Absurdity, Thy Name Is...

Must Pakistan - or perhaps one should say specifically its government, its political leaders, its judiciary, its military and its bureaucrats - continue to make an ass of itself? Must it circumvent any attempt to make the world forget that we can be the most absurd cretins in the world?

Graphic by Nick Bilton (Source: New York Times)

Barely had the memory of the Lahore High Court-imposed Facebook ban faded from the collective global 'News of the Weird' consciousness that we were struck with the Twitter ban, which the Ministry of Information Technology people told us was because of "blasphemous and inflammatory content" on the site.


(Update: I had almost finished writing this post when news came in that the Twitter ban had been lifted but am posting this in any case in the off-chance that someone within the corridors of policy-making might read and prevent a recurrence of such ineptitude.) 

According to this Express Tribune story:

"Pakistan’s government had asked Twitter to stop a discussion on Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), which was considered derogatory, [PTA Chairman Dr Mohammad] Yaseen said, adding that “Twitter refused our request.”"

Now, you would have to be totally unaware of what Twitter is and how it works to think the above statement makes any sense whatsoever. Imagine, if you will, the government asking a cell phone company to stop people SMS-ing each other anything derogatory about the Prophet. The only way it would be possible for the cell phone company to enforce such a 'request' would be to either read each and every single SMS from the billions that go out from within its network or to simply ban any SMSes that used the word 'Prophet' or 'Muhammad' or 'Mohammad' or 'Mohd' or any other possible variation (and there would still be ways to circumvent it), which would of course block all Islamic SMSes as well. Any cell phone company would obviously 'refuse' the government's request, simply because it would not be possible to implement.

Of course I am not even touching upon the concept of 'free speech' (and which particularly protects 'speech' that one disagrees with or finds offensive) which is integral to rational societies and which would be another reason for Twitter to refuse to censor something even if it could. But this is a concept which is obviously is too lofty an argument for the cretins in officialdom to understand.

In any case, I am more than sure that there is not a single person within the so-called 'Ministry of Information Technology' who is on Twitter or even has a passing knowledge of it.

In all likelihood, given the storm of outrage and mocking it has unleashed, the ban will not last very long. But let's look at what this ban has actually achieved:

1. It has given free global publicity to offensive material that most people - including us - were not even aware of. 

2. It has shown that those in Pakistan who are supposed to manage information technology actually have no clue what they are in charge of. They are obviously also clueless about the ease with which such bans can be circumvented (it took us and others a total of five minutes to get around it.)

3. It has made Pakistan a target of mocking all around the world yet again as a country that cannot be rational, trust its citizens or tolerate any opinions that don't fit in with its own. 

4. It has made an issue out of a non-issue (most people were unaware of the material as pointed out above) and in that given oxygen to precisely those obscurantist elements who use these things to fan the flames of bigotry and intolerance, both within Pakistan and abroad. Note that there had been NO protests before the Ministry of Information Technology drew attention to this 'issue' but that with its ineptitude it has ensured that it is now on the radar for all rent-a-crowd mullahs and will embolden those racists who enjoy provoking all Muslims. 

5. It has shown that any flimsy excuse can be used to censor opinions, particularly political opinions, that the government of the day is uncomfortable with. Because at the end of the day, it's not alleged blasphemers and pornographers who suffer from Pakistani bans, but common people expressing their personal views, on Twitter, Facebook or on blogs, outside the more easily controlled corporate media.

Let me draw another analogy for our esteemed policy makers. If, on the street, someone were to go around particularly eavesdropping on conversations among random groups of people to check if anyone were using foul language so that he could berate them, or more closely, telling everyone to shut up because he had heard some people using foul language, we would consider such a person a lunatic. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the people at the Ministry of Information Technology have proved themselves to be, overzealous lunatics. It's about time bureaucrats realize that we cannot police the entire world and, more importantly, that there is no need to.

Yes, Television Was Sometimes Awful But Was Social Media Any Better?

Almost two years ago, I wrote this piece and this piece about reporting on the Air Blue aircraft crash in Islamabad. The tragic crash of Bhoja Air flight from Karachi to Islamabad yesterday and its attendant coverage has compelled me to sit at my keyboard yet again. But whereas my initial disgust with some of the reporting on television was the initial motivation for writing a few words, the subsequent speculation and shoot-everything-in-sight diatribes on social media deserve an equal evaluation.

Bhoja Air crash (Photos via Dawn)

More on the latter later in the post, however. First, let's look at where television coverage went right and where wrong (contrary to the outrage being expressed on social media, all of it was not dire). Generally, most channels did NOT show bodies or limbs. I flipped through most of the major channels during the initial coverage, once reporters and cameramen had reached the site of the crash, and none of them were deliberately showing gore. I have heard that Samaa breached this agreed upon rule during its coverage (I did not personally see it) and, if so, viewers should definitely haul them up for it. Generally, however, good sense dictated the on-site footage, with some minor slip-ups that occurred because of the live nature of the coverage but which were corrected immediately.

Most channels did go over the top in the intrusive way they covered the grieving families and friends of those who had lost their lives in the crash, with one channel's reporter even shoving a mike in the face of a wailing relative and most running footage of distraught people in a loop. This kind of insensitive and senseless reportage (what exactly is a grieving relative going to say that will add to the sum of our knowledge?) needs to be checked and the privacy and dignity of those affected by a tragic event needs to be respected by the media. Ditto for the silly and offensive animations that we have objected to earlier as well that are based on pure speculation (one had a plane nose-diving while ARY even ran a clip from a Hollywood film!)  and only serve to mislead viewers and perhaps cause agony for those affected.

However, those on social media who were of the opinion that there should be absolutely no coverage of those affected and that no such intrusion occurs anywhere else in the world are living in some sort of make-believe world. I'm sorry but, to a certain extent, this is the nature of the medium that television is, it gravitates towards dramatic visuals and I have personally seen Western reporters be equally insensitive and intrusive as well as plenty of footage on Western channels that covers grieving relatives. Instead of talking about having channels shut down over their coverage (on what basis one is still not quite sure) or hauled up and fined, it would be far more productive to build consensus on where the ethical line actually is. A good point to start, as someone pointed out, is for channels and reporters to put themselves in the shoes of those grieving. If one of their own family members had suffered such a tragedy, would they want their and their family's grief to be broadcast in close-up and in a loop to the whole world? Would they want to be asked what they are feeling? Pressure should be built on channel heads and news editors to sit down together - as they did in the case of coverage of people killed - and work out a framework of guidelines on how grief is to be shown, also keeping in mind that overly dramatic scenes of grief are not healthy viewing particularly for children who sometimes can catch them inadvertently.

Where most channels really slipped up, however, in my opinion, was, as in the case of the Air Blue crash, in their knowledge of basic scientific principles and facts and in their propensity to conjecture for no worthwhile reason or on the basis of any real facts. Thus two channels, including Dunya, initially kept insisting that the plane was a Russian aircraft (ostensibly implying poor quality construction) even while others had already pointed that it was an American Boeing. One channel, Express, initially announced that a military helicopter had gone down with soldiers on board (before reversing their 'breaking news') and ARY ran a lengthy clip of a local on site who claimed that the crash was probably caused by aerial firing 'as he had always feared and filed a court petition about'. Other 'eye-witnesses' variously claimed the plane had split up in the air or had been struck by lightning or that its engine was on fire. In most cases, the problem with unsubstantiated stories finding their way on to television news has to do with the 'breaking news' disease, the desire to be the first with the 'news' as part of ratings wars. But news editors should also know by now that 'eye-witness' accounts in such cases are notoriously contradictory and should at least be moderated by an editorial narrative. Wild claims such as that of aerial firing by the conjecturing 'eye-witness' only add to viewers' confusion and really should not be part of the narrative in the first place. I suppose when anchors have seemingly never even heard the term 'cloudburst', they latch on to whatever is easiest for them to grasp, whether it is relevant or not.

Incidentally, as pointed out by a journalist who emailed us, every channel also got one fact completely wrong: that this was Bhoja Air's 'inaugural' flight from Karachi to Islamabad. He pointed out that a friend of his had flown Bhoja on the same route three days earlier. However this wrong bit of information was apparently traced to Bhoja Air's own website. I have no idea why Bhoja would claim this was an inaugural flight when it was not. One suggestion was that, perhaps this was the first afternoon flight on the route while the earlier flights were morning flights. Even in that case, the term 'inaugural' is a bit of an exaggeration.

Of course the default position of all channels is to try and find scapegoats. Everyone knew that the weather had suddenly taken a turn for the worst and freak acts of nature have in the past brought down planes in other places in the world - in fact, pilots who landed in Islamabad just a few minutes earlier confirmed that the weather had suddenly become very dangerous - yet most channels chose to attack the age of the aircraft, the skill of the pilot, the company's chequered history (it ceased operations in 2001 and only started up again a month and a half ago), Civil Aviation Authority's procedures and bizarrely even the government (in the case of Samaa). Geo's anchor, meanwhile, actually asked an astonished aviation expert if, 'had the pilot been more skilled, he could have brought the plane down low enough in the air for the passengers to jump out'. Really Junaid? Have you never travelled in a plane??!

The point is not that one or more of these factors could not have played a part in the tragedy. But that they were discussed ignoring the fact that even with the best and youngest of aircraft, the most skillful of pilots and the best of professional environments, accidents can and do happen with freak forces of nature. What purpose exactly is served, aside from filling up airtime space, from making conjectures whose actual answers will not be known until a proper inquiry is held? Or is creating pointless agitation among the public at large the job of news media? A debilitating lightning strike or devastating wind shear (as is now being discussed) could have solely been responsible without any of the factors being discussed coming into play.

Which brings me to the speculation that swamped Twitter and Facebook right after the crash. Truth be told, it was no better than the conjecture of the television anchors. One common refrain was the age of the aircraft that went down (more than 27 years according to this report in Dawn quoting AviationSafety.net), as if no old planes ever fly anywhere else in the world. In fact, as this answer points out, the average age of DC-9 aircraft operated by the US carrier NorthWest Airlines in 2005 was 34 years old! And that theoretically, depending on regular checks and maintenance, planes can continue to fly forever. (Here's some more info on life spans of aircraft in case you're interested.) In fact, the main reason fleets are replaced is because newer aircraft are more fuel efficient (but fleet replacement, as was blithely being suggested by certain people, obviously requires a lot of investment capital). Once again, the point is not that the age of the aircraft could definitely not have played a part in the tragedy. Only that picking on this one factor without any proof of it being a factor is as absurd as anything the channels were doing.

The other great target of social media activists seemed to be, as is always the case, Geo. I am hardly a defender of Geo's excesses, but as someone who watched most main channels' coverage of the incident, I can tell you that Geo was far more restrained than some of the others. By far the worst in terms of absolute absurdity were Express and ARY, mainly because there seemed to be no sensible editorial control and a surfeit of banal posturing from their reporters. As an example, in one segment on Express, the reporter held up a burnt out fire extinguisher because the anchor goaded him to get in amongst the debris and then spouted this gem: 'This cylinder is a fire extinguisher, used to extinguish fires, but when the plane caught fire, even this was no use.' He then went on to pick up another piece of debris, adding 'This used to be a part of the plane but after its destruction, it is no longer a part of the plane.'

So please, hold Geo's feet to the fire by all means, but let's not lose sight of the wood for the trees.

Then, Of Course, There's Twitter

More than one commentator has ascribed the relative dearth of recent posts on this blog to our having taken the easy way out (as others before us) and our expending too much energy on Twitter. And you know what, they may not be completely incorrect. It is, of course, far easier to write pithy sentences of 140 characters rather than thought out essays - even rants - and there is more immediate feedback. Sometimes even a conversation. (And yes, I do remember our initial expression of disdain for it.) It isn't the only reason (as I've tried to explain before) but it could be one reason.

So I thought what better way to ease back into blogging after a longish hiatus by having a post about that infernal sinkhole of time and energy, Twitter, which as we all know now even has the Chairman of the Pakistan Peoples Party, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, in its clutches. And what better way to really make it easy by having someone else do all the writing and my being simply the medium pointing you in the right direction. Hope you enjoy the following collection from that wonderful chronicler of workplace absurdities, Dilbert by Scott Adams. Never were truer words spoken about the Tweeting phenomenon...


Twitter 1 or Why Some People Tweet:

Twitter 2 or How To Distract Rehman Malik:

Twitter 3 or The Compulsive Tweeters (Marvi Memon Fan Group):

And then there's this kind of workplace (Jang Group Version):

At some point I'd also love to do a post about those who think they're leading some sort of guerrilla mobilization on Twitter. It is, truly, a sight to behold. When they shout (in CAPS of course) that the Revolution (all 140 characters of it) is not far off, all you can do is nod in agreement and add:

Convergence

So, this is merely an administrative type post. Trust us.

Thanks to the millions of people... ok, thousands of people... ok, two or three anonymous commenters on the blog who wondered why Cafe Pyala's posts were not shared more widely on Facebook, we've finally created a page for ourselves on that darned social networking site. We don't really think it will make much difference - people share what they share - but at least next time someone asks us that question, we can throw this in their face. (The things we do to go one up on our readers.) Incidentally, not sure if you guys noticed or not but there's been a sharing hotlink to Facebook and a couple of other sites below each post for some time now.

In any case, if you're on Facebook, you can look us up on our Official Facebook Page. We're listed as, believe it or not, Cafe Pyala.

But actually what is kind of exciting about the Facebook page, purely from a tech point of view, is that it aggregates not only our blog posts but also our Twitter feed (@cpyala, yeah, we've kind of got used to that infernal thing too, though if truth be told it makes us waste even more time than we already did). We believe this is known as 'convergence' in techspeak. Not sure if it will make a darned bit of difference to us but it sounds cool.

So, if you're one of those people who find it a gargantuan task to open a new tab/window on your browser and actually mosey over to our blog because you're too busy checking out who's becoming friends with whom in your news feed, we've made things easier for you. You can stalk us equally easily as your crush from school.

So that's it. We're on Twitter and Facebook as well now. Told you this was nothing but administrative crap. You can go back to your bunkers now.

Did Jemima Let The Cat Out?

Hmmmm. Please have a look at what Jemima Khan recently Tweet-ed (thanks to emailer MissingRomance who alerted us to it):

"I now travel with 3 ipods in place of children- my two boys and my teenage stepdaughter en route to Spain for a week."

7:28 PM Aug 3rd via UberTwitter

Could the "teenage stepdaughter" be anyone other than Tyrian Jade, Imran Khan's always-denied child with the recently deceased Sita White? Unless, of course, there's something about Jemima's past we are not aware of.

Interesting that while politician Imran Khan continues to deny fathering any children other than his two sons with Jemima, his ex-wife seems to be a better human being than him.

Just to clarify things for those who are sure to go into paroxysms of morality about this, personally I don't think it is anyone's business if Imran Khan does have a child from outside marriage. But if he does and has been denying this only out of political hypocrisy (mainly because he positions himself as the irreproachable flag-bearer of Islam), then it does become other people's business.

Hmmmm. Perhaps Imran can leave the matter up to the tribal jirga system to adjudicate.



::: UPDATE 1:::

Reader Nadir Hassan has pointed me towards this link of the news of Imran Khan announcing that he and Jemima had, on the request of Sita White before her death, taken Tyrian Jade into their guardianship. Of course, it still doesn't explain why a guardian would call her charge, her step-daughter. But there you go.


::: UPDATE 2 :::

Now another reader Shahid Saeed points out that Imran had denied even becoming Tyrian's guardian to Daily Times' former Washington correspondent Khalid Hasan. Oh boy. This story is more tortuous than Imran Khan's political convictions. Point remains however that Jemima referred to a hitherto unacknowledged step-daughter.

Cafe Pyala on Twitter, Kinda

So, we've been trying out this Twitter thingumyjig for a few weeks now and have not really warmed up to it. Perhaps it's because it's the cyber equivalent of the shallow television soundbyte. I mean, what can you really say in 140 characters besides irreverent quips or promos? Even Facebook status updates have more depth. Perhaps it's the overdose of immediate tweets from certain people who believe in putting everything they are doing, reading or thinking up for public consumption that makes us cringe. Perhaps it's seeing good bloggers get so caught up in the delusion that tweeting lines is as good as posting a nicely written bit of prose that makes us wary. Then again, maybe we just haven't got the hang of it yet.

In any case, after some careful consideration, for the record, we have decided to share the fact that we are also nominally on Twitter, with all of you guys and gals. You can follow us, not follow us, we don't really care. And if you do decide to follow us, know that we do not guarantee a great time. As I said, we haven't really warmed up to the technology or the philosophy. We may yet, if you can convince us. But don't come shouting at us if we don't.

For those still not put off, our Twitter ID is cpyala. Believe it or not 'cafepyala' was already taken by some Americans selling biryani and paneer tikka masala for $5 and $6. The lengths some people go to!

Schadenfreude

I know one should not gloat over the misfortunes of others but in two developing stories the irony is so incredibly intense that one cannot but help feeling some level of poetic justice has been served. Kind of.

The first story, of course, relates to Slimebag Lalit Modi, the Chairman and Commissioner of the cricketing Indian Premier League (IPL) who, at least until now, seemed to have a smug expression pasted permanently to his face and went round boasting nothing could touch him. And well he might have, given that his personal fortunes have risen as exponentially as the fortunes of the IPL. In three years of the IPL, Modi last year became one of the highest tax payers - if not the highest - in India. According to a report in The News yesterday:

"Modi’s fortunes are intrinsically linked with the IPL. In 2007, he made an an advance tax payment of Rs 19 lakh. In 2008, when the first edition of the IPL was launched, the advance tax shot up to Rs 2.5 crore. In 2009, when the IPL was shifted to South Africa, Modi paid Rs 32 lakh as advance tax and in 2010, the advance tax component has gone up to Rs 11 crore."

Of course, Modi's good fortunes are not what one begrudges him - and he has obviously worked hard to pull off the IPL as a world-class entertainment tournament no matter what one thinks of its cricketing worth. I don't even care that much about his previous criminal convictions for cocaine abuse, assault with a deadly weapon and kidnapping. No, it's just his persona that really rubs me (and dare I say, a lot of other people) up the wrong way. And by that I mean his mealy-mouthed platitudes and his obvious nouveau bravado. And what a fall from grace! From uncrowned king of India, he is now accused of corruption, allegedly having retained "silent stakes" in three of the IPL teams, allegedly being involved in match-fixing and betting as well as having made questionable business deals involving his relatives. He is likely to be removed as IPL Commissioner in the coming week because everyone seems to have turned against him.

Lalit Modi: smug no more (source: Getty Images)

As Indian columnist Aakar Patel writes in the Express Tribune, (referencing Modi's Twitter expose of Junior Foreign Minister Shashi Tharoor's alleged under-the-table stakes, which began the whole saga):

"The board dislikes Modi because he is flamboyant. He set up his office in the Four Seasons, Bombay’s most expensive hotel. He is driven around in a BMW, and is often seen signing autographs. He has made the official channel (Sony) cower, and they make reference to him in every match. Such hubris rarely escapes punishment, and it looks like it will come to Modi. This is a shame because, despite his stupidity and nepotism, he remains an organiser of world class ability. No Indian has been able to put together a tournament of this quality, much less in such a short time. He could have continued his success for years, but Modi needlessly exposed himself in his war with Tharoor. Why did he want Tharoor out? Because he wanted no politicians to share in the IPL’s cash."

But more than Modi's personal woes, what is perhaps more satisfying is to see  the IPL venture itself come under some long-needed scrutiny. The Indian politicians who have dubbed it a "Corruption Premier League" may have their own axes to grind. But had such a venture taken place in Sharjah, Dubai or anywhere in Pakistan, you can be sure that the cries of it being a hub of illegal betting syndicates and match-fixing touts would have gained ground long ago. After all, the T20 format itself seems tailor-made for such involvement. Pakistan's cricketers should be thanking their lucky stars they were forced out of the IPL this time round.


The second story that has had me smacking my head at its unbelievable irony has to do with the abduction in Waziristan by militants and holding for ransom of the infamous Brigadier (retd) Amir Sultan Tarrar aka 'Colonel Imam' and Squadron Leader (retd) Khalid Khwaja. Both of these gentlemen, it may be recalled, are (officially former) ISI officers, who have long been unequivocal in their support of the Taliban.

'Colonel Imam': shepherding the righteous Taliban (source: Dawn)

'Colonel Imam' is considered one of the chief military advisers to the Afghan Taliban during Pakistan's days of direct support to the militia. He recently surfaced once again on the electronic media, espousing his support for the "God-fearing" Taliban. Khwaja's actual brief is far murkier - some journalists claim he is a loon - though he recently came to the limelight with his championing in courts of the alleged jihadists 'disappeared' ostensibly by the state's intel agencies post 9/11. He has also been in the forefront of fighting the Aafia Siddiqui case in Pakistan's courts.

Khalid Khwaja: human rights activist or loony double agent?

According to reports, the two were accompanying a British-Pakistani filmmaker Asad Qureshi out to make a documentary on the Taliban and Al Qaeda, who is also missing. Militants calling themselves Asian Tigers (truly non-Taliban nomenclature if ever there was one) have released videos of the captured former officers and Qureshi, and have threatened to kill the three (beginning with Qureshi) unless certain big-name Taliban commanders recently arrested were not released and a US$10 million ransom not paid by the UK government.

Of course, this is not a situation anyone could ever be happy about, no matter what the irony of seeing Imam and Khwaja in militant custody. And there are also some big questions unanswered: such as, who are the Asian Tigers? (In fact, Khwaja's wife has claimed that it is the CIA that has picked up her husband and the others, a claim rubbished by the US).

I have to admit, however, that knowing the shady backgrounds of both Colonel Imam and Khwaja, I am not entirely convinced of this story. Or if you will, there seems to be too much irony in it for it to ring true. I hope my gut instinct is not completely off the mark.

Whose Fans Are Stupider?

I'm sorry about today's glut of sillyness but it's just been that kind of day. In any case, this really made me laugh out loud and so I wanted to share it with you all.

First, I came across this random story on CNN, about a new application that pits two Twitter feeds against each other and, based on a statistical analysis, tells you whose 'fans' are stupider. According to the application's developer, Tom Scott:

"It estimates based on several stupid indicators. Are they using twenty exclamation marks in a row? Do they endlessly use the abbreviation 'OMG'? Do they seem incapable of working out where their Shift key is? These indicators have a strong correlation with the message, and its sender, being stupid."

Imran Khan twittering to Jemima Khan in days gone by

So, of course, I had to try it and, of course, the first Twits Twitterers I pit against each other were Jemima Khan (JemKhan) and Imran Khan (ImranKhanPTI). All I can say is, this shit really works!

Here's the result. Go to town with it.

Tweet of the Day

...Comes to us from Jemima Khan on March 24th...

" Imran to my father, May 1995. "May I have your daughter's hand?" My father's reply- "Why? Has she been shoplifting?" "

The father and daughter certainly have / had a better sense of humour than the ex.



: : : UPDATE : : :

Thanks to Rafay Alam, who first pointed this out, and Ali K. for digging it up, we discover that Jemima may have been playing a bit loose with history. This is the cover of Private Eye, the celebrated British humour magazine, dated 19 May 1995:

I guess the question that arises is, did Private Eye simply record and replay Sir James Goldsmith's witticism or was Jemima using the Private Eye joke to make daddy look more witty?