A Challenge To Tut-Tut

So here's the deal Syed Tut-Tut Hussain. I might have simply ignored your live interview on CityFM 89 tonight (which I happened to catch completely coincidentally) with its mealy-mouthed self promotional bits ('I could never have been in the armed forces because I hate hierarchy and checkposts...but I am the only civilian to have flown in an F-16'). I might even have let go without a comment the fact that the interviewer, Wasim (or whatever his name really is) Wes Malik, actually referred to you as "the great Talat Hussain." After all, can't really hold it against a radio presenter and a FM channel for trying to do a promo for an employee of the parent company (Dawn Media Group). Yes, I might have disregarded it all, had you displayed even a wee bit of contrition or even embarrassment when a questioner asked you about that Jolie article.

Honest?

But see, when you blithely claimed that the entire controversy was caused "by the [incorrect] translation" of your article by people "unaware of the nuances of Urdu" ["Jin ko Urdu zabaan ke asloob se nashanasayi hai"], you really got my goat. Now Wes Malik may have found that line completely incomprehensible (he went "What???") but some of us do know a little bit of Urdu and the flowery language Urdu columnists sometimes employ. And in particular, what galled me (incidentally, saying something "gets my gall", as you said about checkposts, is incorrect usage of the term) was that I had gone out of my way to stay true to your meaning and awkward style. I could have cherry picked the quotes but decided to be fair and translate the entire piece and it took me a bloody long time. Neki kar, dariya mein daal.


So I'd like to throw you a challenge. Point out, or get anyone to point out, where in my English translation I deviated from the original sense and style of your Urdu piece and I will willingly tender you an apology.

You also went on to say in your radio interview that 1) you could never think of dissing Angelina Jolie and that you actually quite like her as an actress (Mr and Mrs Smith being your idea of 'good acting') and 2) that you were in fact praising her for being brave enough to tell off the Pakistan government for its obsession with protocol etc during the humanitarian disaster of the floods.

Since Wes either had no clue or was too polite to say anything about those two statements, let me remind you with respect to 1) what you actually wrote about what you thought of her acting:

"This 36-year-old woman has suffered all those misfortunes about which her fans (I am not one of them) are all praise [sic]… Because her looks were average, she couldn’t make much of a mark in acting."

With respect to 2), it boggles the mind that you continue to spread this canard when the UN itself has subsequently denied anything of the sort - as originally only reported by The Khaleej Times - ever happened. Here's Newsweek Pakistan from its November 1 issue:

"Claims that Jolie, who came to Pakistan in September on a two-day tour of flood-hit areas as UNHCR's goodwill ambassador, had complained to the U.N. agency about Gilani are "baseless and inaccurate," UNHCR spokesperson Arianne Rummery told Newsweek Pakistan. Jolie has not filed any report on Pakistan yet, she added."

For those who think - as some did last time - this has anything to do with 'defending' Jolie, it doesn't. I'm just sick and tired of people (particularly journos) twisting facts to bolster their ideological arguments. And I'm especially irritated by Janus-faced hypocrites, you know, the sort that Tut-Tut decries on his programmes and in his writings all the time.

Oh, and Talat, that on-air rant about the "dark side of the blogosphere", where people come at "conservative journalists" like you like "snipers", and the need to "control and moderate... some of the stuff being written about our anchors" (" I won't say censorship but...")... Pure genius.

Weirdo Diplomacy

Five Rupees recently had a post about how Diplomacy Is Weird, basically because diplomatic double-speak is the engine international relations thrives on.

You want really weird diplomacy? How about this from Peter Galbraith, who used to be No. 2 in the UN mission in Kabul and was fired after accusing Afghan President Hamid Karzai of widespread fraud during the last presidential elections:

“I don’t know how to put it diplomatically, so I guess I won’t — Karzai is a weirdo,” Galbraith said.

I may be wrong but I'm fairly sure this is the first time the word 'weirdo' has been used publicly in international strategic analysis.

Hamid Karzai: High Official? (Source: AP)

Galbraith, has earlier accused Karzai of smoking hash, which he feels is why the Afghan president tends to fly off the handle and make erratic statements. To be fair to him (Peter, that is), who wouldn't think that if the man most regard as the West's puppet in Afghanistan, able to survive only because of round-the-clock security provided by American commandos, were to suddenly threaten to join the Taliban?

Great. So now we have to contend with a hostile and high, weirdo puppet! But it does explain why Pakistan always referred to him as the "'tokin' Pakhtun" in the Northern Alliance government.

And Now What?

Just finished watching the media presentation by the UN Commission investigating Benazir Bhutto's assassination. While we will have to wait to hear the details of the full report and assess them, my overwhelming feeling about the summary presented by the head of the commission was:

This is what we paid US$20 million for???

Basically, what the Chilean ambassador who headed the commission said was that the commission was "disturbed" by things all of us already knew and were disturbed by - the ineffective security provided to Benazir in the face of credible threats to her life, and the farcical investigation into the causes and the masterminds behind her death.

It basically details all those things people have been talking about for the last two years - why was there no proper security plan, why was a crowd allowed to gather around her vehicle as she exited Liaquat Bagh, why was she allowed to stand up out of her bulletproof car, why was her backup vehicle not where it should have been to rush her to hospital, why was no autopsy performed on her, why was the crime site hosed down within two hours resulting in a loss of forensic evidence etc - without giving any conclusions about them. The only thing that seems new is that the report, apparently, dismisses the rumours that Benazir died from gunshot wounds or that Zardari was somehow involved.

Meanwhile, Geo took it upon itself to ascribe blame, which the report apparently has not, and continued to run with a Breaking News Alert that the report had held the Musharraf government responsible for Benazir's death. "Benazir Bhutto Ki Maut Ki Zimmedaar Musharraf Hakoomat Hai - UN Report" (Musharraf Government Responsible for Benazir Bhutto's Death - UN Report). This it began doing even before the presentation, basing its claims on a misunderstanding of what its own correspondent at the UN was reading out in English - within a minute of receiving a copy of the report - from the rather substantial report.

From what I was able to gather from the presentation, the report actually blames the Musharraf government (as well as the PPP - which in this case means Rehman Malik who was in charge of Benazir's security from the PPP side) for not ensuring the security of Benazir and for not conducting a proper investigation afterwards. It leaves all inferences about these things up to the readers.

That is vastly different from Geo's claims that the Musharraf government directly caused her death, which is what most people reading the alert will understand from it. Grossly irresponsible.

More later.