuse other Muslims of apostasy – because he belonged to the Alawite sect. The protesters insist that he is a member of the Tallawi family from Homs and that he was killed by security forces to accuse the opposition and destroy their reputation. Some even claim that he was shot because he refused to fire at protesters.

The third account is ignored due to the extreme polarization of opinions in the city [Homs]. The brigadier-general was killed because he was in a military vehicle, even though he had his kids with him. Whoever killed him was not concerned with his sect but with directing a blow to the regime, thus provoking an even harsher crackdown, which, in turn, would drag the protest movement into a cycle of violence with the state. [65]

By Abdul majeed Abid:

“Every generation has its own dreams and vision which it wants to accomplish without interference. Not imitation but freedom is required to build a new world. Therefore, an attempt should not be made to repeat but to make new history. People should be liberated from the shadows and allowed to flourish in a free society. Great leaders should be respected but not worshipped”.
(Dr Mubarak Ali)

Ibne Khaldun, the doyen of Muslim Historians, described History as a science and not an art. He was of the view that History should be objective, not subjective to the historian’s whims or the needs of the hour. The problem with later-day Muslim historians arose when they tried to “glorify” Muslim history and “re-invented” certain personalities as shining examples for the modern Muslims. This historical revisionism was at its peak during the 19^th century and early parts of the 20^th century.
Dr Mubarak Ali, in his book, “Taareekh ki Daryaft” (Exploring history) provided some glaring examples of historical revisionism from sub-continental history. The most famous religious figures from 15^th to 18^th century are supposed to be Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi(also known as Mujaddad Alaf Sani) and Shah Waliullah. According to Dr Mubarak, the hype about  Sheikh Ahmad was propagated by Maulana Manazir Ahsan Gilani and Maulana Abul Kalaam Azad while Shah Waliullah  was “re-invented” by Obaidulah Sindhi as he was searching for someone resembling Karl Marx in the Islamic world. Sheikh Ahmad was made out to be the nemesis of Mughal Emperor Akbar. Another very important source of such revisionism was famous novelist Naseem Hijazi. This trend of bending history according to the time was continued after creation of Pakistan. An “Ideology of Pakistan” was created during the 1960s. The father of that Ideology was designated to be Allama Mohammad Iqbal, poet and philosopher. (For more on the story of creation of this so-called Ideology, I recommend reading the book “Dau Qaumi Nazriya: Aik Taareekhi Jaiza” by Professor Amjad Ali)
As a part of Historical Revisionism, Allama Iqbal’s poetry was used to stir up emotions of Nationalism and Pan-Islamism. Thousands of books have been written on Iqbal, most of them in his praise and very few in critiques. I will try to present some aspects of Iqbal’s poetry that I consider to be erratic and anachronistic.
Iqbal himself can be categorized as a historical revisionist. He remained passionate about Pan-Islamism throughout his life. While the argument that all the adherents of a religious ideology should combine and form one entity is very promising but it is utopian at best. Iqbal, of all people, would have known that since the death of Caliph Usman, Muslims have NEVER been a single entity throughout history. In fact, more Muslims have been killed by other Muslims in the last 1400 years than by people from other faiths.
Iqbal’s idea of an all conquering  “Mard-e-Momin” is not very different from the “Superman” of Neitzche. Allama Iqbal also propagated the idea of Muslim Supermacism i.e. only Muslims deserve to lead the world. This approach has led to a national cultural narcissism.
There is no place for women in Iqbal’s poetry, echoing a patriarchal approach by the esteemed poet. According to Mohammad Haneef, Iqbal wanted Muslim youth to take refuge in Mountains and that Martyrdom should be our ultimate aim. Now that the youth (TTP) has taken up all these endeavors, we can’t even stop them because we always taught them to do so. Interestingly, the most remarkable work done by Iqbal were his lectures titled “Reconstructing Islamic thought”. We do not find any reference to those lectures in mainstream media or textbooks only because they don’t teach anything about following without thinking(Taqleed) rather they slam this approach. There are also many contradictions in Iqbal’s poetry regarding structure of State. Iqbal criticized Democracy, Capitalism and Communism but did not hint at what kind of state he perceived. This issue has been highlighted by Dr Javed Iqbal, Iqbal son, in his autobiography(Apna Garebaan Chaak).Iqbal wrote most of his poetry in either Urdu or Persian, while the majority of Muslim Population communicated in Bengali, Punjabi, Sindhi or Pashto. According to figures collected in 1951, 54.6% people in Pakistan spoke Bengla, 28.4% spoke Punjabi, 7.2% spoke Urdu, 7.1% spoke Pashto while 5.8% spoke Sindhi. Keith Callard, Pakistan: Political Study, George Allen & Unwin, Oxford, 1957, p. 181). We declared Iqbal as our national poet despite the fact that fewer than 8 per cent of Pakistani people spoke Urdu as a first language(1981 national census). Iqbal’s so-called plan for Pakistan(due to which we credit him as the “dreamer/thinker of Pakistan, wrongly because 64 such suggestions had been publicly presented before 1930) did not include East Pakistan which was the hub of Muslim political activity in United India.

Due to so much diversity in the message of Iqbal, many elements have tried to use his poetry for their own agendas. Mullahs(clergymen), whom Iqbal opposed all his life and actively wrote against, blatantly used Iqbal’s message of Pan-Islamism for their own purposes.
In recent years, Iqbal’s poetry has been used for propaganda-mongering by Glenn Beck of Pakistan, Zaid Hamid who did two shows namely ‘Iqbal ka Pakistan’ and ‘Iqbal the Mysterious’ eulogizing the “mystic” aspects of Iqbal and attributed all kind of supernatural powers to Iqbal.
According to Nadeem Farooq Paracha, writer and blogger, “ I sometimes feel, a non-critical stance towards Iqbal’s work in this country has actually damaged his standing. He was a product of his time and well suited to compliment what was going in the minds of Indian Muslim men in the first half of the 20^th century. But was he a visionary? I don’t think so. I don’t think his work is as relevant today as it is made out to be. Certainly not in a post-modern world where the notions of universalism based on certain singular concepts of faith and progress have long crumbled and given way to a healthy respect and need for democracy, pluralism and diversity.”

Despite all the above-stated criticism, I cannot deny the importance of Allama Iqbal as a poet and as a Philosopher. All I am saying is that we need to project a balanced image of Allama Iqbal and refrain from deification a mortal man. We also need an objective approach towards history so that our future generations do not suffer from paranoia as we are. We should also encourage constructive criticism of Iqbal and leave behind the notion that saying anything about Iqbal is akin to blasphemy.

“Human Security Is The Primary Purpose Of Organizing A State In The Beginning.”
– Surin Pitsuwan, ASEAN

In the wake of the Arab Spring, and in light of the ongoing global economic disorder, world leaders would be well advised to examine their understanding of national security. Recent events paint a picture of national leaders who are wildly out of touch and hopelessly behind the principal national challenge of the 21st century – human security.

(Source: Newsweek)

In 2011, the world witnessed the sudden and total political implosion of a handful of states that up until recently were firmly in the hands of their autocratic rulers. There was much debate about how the warning signs and red flags were missed. Clearly, N. African leaders were out of touch and not able to sense the social fissures and stress points that indicated popular rage.

Though one of the core lessons of the Arab revolts is that super angry citizens now have virtual meeting grounds to vent, meet, organize and to act, the most memorable lesson of the revolts is that governments must provide for the legitimate needs of their people or face ouster. Authorities must quickly learn that protecting their people from state on state conflict or homeland attacks (i.e. Freedom of Fear), must be balanced with the human requirement for the basics, or what social scientists call “Freedom of Want” (think shelter, food, clean water etc.). In most societies, this need is satisfied when people are productively employed in the economy and basic goods/services are made available through a combination of social programs and a healthy private sector. Mubarak, Gadaffi, and other modern day pharaohs simply failed to effectively work with the ‘whole of society’ to deliver on their respective “Freedom of Want” promises.

From Pharaoh to Prisoner (Source: Newsweek)

As we prepare to start a new year, basic food prices across the globe remain at historically high levels and although great strides have been made in the anti-poverty fight, the numbers are still staggering.

• Approximately 9.2 million children under the age of 5 die each year, mostly from preventable diseases. That’s approximately 25,000 children each day.
• 69 million children are out of school around the world, a figure equivalent to the entire primary school-aged population in Europe andNorth America.
• Food prices have risen 83 percent since 2005, disproportionately affecting those in poverty who spend a higher percentage of their income on food.
• Daily disasters. HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria—all treatable diseases—claim the lives of over 8,000 people every day in Africa due to lack of access to health care.
• More than 800 million people go to bed hungry every day…300 million are children.

(Statistics are from the World Bank and the ONE Campaign)

To make matters worse, the global economic recovery continues to stall with very little sign that industrialized nations have a solid game plan to get the ball closer to the goal line. Sadly, even with this bleak economic reality, developing nations today account for the majority of arms purchases in the world, buying arms supplied mainly by the permanent UN Security Council members—the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China. Yes, I know what you’re thinking.

So while the international community and mainstream media focus their collective attention on containing the nuclear genie, nations that can least provide human security for their people purchase conventional weapons from the countries that claim to want world peace and social development.  Perhaps all should heed a warning from Thomas Jefferson who once said, “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty”.

Presidents and Prime Ministers — Fear And Respect Your People!

Summary of the Past Year

2011 has surely been a year of trial and tribulations for children across the globe struggling for freedom and their basic human rights. I wish I could write and say that 2011 was the year that we abolished child trafficking, child marriage, prevented children dying from preventable childhood diseases and illness, found an end to child labor and saw education implemented for all children, that we ended gender discrimination. However, I cannot. The rights of children in 2011 were far from upheld on a global scale; we continued to see an extreme numbers of cases across the globe where the of basic needs of children where not met.

There are some 2.2 billion children in the world, and 600 million are victims of extreme poverty. Malnutrition is a related cause in at least half of the 10.9 million child deaths each year. Malnutrition magnifies the effect of every disease, including measles and malaria. Malnutrition can also be caused by diseases, such as the diseases that cause diarrhea, by reducing the body’s ability to convert food into usable nutrients, which often causes stunting. Under-nutrition among pregnant women in developing countries leads to 1 in 6 underweight births, which often causes learning disabilities, mental retardation, poor health, blindness, and premature death.

86% of the world’s children live in the developing world; many lack access to primary education, and forced labor, sexual abuse, and gender inequality run rampant. A third of all children in the developing world have some level of malnutrition by the age of five, have little or no access to adequate healthcare. In 2011, millions upon millions of children continue to live in dire conditions and lack access to adequate health care, are forced into child labor, fight as child soldiers, and serve as sex slaves. 215 million children work as child laborers, 115 million in hazardous conditions (ILO). While many progresses where made, especially in regards to awareness on such issues as child trafficking, the majority of issues have continued to remain stagnate in the world of international politics.

When looking back on all the events and stories that have unfolded over the last year relating to children and children’s rights, it was indeed a busy year. I brought you a variety of stories on the issues facing children across the globe but it was only a small dent compared to the issues and stories of our children. The world is still far from successfully ensuring the well being of our children across the globe. However, the year did bring us stories of success, hope and countless efforts have been made to bring many issues out in the open and to justice; though billions of children around the world still continue to suffer needlessly. The complexity of trying to bring to light the lives of children around the world is that there is no drought of information and news, therefore one finds themselves struggling to write about what seems more important, when in truth all of the stories deserve equal attention.

Most Unexpected Event

Photo by DanWhite.org

Book of the Year

Again, when it comes to making a choice in this category it is a difficult one, as the topics that cover children’s rights and protection are far and wide. However, the book that I personally was asked to review that stood out the most, and would have a substantial impact on anyone who cares about the sexual exploitation of children across the globe, is Girls Like Us: Fighting for a World Where Girls Are Not for Sale, an Activist Finds Her Calling and Heals Herself. As a person working in the anti-trafficking field or who one who works to keep children safe from sexual exploitation this book will not only resonate with you, but both motivate and inspire you while it touches your heart and prompts you to action.

The book, written by Rachel Lloyd, a survivor of the commercial sex industry, has devoted her career to activism and helping other young girls escape “the life”.  At thirteen, Rachel Lloyd found herself caught up in a world of pain and abuse, struggling to survive as a child with no responsible adults to support her. Vulnerable yet tough, she eventually ended up a victim of commercial sexual exploitation. It took time and incredible resilience, thankfully with the help of a local church community, Lloyd was able to break free from her pimp. Three years later, Lloyd moved to the US to start a new life and work with adult women in the sex industry, which soon led her to found her own nonprofit—GEMS (Girls Educational and Mentoring Services). Lloyd established GEMS to meet the needs young girls who have been trafficked into a life of commercial sexual exploitation. In her book, Girls Like Us, Lloyd reveals the dark world of the commercial sex industry and how it preys on innocent young girls. While exposing the dark reality of sex trafficking and exploitation Lloyd also shares her story, as well as that of the girls she has worked so tirelessly to help, with humility and and openness, that touches anyone who picks up this book.

As we enter a new year, we are left somewhat dumbfounded by the previous year’s events and the toll they have taken on children across the globe; however, with each new year comes renewed hope. Will 2012 end the suffering of children in war-torn and drought-ridden countries? Will the number of AIDS orphans begin to decline?

Will 2012 truly be the year of the child? I wish I could sit here and write a wish list for children in 2012 and it would come true, but the power of the pen is not that mighty. However, the issues that children are facing are far more complicated, and will take more than one year to establish sustainable solutions, and ensure that they are truly protected on every level. Do not take this as pure cynicism, but a sad reality that we have much cleaning up to do across the world, and we can make 2012 a great year as we begin to dig in and fight the core issues that plague children, such as poverty, HIV/AIDS, war, gender equality, and sexual violence.

While great progress has been made over the past few years, across the globe children continue to stuffer and their rights are too often violated. The prevailing obstacle is the eradication of global poverty. Poverty compounds the level and degree of violations against children’s rights, and complicates the ability to effectively and sustainably meet the needs of children and ensure the protection and promotion of their rights. Additionally, the number of children dying before their fifth birthday continues to remain at unacceptable levels. The fight against child mortality is a continual battle against malnutrition, HIV/AIDS, and numerable preventable diseases, including malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera. The lack of adequate education and access to education is a considerable obstacle to the development of a child’s well being, as education is a key tool in combating poverty, health, and abuse. The number of children who are subject to violence, exploitation, abuse, gender inequity and discrimination remain at appalling levels.

With the rise in HIV/AIDS, success in increasing awareness and prevention is increasingly effective, thus it is hopeful that 2012 will be the year we begin to see a decline in the number of cases. We must increase our efforts in both raising awareness and initiating prevention programs (including family planning), combined with antiviral and other drug treatments.

The biggest fight in 2012 will be for gender equality, which will help establish a base for the elimination of numerous other human rights violations against children. This is the year to act, with awareness of such issues as human trafficking, modern slavery, sex tourism, female genital mutilation (FGM), and child marriages. Many of these issues are decreasing too slowly, or are on the rise. Thankfully with the establishment of UN Women this year awareness and action amongst the international community has begun to gain a stronger ground. Therefore, 2012 truly is the year is the year to make substantial and sustainable dents in the gender gap.