Wasim Grovels

Express Tribune, I'm gonna let you finish... but since we're on the subject of Wasim Akram, first the breaking news that he has apologized to the medical fraternity for maligning them with regards to the death of his wife Huma Akram.

Wasim Akram: apologetic (Source: Reuters)

You may recall that after Huma's death in Chennai in October last year, Akram had not only alleged that Lahore-based pulmonologist and critical-care specialist Dr. Kamran Chima had demanded money to arrange an air ambulance for her but had also called private hospitals - such as the Doctors Hospital and the National Hospital - which initially treated her, "slaughterhouses." This had set in motion a whole series of events whereby the health ministry, after a hastily concluded investigation, had suspended the licenses of some 17 doctors "for negligence."

The doctors, particularly Dr. Kamran Chima, had fought back by suing Akram for 50 crore rupees for defamation. In his lawsuit, Dr. Chima had pointed to the medical report from Chennai, which according to him, proved that Huma's case was untreatable and that she had, in fact, received the best possible medical care in Lahore despite the fact that the family had allegedly hid certain patient history from the doctors. It seems the lawsuit obviously worked.

Akram has beat a grovelling retreat. An image of his statement issued to the media is given below:

Meanwhile, the Doctors Hospital and doctors treating Huma in Lahore have issued a subsequent statement which reads as follows:

STATEMENT

By Doctors and Hospitals treating (late) Mrs. Huma Akram

"Mr. Wasim Akram has issued a statement clarifying matters in respect of the treatment of his late wife (Mrs. Huma Akram). He has been gracious to regret making certain statements and has also corrected the record concerning certain other statements made by him which were misunderstood at the time they were made. Indeed he has shown statesmanship by stating that he holds the medical community in high esteem.

The clarifications issued by Mr. Wasim Akram include the following :

•  He has categorically stated that neither Dr. Kamran Chima nor any other doctor ever asked him for money/commission for arranging air ambulance service. He has clarified that information provided regarding the cost of air ambulance incurred by another patient was for him to assess his options, and has acknowledged that there was no semblance of impropriety in this regard.

•  He has apologised for calling National and Doctors Hospitals as ‘slaughterhouses’ and has noted that he should not have said this.

•  He has acknowledged that hospitals provide much needed medical care to patients and medical staff in the vast majority of cases work hard to treat patients to the best of their ability. He has in particular acknowledged that Dr. Kamran Chima, a well known pulmonologist and critical care specialist of Lahore, devoted considerable time treating Mrs. Akram (including seeing her on a couple of occasions past 1 AM in the morning) and that all calls and SMSs by Mr. Wasim Akram to Dr. Chima were duly responded, by a return call or personal visit.

•  He has noted that he based his earlier views on the report prepared by the inquiry committee  constituted by the Government. He understands that the doctors involved have expressed serious reservations regarding this report. He notes that the matter is pending before the honourable Lahore High Court and has stated that he has no objection to any order being passed by the honorable Lahore High Court which it considers appropriate.

•  While stating that he has no personal grudge or animosity towards any of the doctors involved in the treatment of his late wife, he has expressed regret if any doctor has unnecessarily been subjected to adverse action arising from this incident.

•  He has clarified that his intent was only to have proper and fair investigation which may help improvement of systems to protect the interests of citizens as well as medical practitioners. The doctors and hospitals involved in the treatment of Mrs. Akram would like to place on record our  deep appreciation for the aforesaid clarifications, and fully accept the following explanation by Mr.  Akram:

“Soon after the death of my late wife, I was overwhelmed by her loss. My late wife was not just a spouse but also my professional adviser and friend. I had to take her by air ambulance for treatment and then later had to return with her body in a charter plane from Delhi. Due to these traumatic circumstances, I now recognize that I may have said things (in private and in public forums) which led listeners to understand otherwise than what is stated herein. To the extent that my previous statements may have been misleading, I would like to apologise and to correct the record in terms of this statement.”

Needless to add, Mr. Wasim Akram is a national cricketing hero and we hold him in respect. We would also like to reiterate our deepest condolences to him and his family on the tragic passing away of his wife."

Plainly, an out-of-court settlement has been reached in which Akram was forced to apologize and retract in return for the lawsuit to be dropped.

This does not, of course, mean that medical care in Pakistan is generally brilliant or even adequate (God knows that's an understatement!). Only that in this particular high-profile case, the allegations were wild and unfounded. What this also means is that government ministries and the parliament (the inquiry was conducted by parliamentarians) really need to stop jumping to conclusions without adequate expertise or understanding of the issues.

It also means that media people and activists on the net, who often think that any defamation, character assassination or witch-hunt is acceptable simply because in the larger context their anger is justified, need to seriously be more concerned about facts. In this particular case, the Huma Akram case was used to hound doctors in general and the concerned hospitals in particular, mainly because it seemed to fit into a pattern of negligence by medical care staff after the Imanae Malik case. Not only could they in their zeal be destroying the lives of decent folks, such half-baked activism also ends up with them having egg on their face. Which of course does not do their noble cause any good.

A Response to Mary Bowers' Response

Hmmmm. My first thought when I read The Times' Mary Bowers' response to my earlier post on the Dawn blog was, 'now you're really asking for it, aren't you.' Especially because she had chosen to write a response (in an unconnected space) that ignored the more substantive parts of my critique of her piece - her distortion of facts and context - and focused on presenting a defence for Western journalists' preoccupation with issues of terror in Pakistan (as if we don't understand journalism or the mindset of the Western media). That and because she called me a "faceless cackler."

But I mulled over whether to write a response initially because I didn't want to get into a pointless war of words with someone who is obviously very defensive about her errors of omission and commission. Secondly, I did a Google search on her and discovered she is still a very young journalist who is not only a couple of years at most out of journalism school but also fancies herself as a photographer and a musician, in other words an interesting person still trying to find their true calling. So, even though she also boasts about opening a dominatrix shop in Paris (or was it because of it?), I felt sorry for being a bit harsh with her.

Mary Bowers of The Times

Eventually, however, I decided I did need to write some sort of response, if only so that those readers over at the Dawn blog who are taken by Ms Bowers' writing style (it is certainly a well-written piece) but clueless about the real points of contention between us, can understand the issue. If you are reading this, Mary, please understand that it is nothing personal. So here goes.


Dear Mary Bowers:

1. The basic assumption in your response is that Pakistanis like us (or at least us on this blog) do not understand the pressures foreign journalists work under and the world view of their editors / readers back home, and that this is what needs to be explained. This is simply untrue. Many of us have worked for the international media and all of us know foreign colleagues who do a commendable job reporting for the international press. Even with all their pressures and the skewed expectations of stories-that-sell, they continue to fight against stereotypes and bring nuance to their reporting. Our issue is simply with the lazy pandering to stereotypes that characterizes "parachute journalism" - a term you acknowledge yourself.


2. You have not addressed the two or three instances where I pointed out that you got your information / characterizations terribly wrong. Among them: that fashion has been repressed by governments before the Lahore Fashion Week, that the LFW was some sort of liberal aberration in a highly controlled Islamic society, that television in Pakistan consists entirely of hijab or niqab clad faces. Surely, the "most unforgiving of masters: the truth" - as you term it - requires you to get your facts correct.


3. At least two out of the three people whose quotes you used to illustrate your piece have claimed in our blog that they were misquoted or quoted out of context. One claimed her quote about death threats before the LFW actually referred to death threats before another event the previous year. Would you say that is justified by your defence of the pressures Western journalists work under?


4. You write:

"But some – often the acronymed and unaccountable world of the blogosphere – like to suggest that journalists are at best automatons, “led up the garden path” by their sources,  as my critic suggested. At worst, they are guilty of that most overused of phrases, “lazy journalism.”"

I just want to point out that I never suggested (nor would I ever suggest) that journalists in general are automatons (though some may certainly be imbecilic). The reference to being "led up the garden path" referred, in the post's context, to the incorrect information provided by someone most journalists would trust to provide a correct perspective but which they probably should have double-checked. Oh, and by the way, isn't the "unaccountable world of the blogosphere" really the most overused of phrases these days?


5. I agree with you that Pakistani designers choosing "canary yellow taffeta over last season's cornflower blue satin" may not be a story Londoners are interested in. But as someone commented on the Dawn blog, there is no compulsion for the Western media to cover Pakistani fashion, if they do not think it merits attention. I mean, (apologies for the sort-of pun) no one is holding a gun to their heads to do it, are they? So, does it all boil down to freelancers trying to sell their stories? You write:

"I couched fashion week in terms of a defiant action in the face of radicalism and conservatism – a tack taken, I noticed, by most of the other international media present."

Yeah, we know, we know. But following the herd does not make it good journalism.


6. Finally, let me just reiterate that it is not that we don't think that Pakistan has no problems of terrorism or that there are no other problems here (God knows there are huge ones!). Neither is it my contention, at all, that foreign journalists should ignore them and paint only a rosy picture of the country. All I am arguing for is some balance and a toning down of the sensationalism that may sell stories but really paints an equally inaccurate picture for readers who already understand too little, as you yourself admit. I completely agree with you when you say hopefully:

"...only the slow chipping away of decades of cemented perceptions can counter that greatest and most ignorant of faceless beasts: fear."

I would only submit that "slow chipping away" still needs someone to do it. Sensational stereotypes and inaccurate context only help add more cement.

Sincerely,

XYZ.

Fashion Statements

Oh shoot. Here we go again with fashion weeks and Pakistan. Can we do anything in Pakistan without it being linked in some way to either appeasing the Taliban or kicking sand in their faces?

Assaulting the Taliban, yet again

I refer of course to the latest "I-spit-on-the-runway-the-Taliban-sashay-down" type of pieces in the American Christian Science Monitor (titled predictably "Lahore Fashion Week Takes on Talibanization in Pakistan") and in Britain's The Times about the just concluded Lahore Fashion Week. The latter may be headlined a bit more soberly ("Pakistan Fashion Week Pushes Back Boundaries") but the prose is nothing less than a deep shade of purple.

For example, here are the opening lines:

"A call to prayer echoed over the red carpet. The celebrity guests and socialites of Lahore lifted their diamante stilettos through the scarlet pile, careful not to trip as they showed lipsticked smiles – and bare shoulders – to the flashing camera bulbs."

Just in case you forgot what The Times was aiming to get at, you understand. Gasp! Muslims. Fashion. Shock. Bare shoulders. Horror. But far be it from The Times to simply imply something when they can get their facts utterly wrong in black and white:

"Pakistan’s first Government-endorsed fashion week finished yesterday. There is hope that with it will disappear decades of the government repression that had previously forced the scene underground."

Underground scene? Hellooooo! We just had another fashion week in Karachi, not three months ago! Kind of missed the bus on the "underground scene", by like, two decades, don't you think? I think The Times has kind of got Generals Ziaul Haq and Musharraf confused... which would be fair enough in some respects but certainly not this. Just to put the record straight, do recall that fashion shows (which existed before and even during Zia's regime) were being sponsored by Benazir's government in the early '90s and even taken abroad as part of her foreign delegations. And what was the Mush reign, if not about state-sponsored fashion?

General Musharraf walks the ramp in his Amir Adnan sherwani

Here's some more editorial pronouncements by writer Mary Bowers:

"A triumph for young liberals, the event was also a red rag to those who protect conservative Islamic values with an iron fist. Inter Services Intelligence and the bomb squad were standing by to keep out haute couture’s uninvited guests."

Eh? Ever been to a party in Pakistan, Ms. Bowers? Or Nargis' dance-theatre? Or to see a Pushto film? Ever picked up a copy of GT? Mostly, if the ISI is there, it's to enjoy itself.

ISI Chic?

Ms. Bowers also, incredibly, inserts the following bit in her tribute to the changing Pakistan:

"...even Pakistani TV crews happily meet gleaming and unveiled faces."

Whoa! Since when did TV crews (TV crews, for God's sake!) EVER refuse to meet "gleaming and unveiled faces"? I mean, have you even seen Pakistani channels, Ms. Bowers? And no, Haq TV does not count. We don't even know if it's a Pakistani channel, since we can't see their faces.


But how can one blame just Mary Bowers and The Times, when she has such a treasure-trove of our own people to apparently provide whacked out quotes. (I add the word 'apparently' here only because with a reporter with such a penchant for checking her facts, who can trust her memory or jotting skills?) For instance, here's "freelance fashion writer" Aamna Isani leading her up the garden path:

“We have seen the fashion world in Pakistan evolve in recent years,” said Aamna Isani, a freelance fashion writer. “Ten years ago we weren’t allowed to say the word 'fashion’. We had to go for a ‘cultural event’ with clothes.”

Ten years ago was the year 2000. You weren't allowed to use the word 'fashion' Ms Isani??? Which paper were you freelancing for exactly? Takbeer?

For Roundups on "Cultural Events With Clothes"

Here's Ms. Isani again talking about the elitism of Pakistan's fashion shows:

“I think we’ll really evolve when we have women on the catwalk with purdah too,” she says. “It’s an irony that we’re OK with navels and arms now, but not with the veil. 80 per cent of women in Pakistan wear the veil and many want to. They’d want to even if they had the option. They are pushing us away and we are pushing them away.”

Leave aside the fact that Ms Isani seems to be confused about the whole concept of the purdah / veil - yeah, women who do purdah are just itching to parade themselves on ramps, aren't they? - but where exactly has she got the "80 percent" figure from??? One can sympathise with Ms Isani's idea of inclusive liberalism, but I am more and more inclined to believe that she has spent most of her life inside the Takbeer offices.


Then you have Instep's editor making one of her usual cryptic comments:

“Now that women work like men they must dress like men,” said Muniba Kamal, fashion editor at the national daily The News. “I wouldn’t go burning our bras though. We need those.”

Don't burn that bra, baby

Burning bras? Didn't that kind of go out of fashion in the '70s? "We need those": What does this even mean? That Pakistani women are all well-endowed?


Of course, nothing would have come together for Ms. Bowers without this bit of sensationalism:

  

"“Half an hour before the show we were getting death threats and phone calls and all kind of blackmail,” says a model, Meesha Shafi, 28. “They had our names. It’s very scary." 

Er, yes, Meesha, who could possibly know your name or that of the other models? I mean, it's not like you guys are on the pages of Sunday every week, or on the cover of fashion magazines and billboards, in newspapers or acting in tv dramas and giving interviews on television, right? Or in a sleeveless tank-top on your band's website, right? But what I want to know is, what kind of blackmail was this really about? I have visions of someone threatening you, "if you don't walk the ramp for Umar Sayeed, we'll make sure you are forced to walk for Hourain!" Now that would be scary.

Loudest is not always smartest

Remember folks, at the end of the day, it's just clothes. The Taliban wear clothes too. And more of them. Let's keep things in perspective.