Sorry Owais , We Messed Up

My following blog also appeared on Express Tribune Blogs : http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/15039/we-are-sorry-owais-baig/

I was viewing the Facebook profile of a young man from Karachi. Looking at the publically shared pictures, I came under the impression that he loved his nieces and a nephew. His name was Owais Baig.

He appeared to be a typical Karachiite with swarthy, intelligent facial features- looks that gave away small details of his life. You could tell that he was a young man, still studying, working alongside and looking for a better career and just trying to make it in a city of 20 million.

Then I looked at the video of him dangling from a burning building, which ironically belongs to a company that sells life insurance. I looked at the crowd below, entranced by the dance of death. I saw this same man looking down helplessly; to me it was becoming unbearable. I looked away and a few minutes after wards, I heard grown men scream. I knew the whole story, we all know it.

As much as I want to talk about why the people did not help him, why the fire brigade failed for the umpteenth time, I won’t. But I do want to talk about the role that our media played in this whole situation.

To broadcast the clips of a man dangling from a burning building until he falls to his death shows the level of empathy and social awareness that our media lacks. Now, I won’t the blame the whole media, but those involved in this game would get an idea. When we say “O kuch nahin yaar, bus aik do hee marray hain” (Oh man, its not a big deal, just one or two have died), we know that we have been desensitised by the media.

We were glued to our screens when Owais fell to his death.

His death was plastered on thousands of TV screens nationwide. A couple of apologetic TV programs, wailing and mourning and we are back to our daily routine, thinking little about the trauma that Owais’s family went through during the coverage.

They have been scarred for life.

Owais’s parents, brother, his beloved nieces; they have gone through a trauma that few of us would ever face. And unsurprisingly, our media bigwigs remain unapologetic.

In a program by Matiullah Jan called Apna Apna Gareban, the director of a local news channel unapologetically defended his newschannel’s decision to air Owais’s video clip. And the atrocity doesn’t stop here. Right up to the time of writing, not a single statement by any media house has been broadcasted, seeking apology for airing disturbing visuals.

Somehow, the image of Nero fiddling away while Rome burns flashes across my mind.

It’s not as if we lack laws and regulations, it’s just that our TV channels show blatant disrespect towards implementing them. It is specifically stated in PEMRA (Amendment) Act 2007, article 20, clause C that the person who is issued a license by PEMRA must ensure that:

“All programmes and advertisements do not contain or encourage violence, terrorism, racial, ethnic or religious discrimination, sectarianism, extremism, militancy, hatred, pornography, obscenity, vulgarity or other material offensive to commonly accepted standards of decency”

Forgive me, but I assume that our TV channels do not think that the live broadcasting of a young man’s death nationwide constitutes something ‘offensive’.

This September a Fox News presenter’s YouTube clip went viral. It showed a driver being chased by US police in Arizona when suddenly the driver stops the car, gets out, runs a few yards and then shoots himself in the head.

As soon as the presenter realises what the man is about to do he screams,

“Get off. Get off. Get off it. Get off it. Get off it. Get off it!”

And when his channel accidently shows the video he comes on air and responsibly issuing an apology on live television,

“… we really messed up. And we’re all very sorry. That didn’t belong on TV. We took every precaution we knew how to take to keep that from being on TV. I personally apologise to you that that happened. Sometimes we see a lot of things that we don’t let get to you because it is not time appropriate, it is insensitive, it is just wrong. And that was wrong and that won’t happen on my watch…”

Dear TV channels,

If Fox News - which we all know is famous for its biased and right wing stance against Muslims- is capable of such professionalism then I believe you have got a big ethical dilemma on your hands.

Let us therefore not talk about enacting new laws and regulations, as they already exist, but let us enforce them. Let us force our media houses to publicly apologise for this particular error so that they recognise their professional code of conduct and never indulge in such indecency again.

It is time to apologise to Owais Baig and his family.

I do apologise- sincerely, from the bottom of my heart – to Owais Baig and his family.

May his soul rest in peace. Ameen.

Because man is much more sexual in nature than women!

In Reply to Bina Shah (Nudity and the Niqab: The Debate Continues) __________________________________________________________________________ First, I would start by partially agreeing with your statement that women should be allowed to wear whatever they choose. Moreover, I wish that (to quote you) "One day, women will be free to make their own choices about their clothing, and men will simply have to get out of the way." Nevertheless, here is a question that arises when I read your blog; should there be a limit to what a woman chooses to wear? Should the women -and for that matter men as well-be allowed to wear literally anything that they want to wear? Can I as a man be allowed to walk into my office wearing nothing but white boxer shorts and a top hat? Will the office management allow me to wear that? If it doesn't, then should I brand my office management as myopic rigid and conservative shmucks?

The reason behind all this controversy on the niqabs, burkas, hijabs and abayas is the misunderstanding of the original message words of Quran. Hijab in the Quran is used to denote a modest dress. A sort of separation between men and women, it was not implied in the Quran as the covering of the whole female body as we see it today. In fact the word Hijab was misunderstood by the Islamic jurisprudents to mean 'satr' which implies covering up yourself, which if used in the context of Hijab, actually bars women from going outside and remain locked up inside their homes which of course is impractical. The basic premise of Quran is to place restrictions on both men and women in regards to their conduct outside their homes. But an important factor to consider here is that the verses were revealed back in the 7th century and were primarily meant to guide the Muslims in those formative years. However, the views that would have been perfectly sane and rational in those times cannot be held as practical in this era, that much we have to give to the Muslim liberals. If revisit the Quranic verses that order the women to remain covered and hidden in their houses, we find the following: “O wives of the Prophet! You are not as other women..." (33:32) "Remain in your houses." (33:33) Here we see that the restrictions that were reserved for the wives of the Prophet (PBUH) were taken by the jurisprudents to mean as general instructions for all the women. These instructions in those days were the ancient equivalent of modern security procedures regarding the family members of high-ranking officials and public figures, which of course can’t simply be applied to the public. What the Quran actually says is, "Say to the believing men to cast down their glance and guard their private parts..." (24:30), thus, it imposes a restriction on Muslim men and women regarding their conduct. And (to the chagrin of the liberals) these restrictions are neither fantastic nor impractical. In all the civilized western countries there laws against nudity as well as sexual offences. Society, thus itself imposes laws on what we wear and how we choose to act, something, which -to its credit-Islam outlined back in the 7th century AD. Yes, the concept of Hijab is there in Quran, but the Hijab that we refer today to as THE Hijab, is more related to the Arab culture, which we like to idealize in the same way as the medieval western nations idealized the Vatican and later the Renaissance gripped Europe idealized the ancient Greek and Roman cultures. Thus, I leave it upon you to decide which culture you would like to follow and how much promiscuity would you be willing to allow in the society. I really do agree with your statement that women should be allowed to wear whatever they choose to wear but restrictions should be there, why? Because man is much more sexual in nature than women -Ref: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cultural-animal/201012/the-reality-the-male-sex-drive http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare It is this sexual nature of man that if suppressed or given a free ticket lead to sexual crimes. I again repeat that the extreme, suppression (in the case of Arab and South Asian cultures) and liberalization (in the case of Western nations) will only bring sexual harm to the women. Thus, restrictions on what women and men wear will I am afraid always be there but it depends whether we gravitate towards extreme conservatism or extreme liberalization or should we choose the middle way-the moderate way, which is neither liberal nor conservative. Miss Bina Shah's said blog can be accessed at http://binashah.blogspot.nl/2012/07/nudity-and-niqab-debate-continues.html