For IWD, there are many women who’s example I’ve tried to follow.  I have always looked up to political activists such as Amy Goodman, Arundhati Roy, and Cindy Sheehan, but none of them have really had a direct effect on my life.  Perhaps the greatest influence (and I plead bias on this one) is probably my mother who continues to be a person I respect and admire.  I wrote a poem not too long ago depicting how we tend to take things for granted and how that leads to regret.  I certainly see myself guilty of this and I hope this illustrates that the motherly qualities of a woman is something that is truly priceless.

I Remember…

I remember your comforting presence at this time,
The way your essence made the household shine.
I remember when creating a mess was a punishable crime,
And your sweet songs that would always rhyme.

In the hour of your passing I stand in illuminated solitude,
Trying to gather some sense of artificial fortitude.
My heart heavy with a foreign sadness,
Driving me to the brink of suicidal madness.

I remember the way you held out your hand,
And helped me build castles in the sand.
I remember your calming whispers when we were about to land,
Somehow you always made me understand.

I am devoid of emotion,
Lost in the midst of chaotic commotion.
I am descending into the abyss of eternal despair, I am beyond repair.
I struggle to fight my vulnerability
Unable to break the inevitable laws of gravity

I remember when you always came to my immediate defense,
Your reassuring attitude that always made sense.
I remember when you scolded me and how I always became tense,
Whatever you did for me, the gains were always immense.

It pains me that I took you for granted,
How did my psyche become so slanted?
During your last breaths I prayed for your revival,
Realizing how you were essential for my survival.

I remember how you acquiesced to my ridiculous demands,
Buying me clothes that were expensive name-brands.
And I remember how I still ignored your motherly commands,
And now in the twilight your tombstone stands.

Your love was always platitude,
But I never showed you any gratitude.
Even though I shall visit your grave every December,
I will forever,

Remember…

A Fruitful Beginning?

Amidst the virulent power vacuum that seeks to suck the life-blood of a nation already wrought with corruption, nepotism, and ethnic strife, the results of the general election will only serve to worsen the already chaotic situation. 

Since the inception of the Muslim state in 1947, Pakistan is the state equivalent of a drug addict constantly in and out of relapse.  With successive failed democracies, the military has continually had to come in to save the nation from inevitable collapse, and, in the process, consolidated so much power that it has controlled every facet of public life, sometimes to the detriment of the nation itself. 

After nine years of military rule, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is again flirting with democracy, except this time it is doing it with the same tried and tested failures that almost destroyed the nation.  With the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League (N) (PML N) winning most of the seats, the new government could be a repulsive partnership between Asif “Mr. 10 per cent” Zardari and former exile Nawaz Sharif - both who should be in jail for corruption, extortion, and murder charges.  The Pakistan Muslim League (Q) (PML Q) was predictably the big loser which probably suggests that Musharraf did not utilize rigging tactics that were as aggressive as those employed by all the other parties, perhaps to avoid escaping a third assassination attempt.  In regards to the PPP, Fatima Bhutto, a journalist and the niece of the late Benazir Bhutto, said in an interview on Democracy Now:

...“There is incomplete voter lists that were being used at every polling station with, you know, five to six hundred names with the name, a birth date and a father’s name, but no national identity card number. Now, for that vote to be legally cast, the voter would have to bring in a birth certificate, which of course didn’t happen.

There are also irregularities concerning the numbers. There has been an extremely low turnout across Pakistan, but notably thin because of fears of violence. And, you know, the government is claiming that 40 percent of the population voted, which is a gross exaggeration. PPP candidates are claiming wins of 80,000 and 70,000 votes. It just doesn’t add up.” (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/19/pakistan) 

The mainstream media’s constant praise for the elections as some sort of second coming for the state is a damn joke.

The Other Players

Imran Khan’s Tehreek-e-Insaaf (Movement for Justice Party) boycotted the elections under the guise of opposing the military, but in reality he knows that his small party has no chance against the two larger and long-standing rivals.  He needs more time to establish a base, garner further support from the younger masses, and build a party brand that is essential in a climate where personality politics reigns supreme.

Irrelevant from a national perspective, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) swept urban Sindh through a combination of vote rigging and sympathy votes by Karachiites who’s feeling of isolation has not subsided since the introduction of the quota system and the carnage that was the 1990’s.  No other party needs an overhaul and a different leader more than this one. 

Perhaps the only good news of the elections was the convincing defeat of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), a coalition of religious parties primarily based in the Northwest Frontier Province who were elected only because of the emotions associated with the attack on Afghanistan after 9/11.  The people of that region felt that their voices were not being heard and they acted on it.

And then you have Musharraf, an overly agreeable dictator turned tyrant who’s popularity plummeted after the Chief Justice fiasco, the State of Emergency, and the Lal Masjid debacle, and who continues to wage war on his own people in order to take pressure off NATO troops that are foolishly battling the Pashtun population in Southern Afghanistan. 

What’s Next?

Pakistan’s pathetic display of democratic wannabe’s is a sign of inevitable despair and this experiment too will fail.  Not mentioned is the fact that Pakistan continues to be a hotbed for proxies from Iran, Afghanistan, India, and remains a sphere of influence for the United States.

With no alternatives, what Pakistan needs is a benevolent, strong dictator that will act in the best interests of the state and its people.  Someone with the industrial fortitude of a Joseph Stalin and the nationalistic fervour of a Mohammad Mossedeq would qualify although such a figure is probably unlikely.  Unfortunately, even the military is now under American wraps with the recent introduction of General Ashfaq Kiyani as the new army chief.

The future looks bleak, but if there is any hope for the nation, it is that Pakistan has been through much worse and has survived. 

The drug addict has not overdosed yet.

A critical look at the Western Muslim Mosquers Review

Disclaimer: The response below is my opinion and my opinion only and is in no way affiliated with the rest of the Mosquer’s Committee.  Furthermore, the below is in no way an attack on the writer, but more of a rebuttal to his review.  I should also add that this criticism includes references to the original article that was later changed, but in my view that article should not have made it past the editing stage. 

First of all, as a Mosquers committee member, I would like to thank the Western Muslim for providing coverage of our event and posting the videos onto their website.  However, I would like to respond to some of the points raised in the article that I felt were unfair and, in some cases, outright demeaning.  I would also like to make clear that the committee is not averse to constructive criticism, but that criticism should be fair which I felt was not true in this case.

Backtracking Claims of Objectivity

The “review” is featured on the front page of the Western Muslim e-zine banner which is usually reserved for the title banner.  What struck me the most was the original title of the article: An unbiased review of the Mosquer awards which was then abruptly changed after the editors realized that the article is littered with bias throughout.  As one can see, approximately 3/4th’s of the article is a heavy endorsement of one particular film entitled False Confessions of a Muslim Lawyer that did not win an award.  The writer admittedly claims that the creator of the film provided him with a private screening and is also a fellow Western Muslim writer who happens to be a lawyer.  He then goes onto state that his dislike of lawyers frees him from any bias which was basically a very poor attempt at exonerating himself.

The original article continues by taking a stab at the event itself claiming that introductory speeches were boring when the committee later found out that the writer was not even present at the event.  How does one arrive to such a subjective opinion without even attending the event they’re supposed to be covering?

Futile Character Assassination

The contents regarding how the 2007 winning submissions were poor and did not deserve to win is the writer’s opinion and I can accept that.  However, I felt that the criticism could have been leveled without questioning the intellect of the submitters, some of whom were teenagers with no experience in film, or insulting their projects as dishonest, irrelevant, and as “jingoistic power point presentations.”

Perhaps the greatest blunder of the original article was the comparison of Muslims playing Non-Muslims in their films to racist whites who played African American characters wearing theatrical makeup in the 1915 film the Birth of a Nation - a film known for its glorification of the Ku Klux Klan. The article went further by attacking the character of these Muslims by labeling them with a superiority complex.  Again, the criticism of the films could have been easily made without personally insulting the film-makers or labeling them as racist or “non-integrated”, but the rhetoric was probably employed in order to create sensationalism and controversy to attract greater readership.  This reference was later deleted, but should have never made it on in the first place.

Maybe if the writer viewed all of the submissions (including those that were not up when the article was released), interviewed the contestants, got their perspective, did a little research on how their submissions were relevant to them, it may have provided a better picture.  After all, the other media that covered the event did their homework.

Deflecting Blame to External Factors

After more endless accolades for False Confessions, the writer launches an attack on the comedy that actually won the award and dismisses it as a “group of friends driving around and goofing off”.  The crowd of 500 strong thought otherwise, and the crowd reaction was markedly different between the two films.  Of course, the writer was not present at the event to witness this.

Rather than examining the weaknesses of False Confessions, the article instead begins to question the wisdom of the judges, two of which included a creator of a hit TV show and a scholar of Film Studies.  The irony, in this case, speaks for itself.  The article proceeds to explain the loss by blaming the Muslim community as being backward, unable to come to terms with implied nudity, and somehow intimidated by a beer when the winning submission included concepts of implied homosexuality, mockery of Muslim conspiracy theories, and continual visuals of bacon, something just as prohibited in Islam as alcohol.  Judging from the reactions, people were not only ready for it, but embraced it without question.

Journalistic Integrity?

Without getting into the specifics, the original article should have been reviewed by somebody who did not have a vested interest in it.  The writer’s last name also brings up further questions of objectivity and how much leniency was given throughout the editing process.  How the original article made it past the initial editing stage is beyond me.

Missing the Point

Calling the event a “missed opportunity”, and judging it based solely on the submissions is the real flaw of the article.  The films and the competition are only a part of the event and the greater, overarching purpose was to get the Muslim community together, engage the youth creatively, and foster an understanding with the greater mainstream community, something that can only truly be understood by being at the event itself.  It is unfortunate that some people did not understand the true spirit of the initiative.  I am sure that as the event progresses, the films too will evolve over time and more people will see the bigger picture.

Criticism is always valid, but the review itself does not stand up to critical scrutiny.  I therefore felt that I had to state the alternate perspective on the matter.