<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" version="2.0"><channel>
                        <title>The Express Tribune</title>
                        <atom:link href="https://tribune.com.pk/feed/mayakhan" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
                        <link>https://tribune.com.pk/feed/mayakhan</link>
                        <description>The Express Tribune keeps you up to date with all the latest happenings from Pakistan and across the world!</description>
                        <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jun 26 03:28:40 +0500</lastBuildDate>
                        <language>en-US</language>
                        <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
                        <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
                        <generator>https://laravel.com/</generator><item>
			<title>Get ready for mornings with Maya Khan</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/529136/get-ready-for-mornings-with-maya-khan</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/529136/get-ready-for-mornings-with-maya-khan#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 31 Mar 13 16:20:27 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[saadia.qamar]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category><category><![CDATA[Life &amp; Style]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=529136</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The anchor is now hosting a new show on Express.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Meeting Maya Khan in person makes one realise that she has two prominent traits — she is very emotional and quite talkative. She admits the former quality was passed down to her from her mother, while she owes the latter to her genes as well as her participation in the debating squad back in her school days.

Maya comes from a family of journalists and lawyers, so the art of chatter pretty much runs in the family. In her years as a talk show host and a VJ, she has never been not scared to take risks. She is now ready to host a morning show, The Maya Khan Show, on Express News and says it will be an “Aam aadmi ka aam show [a regular show for the common man]”.

“I won’t claim to offer something new, something that hasn’t been done before, but it will be a people-focused show,” says Maya. “It will be about whoever is watching it,” She says she is back with this endeavour to prove herself to the world. “Life is about 3 Ds — deliver, deserve and then demand,” she says, adding that she would also love to do bhangra to make it a “full of life” show.

The Maya Khan Show will run on Express News in the morning hour April 1 onwards. Those who miss it can later tune into Express’ entertainment channel at chai time.

Looking back

Her career began when she was only four years old, as she took up her first television project. Her two years in the industry started with voice-overs for commercials and moved on to hosting a quiz show called Bujhiye in 1994 for PTV when she was only 10 years old.

From RJ to being a VJ, she gradually paved space for herself in the world of entertainment; she also hosted shows for other private channels. “Call it my weakness or my strength, but I just care too much for people — I don’t care how I look, all I care about is how they relate to me and I, to them,” she says, claiming that she is the first morning show host to have ever touched people’s lives by discussing social issues.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 1st, 2013.                       

Like Life &amp; Style on Facebook for the latest in fashion, gossip and entertainment.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Life after Hinduism: ‘Had my mother been alive, I would have never converted’</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/447693/life-after-hinduism-%e2%80%98had-my-mother-been-alive-i-would-have-never-converted%e2%80%99</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/447693/life-after-hinduism-%e2%80%98had-my-mother-been-alive-i-would-have-never-converted%e2%80%99#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 06 Oct 12 02:13:23 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[rabia.ali]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=447693</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[For Hindu boy from troubled home, Islam beckoned with a sense of family.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[For the Hindu boy, whose conversion to Islam was beamed into millions of homes across Pakistan, leading to the talk show host’s downfall and an international controversy, the motivation was more secular than initially thought.


“I wanted to escape from the atmosphere at home,” said Abdullah while talking with The Express Tribune two months after the scandal. “I never wanted to come on the media.” He consoles himself by reasoning that people would have found out eventually - the television show just made it easier.

Twenty-three-year-old Sunil’s decision to become Abdullah is strongly linked to a troubled home. His mother passed away five years ago and his father was unable to take care of his three brothers. Fighting erupted every day in the Ranchore Line house. “Because of my mother, the house was united,” he explains. “Had my mother been alive, I would have never converted. I wouldn’t have done it in front of her.”

It was at the Sarim Burney Welfare Trust that Sunil found a sense of belonging with the Muslim staff. In order to get away from the misery at home, he even moved in to one of their shelters three years ago. But the young man still felt lost and left out when Ramzan rolled around each year. Eventually, despite his own upbringing, he decided to join to fast during the last two Ramzans.

In July, he felt it was time to convert. “I have been thinking for a long time,” he said, adding that while there were quite a few people who put on the pressure, he did it when he felt he wanted to. He did not, however, inform his family who learnt of the news when they saw him on the Maya Khan show, dressed in a new shalwar kameez and obeying the cleric. “My family and relatives were outraged. They wanted the channel to be blocked, the show to be stopped. They asked me, ‘Why did you do it live?’”

Now that the furor has subsided, what has life been like since then? Abdullah visits his family once in two weeks - but as they are Hindu, he refuses to eat or drink anything in his own house. There is an element of confusion, however, as evidenced by his keenness to appear democratic in the face of beliefs that veer on the radical. “Changing their religion is every person’s right,” he stresses. “There was nothing wrong with my previous religion. I believe that every religion is the same, only the way of praying is different.”

His voice quivers, however, as he mentions Raksha Bandhan and other festivals. “It is a sister’s right to tie a red thread around her brother,” he says. “But I missed out on the festival because I converted.” And then, looking down at the floor, he says, “I won’t go any more.”

Abdullah is not the only one adjusting to this new reality. His 15-year-old younger brother Rohit misses him at home but is happy at least he can see him at work. “We felt so weird when bhaiya wasn’t there at our festival,” he said. “I won’t convert. But I have accepted him as a Muslim.”

Ironically, while Sunil was drawn to Islam in his instinct to replace a broken family, his conversion split another: a rift developed between the social activist Burney brothers, Ansar and Sarim, with Ansar condemning the conversion and Sarim defending it.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 6th, 2012.

&nbsp;]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Maya Khan show: Burney brothers split over Hindu boy’s televised conversion</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/414400/maya-khan-show-burney-brothers-split-over-hindu-boy%e2%80%99s-televised-conversion</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/414400/maya-khan-show-burney-brothers-split-over-hindu-boy%e2%80%99s-televised-conversion#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jul 12 19:52:48 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[rabia.ali]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category><category><![CDATA[Sindh]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=414400</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Ansar and Sarim have also fought over running the trust.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The conversion to Islam of a Hindu boy working with the Ansar Burney Trust has split the Burney brothers with one defending it and the other calling it a ‘drama’.


On Wednesday, chat show host Maya Khan opened the doors to another controversy by televising live Sunil’s conversion in the prime-time Ramazan slot.

Sunil works at the Ansar Burney Trust, a human rights organisation whose chairman, Ansar, was recently in the headlines for the case of the Pakistani sailors taken hostage by Somali pirates.

Ansar skewered the conversion, called it a ‘drama’, and announced that he would sue Maya Khan. He publicly lashed out at his younger brother Sarim on Twitter, saying that he had dismissed Sarim three months ago from the trust on corruption charges.

“If we [want] to save our country, we shall have to fight against corruption, and I started it from my own office at Karachi,” said Ansar tweeting about his brother Sarim. Talking to the Indian media, Ansar said that “[Sunil] was offered incentives, and though keen, he had no idea as to what was happening.”

Sarim was the vice chairman at the Ansar Burney Trust, which was started in 1980 as the Prisoners Aid Society. He dismissed the corruption allegations, saying that Ansar had always handled the funds and the accounts. “Ansar should know about corruption as he was directly involved with the monetary affairs of the organisation,” Sarim told The Express Tribune. He maintained that he had separated their work for the past three months and formed his own trust, Sarim Burney Welfare Trust. “This did not please Ansar as he always wants to be in the limelight,” alleged Sarim.

Sarim maintained that Ansar had settled in London 22 years ago and he had been running the organisation and “keeping his name alive”. Today Sarim has removed the signboards with Ansar’s name, and replaced it with his own at their office in Arambagh.

Sarim backed the conversion. “I have seen the boy fast when he had not embraced Islam. He did it of his own free will. Being miles away, how can Ansar say that it was forced?” Sarim also claimed that Sunil worked for the Sarim Burney Welfare Trust and not the Ansar Burney Welfare Trust.

Ansar has served as the federal human rights minister, and the UN’s expert adviser on human rights. He is currently in London and could not be immediately reached for comment.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 29th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>The One Party State</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/414293/the-one-party-state</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/414293/the-one-party-state#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jul 12 17:39:56 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[saroop.ijaz]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=414293</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Imagine our reaction if a tv show in US, India or any place in world, Muslim Abdullah was converted to a Hindu Sunil?]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[T H White while narrating a scene from the lens of an ant describing an ant-hill writes in The Once and Future King, “The fortress was entered by tunnels in the rock, and over the entrance to each tunnel, there was a notice which said: EVERYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY.” I think that the statement on the notice read by the ant captures the essence of totalitarianism with more precision than any comparable phrase by George Orwell or Huxley. One cannot be sure if the drafters of the Ehteramul Ramazan Ordinance 1981 drew direct inspiration from the epitaph on the tunnel, yet the intention has an uncanny similarity.

Briefly the ordinance promulgated by Ziaul Haq prohibits eating, drinking and smoking in public places during the designated fasting hours while ordaining restaurants and hotels not to serve during the said time duration and violations punishable by imprisonment. To some, it would seem a completely rational law and also somewhat banal. Let me assure you that like most things done by Ziaul Haq this has nothing rational or harmless about it.  Many people find fasting a rather pleasant activity, for reasons either of spirituality or an opportunity for detoxification, etc and I find the devotion rather admirable. My problem only really begins when you not recommend but force me to undertake this noble endeavour. There is something about mandatory piety and to some extent medical well-being, which prompts thinking people to resist almost as an instinct.

Christopher Hitchens once wrote about the Christmas season saying that it is the dreary fact that official propaganda is inescapable, which turns the United States from a constitutionally governed country to the equivalent of a “One Party State”. ‘One Party State’ is a term that has an import beyond the holy month of Ramazan for us, however it is only in Ramazan that the true extent of the pervasiveness and influence of the parties of the believers is unavoidable. For one complete month a public relation campaign for the JIs and the JUIs is run uninterrupted on all channels free of charge. Heads are covered, beards grown and more and more Arabic salutations find their way on national television. Tedious as it is, there is nothing truly malicious about all of this except when the affected displays of piety to garner ratings clearly cross the line from being warm and fuzzy religious stuff into cold, nasty exhibitionist bullying.

I had the misfortune to view a video clip recently where a lady previously of the fame of wandering about in the moral wilderness of our public parks outdid herself with a new low. The clip displays her along with a clerical gentleman converting a Hindu Sunil to a Muslim Abdullah. The young boy in rehearsed although frazzled manner is making the transition into the folds of Islam. I have nothing against people changing religion from free will in a private affair, yet the message sent to an already beleaguered Hindu community is loud and visible — we do not like you as you are but will spare you if you cross over to the right path. There is everything cheap and pathetic about the display. One almost hopes that the mediocre pretentious woman tells us again in broken tones that the boy was a hired actor. She, with this display of cruel idiocy, has also upped the ante in the clerical racket in the television business, I fear, if the fake doctor is planning on a live execution of a non-Muslim to compete in the ratings now.

Imagine if you will that in a television programme in the United States, India or any place in the world, a Muslim Abdullah was converted to a Hindu Sunil. That would be as stupid as what Maya Khan did yet imagine our reaction. It would not have been merely silly, it would have a frontal assault, a grand conspiracy, it would have been an attack on Islam itself, jihad would have been the cry. Lahore and Karachi would have burned; Bar Councils would have announced strikes, Hindu and Christian places of worship all over the country would have been set ablaze, a dozen or so killed for good measure. Some cleric with extra cash would have announced a meaty reward for killing the newly converted, the host, their neighbours and their dogs, etc. This apparently is a one-way street, almost like the words of Hotel California, “you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave”. Before embarking on these expeditions of piousness, it is worth reflecting on the golden principle of antiquity, which dictates do unto others what you would have them do to you.

I can imagine the Hindus and other minority communities becoming edgy when someone like the impeccable Justice Rana Bhagwandas says that the Constitution makes non-Muslims “less-preferred citizens”. In fact, I will not be surprised if they do not merely become edgy but are in a state of outright frenzied panic. This comes from a gentleman who rose to become the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court; it is frightening to ponder about the feelings of ordinary non-Muslims. My Lord, Justice Bhagwandas uses very serene language as is his temperament in employing the term “less preferred” as opposed to  being outrightly discriminated and often-times hunted. No non-Muslim is allowed to become the president of the country as stipulated by the Constitution or even the prime minister as the oath requires affirming the basic tenets of Islam. So basically the coercive mechanism is already in place for nudging them or perhaps, more accurately shoving them to convert, without Maya Khan making more of a fool out of herself (if that is possible) on national television.

It has been said that personal faith is like some other things, it is very good to have one, quite natural to be proud of it, try not to make a public exhibition of it and whatever you do, don’t shove it down the throats of our children.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 29th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>A televised conversion</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/413851/a-televised-conversion</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/413851/a-televised-conversion#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 12 17:26:59 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[editorial]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Editorial]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=413851</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[It is impossible to demand more responsible media when our remotes automatically turn to bigots and sensationalists.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Ramazan is meant to be a month of modesty, empathy and quiet reflection; sadly, all being qualities that our media lacks. This year, television channels have heaped one indignity after the other on its viewers. The latest among these is the spectacle that is Maya Khan. This vigilante posing as a talk show host was able to land a cushy gig almost immediately after being fired from another TV channel and is now back to her old tricks. On her Ramazan programme, Ms Khan broadcast the conversion of a Hindu man to Islam live on television, an act that combined sensationalism with insensitivity.

Obviously, prima facie, there is nothing wrong with a Hindu converting to Islam. But in a country where Hindu girls have been known to be abducted, forcibly converted and married off to Muslim men, showing this conversion on television will serve only to embolden those who discriminate against minorities. Also, given that we live in a country where minorities can freely convert to Islam but Muslims are banned from converting to any other religion, television channels should show a bit more sensitivity to minority religions. The media should act as an agent of tolerance. Instead, it is pandering to the base instincts of the majority, all in the name of earning attention and notoriety and, most importantly, the advertising rupees that accompany them.

Easy as it is to heap all the blame on Ms Khan, her employers and advertisers, it is also important to look inwards. There is no way she would be able to get away with her antics if there wasn’t a public demand for this. The stark reality is that we have become a nation that is enamoured of all the rituals associated with religion but display none of the tolerance and humility that religion requires. If we want the likes of Ms Khan off the air, the way to do that is by switching the channel. It is impossible to demand a more responsible media when our remotes automatically turn to the bigots and sensationalists.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 28th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Live conversion on Maya Khan’s show stirs anger</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/413770/live-conversion-on-maya-khan%e2%80%99s-show-stirs-anger</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/413770/live-conversion-on-maya-khan%e2%80%99s-show-stirs-anger#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 12 10:10:25 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[afp]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=413770</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[20-year-old Sunil offici­ally change­d his religi­on to Islam under a cleric's guidan­ce on ARY show.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[A Hindu's conversion to Islam live on television during a prime-time Ramazan chat show has sparked criticism on behalf of religious minorities.

In just five minutes, the 20-year-old introduced as Sunil officially changed his religion under a cleric's guidance.

A packed studio audience congratulated him and shouted out suggestions for his new Muslim name before he was renamed Mohammad Abdullah - the consensus choice.

Abdullah insisted on Friday that he had been a willing convert.

"I have accepted Islam by my own will and my family has no objection," he told AFP by telephone from the Ansar Burney Welfare Trust, where a staff member said he has worked as their office boy for the last six years.

But the country has been criticised by rights groups for showing an increased lack of tolerance towards religious minorities, who complain of discrimination, and critics blasted the show, broadcast by ARY on Wednesday.

"The joy with which the conversion was greeted and the congratulations that followed sent a clear signal that other religions don't enjoy the same status in Pakistan as Islam does," wrote Dawn, on Friday.

"In a country where minorities are already treated as second-class citizens in many ways, this served to marginalise them even further," it said.

It was a second recent controversy for chat show host Maya Khan, who was this year sacked by Sama TV after chasing couples in a public park, accusing them of behaving immorally.

Ramesh Kumar, a leader of the Pakistan Hindu Council, told AFP that Wednesday's programme would encourage intolerance.

"We are already intimidated against. The government gives little heed to the kidnapping of Hindus and forced faith conversion of our girls. Please don't do things that make us more alienated," he told AFP.

Talat Hussain, who hosts a political show on DawnNews, also warned against turning religion into mass entertainment.

"Think about how Muslims would feel when Buddhists in Burma show similarly a Muslim being converted in a live TV show," he told AFP.

According to Pakistan government figures, Hindus make up 2.5% of the country's population of around 180 million.

Footage of the conversion begins at the 8:30 mark in the attached video.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Teary-eyed Maya Khan renders apology</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/342806/teary-eyed-maya-khan-renders-apology</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/342806/teary-eyed-maya-khan-renders-apology#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 12 04:49:17 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[news.desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=342806</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Says cast consisted of only paid actors.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[According to a visibly upset Maya Khan, all the people that she had questioned during her morning show’s infamous episode on dating couples were paid actors.


Speaking on the show Frontline, hosted by Kamran Shahid, Maya claimed that the entire episode was scripted. “The idea was to highlight the issue of ‘unethical activities’ that are taking place in our parks,” Maya said.

When questioned why she conducted such a programme, Maya defended herself, saying she had received numerous complaints from worried parents who were concerned about such ‘immoral activities’.

While criticising the media and civil society for ganging up against her, Maya said she was never given a chance to present her side of the story.

“What was the rest of the media trying to achieve by repeatedly airing clips of my show? Where were the media ethics when people showed my wedding pictures ... and did shows pointing fingers at my character?” Maya questioned.

Calling herself a popular morning show host, Maya asked, “Is there no difference between a sin and a mistake?”

“I have been under house arrest ever since the media outcry against my show started. I am abused through phone calls, text messages and via Facebook,” she complained.

Maya’s husband Waseem Molani, while speaking on the show via telephone, said that he had always advised Maya to move to the US, but she refused to do so because “she wanted to stay in Pakistan and help her people.”

Maya also invited two of the purportedly paid actors in her programme to the Frontline show. She further provided Shahid with a DVD with recorded statements from the female actors. However, these actors wore veils.

Frontline host Shahid accused her of misleading and “bluffing her audience” and asked her to render an unconditional apology to her viewers and the people of Pakistan. Maya said “leaving aside what I did was wrong or not, I ask for forgiveness from my fans: I am really, very, very sorry.”

Published in The Express Tribune, February 28th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Despite teary rebuttal, no unconditional apology from Maya Khan</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/342493/despite-teary-rebuttal-no-unconditional-apology-from-maya-khan</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/342493/despite-teary-rebuttal-no-unconditional-apology-from-maya-khan#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 12 17:01:39 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[ferya..ilyas]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=342493</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Ex TV host confesses incriminating show was scripted with paid actors.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Teary-eyed Maya Khan broke her silence.

According to her, all the people that she had questioned during her morning show’s infamous episode, were paid actors.

Speaking on the show Frontline, hosted by Kamran Shahid, Maya claimed that the entire episode was scripted. “The idea was to highlight the issue of 'unethical activities' that are taking places in our parks,” Maya said.

When questioned why she did such a programme, Maya defended herself, saying she had received numerous complaints from worried parents who were concerned about such “immoral activities” and expected her to do something about it.

While criticising the media and the civil society ganging up against her, Maya said that she was never given a chance to present her side of the story.

“What rest of the media was trying to achieve by repeatedly airing clips of my show? Where were media ethics when people showed my wedding pictures, my honeymoon pictures and did shows pointing fingers at my character?” Maya questioned.

Calling herself a popular morning show host, Maya asked whether, during her entire media career, she had not done anything good.

“Is there no difference between a sin and a mistake?” she asked further.

“I have been under house arrest since the media frenzy against my show started; I have been treated like a criminal. People are attacking me from all sides. I am abused through phone calls, text messages and through Facebook,” she complained.

Maya’s husband Waseem Molani, while speaking on the show via phone, said he was upset to see how people attacked his wife for invading people’s privacy by doing the very same thing to her.

“It was shameful that people criticised Maya by making her personal pictures public,” he said.

Molani added that he had always advised Maya to move to the US but she refused to do so because “she wanted to stay in Pakistan and help her people; she was always so devoted towards her country.”

Maya also invited two of the purportedly paid actors featured in her programme to the Frontline show. She further provided Shahid with a DVD with recorded statements from the female paid actors. However, these actors wore veils.

Frontline host Shahid accused her of misleading and "bluffing her audience" and asked her to render an unconditional apology to her viewers and the people of Pakistan. Maya said “leaving aside what I did was wrong or not, I ask for forgiveness from my fans; Iam really, very... very... sorry.”]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>After Maya Khan, CFRM to hold Pakistan media accountable</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/332333/after-maya-khan-cfrm-to-hold-pakistan-media-accountable</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/332333/after-maya-khan-cfrm-to-hold-pakistan-media-accountable#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 12 14:50:23 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[web.desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=332333</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Independent group of concerned citizens to serve as watchdogs over local media.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The public outcry and eventual firing of Samaa TV show host Maya Khan may have been a spontaneous event, but this episode has laid the ground works for future media accountability in the shape of the newly established Citizens for Free and Responsible Media (CFRM).

This independent group of concerned citizens not only gave shape to the public outburst against Maya Khan in the form of emails to Samaa TV Chairperson Zafar Siddiqi and an online petition signed by over 5,000 people, they also successfully held A-Plus TV accountable for their show Thori Si Bewafai , a show featuring (allegedly staged) vigilante-style raids on couples. As result of which, within a couple of hours of a petition having been put forward, the host of the show Shamoon Abbasi announced quitting the show. In a detailed message in response to the CFRM, Abbasi claimed to have quit the show as he personally disagreed with its format, and claimed he was only briefed on the show’s script upon reaching shoot locations.

In light of these cases, the CFRM released a press release on Saturday, stating:

“The degree of participation shown and encouragement by media consumers led us to come together under the umbrella of 'Citizens for Free and Responsible Media (CFRM), Pakistan'. We function as a non-hierarchal platform with decisions taken by consensus among the core group members, with inputs from media consumers who can now join us on our Facebook page. People can also point out media transgressions and give their inputs here, to do their bit to ‘reduce the social cost of silence’.”

The CFRM has already gained over 700 followers on their Facebook page, which features updates on possible media infringements and articles related to media ethics. According to the CFRM, the goal is “…not to get channels banned or to get TV hosts or journalists fired, but to encourage channels to evolve their own set of guidelines and code of ethics in conjunction with senior producers, journalists and concerned citizens, to ensure that privacy and human dignity are not violated. We urge them to make these guidelines public…We also urge them to incorporate a channel for media consumers to approach in case of complaint or redress, and appoint internal ombudsmen for this purpose. We also urge the industry to revise the current ratings system, and align the ‘quality of content’ with the ‘quantity of viewership.’”]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Moral policing and taxes</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/330950/moral-policing-and-taxes</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/330950/moral-policing-and-taxes#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 12 19:19:42 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[saad.shah]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=330950</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Streets of Pakistan are abound with informal, but highly effective moral policing, not just for women, but also men.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan has problems; big, big problems: problems of the existential sort. The sort that can only momentarily be forgotten by walking in a park with ones beloved, worldly troubles left outside its gates. Or can they? For a number of couples, a cool January morning in 2012 will go down in infamy as the day when an innocent or otherwise stroll in the park turned into a terror-mela. A Mongol-like horde of ‘vigil-aunties’ descended upon a bunch of confused kids, demanding information on their marital status and associated topics.

If there’s a perfect example of the genre ‘truly perverted comedy’, this was it. One can only watch and cringe with shame as the mob went about administering unasked-for justice to whichever hapless victim happened to come within their clutches. See, I don’t want to resort to clichéd retorts, so I won’t. But surely a topic such as the lack of parks in Karachi would have been more interesting? Or perhaps, lack of trees in the city? Instead, national TV fare in this case was reduced from pressing issues to moral Maya-carthyism.

The streets of Pakistan abound with informal, but highly effective moral policing, enforced by a snide comment here, a leery look there. And to those who think it applies only to women (well, it does mostly), think again. The amount of times I was told not to wear shorts! Not just any teeny tiny chaddi, but good ol’ respectable Bermuda shorts. And not only in some middle or lower income neighbourhood but smack in the middle, outside one of Karachi’s most elite schools.

The latter, a short saga (pun intended), began as I was applying for different schools after my O-levels. I showed up outside the gates ready to hand in the documents, nervous at the size of the crowd because that just meant more competition, only to be stopped by the gatekeeper. (Very politely) I was told that I could not enter the gates to hand in the forms, as my clothing was not appropriate.

Like some lady who shows up at a majority burka-posh event in a sleeveless kameez, I unconsciously tried to cover my nakedness. What a baptism on the boundaries of attire! Sleeveless in most countries is meant to denote the physical state of a dress. Pakistan is one of the few places where it used to signify the moral box one belongs to.

Are these all warning signs, portents of some bleak Talibanised future? Has medieval confessionalism and over-bidding of holiness insidiously weaved itself into the fabric of Pakistani psyche and society?

Firstly, unlike in the case of poor torn-to-shreds Afghanistan, we don’t have a scheming neighbour intent upon fulfilling military fantasies of strategic depth by letting loose highly reactionary proxy militias. The masters of our security establishment would — I hope — never tolerate the same medicine being administered on themselves.

Secondly, and more importantly, the Pakistani public in general, would themselves never tolerate it. Despite the variations, it is my strong belief that Pakistanis are inherently liberal. When was the last time religious parties won anything of significance anywhere? Yes, there was an MMA government in the NWFP but the MMA is now a thing of the past.

One should not begrudge the right of someone to be religious, or even show outward signs of it. Don’t the liberalised, secularised groups flaunt our credentials outwards and inwardly? I wouldn’t (and don’t!) appreciate any policing of my attire and legally-bounded behaviour. But there cannot be a hegemony of the narrative or morality. It seems that culturally diverse, Pakistanis have internalised a set of self-enforced boundaries.

We should extend our outrage not only to personal but also social issues. On our own, we also contribute a lot to what is wrong with Pakistani society, so why not look inwards? One example, that immediately comes to mind is: How about paying our fair share of taxes? If we did that a lot of our economic — and by consequence social — problems would be taken care of.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 3rd, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>The watchers must watch the watchers</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/330451/the-watchers-must-watch-the-watchers</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/330451/the-watchers-must-watch-the-watchers#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 12 18:17:34 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Jahanzaib Haque]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=330451</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[For too long, media groups have avoided, nay grossly neglected reporting on the media itself.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Much ado has been made of the firing of Samaa TV show host, Maya Khan, after her televised park raid. One of the key questions raised again and again, increasingly so by a momentarily introspective media, has been: who will watch the watcher? If journalists have turned to scum, or in the case of Maya Khan, if frolicking morning show hosts are not even aware of what they have done wrong in publicly harassing young couples, who will hold them accountable?

There is a simple answer to that. And no, it is not the duty of the public at large, though they too, as we have seen in Maya Khan’s case, have a role to play as well.

No dear journos and columnists, it is actually our duty and we have failed at it miserably.

For too long, media groups either from a misguided notion of journalism ethics or from a fear of entering a tit-for-tat war against each other have avoided, nay grossly neglected reporting on the media itself. While across the world we see ‘media reporting’ with specialised media reporters and full-fledged media desks, this very critical role of covering the very personalities, programmes and companies that make the news has yet to be taken up by any local news organisation.

Why this hesitancy? For some, it is outright ignorance of the fact that reporting on the media is news and plays as critical a function as reporting in any other field. Then, there is an old vanguard of local journalists and columnists who feel it is ‘not the done thing’ i.e., it is somehow a ‘low blow’ to report on a fellow sahafi and competitor. Lastly, and perhaps most critically, there are the media owners themselves, who discourage or would actively oppose such reporting as it would not only risk exposing their own dirty laundry and/or failures in the inevitable public exchange of information but it would also likely result in a new front of legal battles, notices and God forbid, a code of conduct for the media that would seriously restrict their current sab kuch chalta hai attitude to the news.

Suddenly, the media would be held accountable, by the media itself. It would be a form of public internal policing. Inevitably, media reporters and media critics would move on from the ‘tit-for-tat’ wars, pointing out illegalities in the actions of each other (which at this point would be hugely beneficial for all but the media owners), to critiquing all sorts of elements that make up the media. Do we have a plagiarism issue in local media? Yes we do and that would be exposed and eradicated. Do we have reporters that no longer report but just copy whatever they see and hear on other news channels? Yes we do, but with media desks monitoring and reporting on such instances, it would be exposed and this dangerous trend would be eliminated. Do we have terrible morning shows, which dish out content for an audience they assume are imbeciles? Yes, and that too could be reported on, discussed and exposed, resulting in better programming.

Unfortunately, most media folk and media owners are short-sighted to the point of blindness. They are stuck in an old world of old fears and prefer to stick to their rotten (and it is rotten) industry, making do with the status quo and making key decisions based on hunches and ‘good experience’ from their limited exposure of having worked in a media company or two.

That is why no local news channel or newspaper has a dedicated media desk, even though in media-obsessed Pakistan, it is completely logical that the public would lap up any reporting done on the very journalists, columnists and TV shows that dominate their lives. The answer has been staring us in the face for quite some time now: the watchers must watch the watchers and to spare this article from another cliche dominating local journalism, I will present the solution.

Mr/Mrs media owner, set up a media desk with two to three dedicated reporters and you will lead the pack, change history and help Pakistan a great deal. As a bonus, you will also make a lot of cash in the long-run.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 2nd, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>So who will watch the watchdog?</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/329857/so-who-will-watch-the-watchdog</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/329857/so-who-will-watch-the-watchdog#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 12 18:19:29 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[fahd.husain]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=329857</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Journalists have a wider responsibility to the citizenry at large to tell the truth.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[A pertinent question indeed at a time when anchors want to be known more for their wardrobe than for their library, and when hosts posing as journalists prance around parks demanding to see nikahnamas. The crisis that Pakistan’s broadcast journalism is going through is deeper than it appears and certainly not confined to one ratings-hungry anchor, or one revenue-thirsty channel.

At the heart of this crisis lies a fundamental question, which at one time or the other has been asked in almost all media markets across the world: “What is journalism for?”

Trust a pope to come up with an explanation. This is what John Paul II said in 2000: “With its vast and direct influence on public opinion, journalism cannot be guided by economic forces, profit, and special interest. It must instead be felt as a mission in a certain sense sacred, carried out in the knowledge that the powerful means of communication have been entrusted to you for the good of all.”

The operative part is the “good of all”. In essence then, journalists have a wider responsibility to the citizenry at large, a responsibility which hinges on them to uphold the sacred public trust by telling their readers/viewers the truth. Truth itself may be open to many philosophical interpretations, but in the context of journalism, it can simply mean protecting information from all external agendas and saying it as it is.

These agendas take many shapes and forms. Personal, political, and corporate, to name a few. The first two are usually not hard to detect, and neither are they hard to grapple with. Probably because mostly they come in shades of black or white. It’s the corporate agendas that pose the biggest challenge. And especially so in the Pakistani context. Here’s how: Pakistani channels are corporate entities, just like most channels in the private sector the world over. No issues here. Corporate entities exist to make profit. No issues here either. But here’s where a traditional corporate entity and a media organisation should begin to diverge.

This is exactly why in traditional newsrooms there exists a firewall between the editorial and marketing divisions. The corporate side of the media house has to look at the balance sheet, but expecting the journalist to do the same is not only unfair, it undercuts the very basis of journalistic principles. Proprietors who treat their media business like any other business end up falling into this trap, perhaps not realizing that a media house by its very nature has a social responsibility within a democratic polity which far outweighs consideration centred around dollars and cents. They fail to realise that journalists are not like employees of other companies because they have an obligation and a responsibility that overrides their employers’ immediate corporate interests.

By fulfilling this responsibility, journalists can accumulate a “trust capital”, or in other words, credibility. And credibility — if nurtured lovingly — ultimately translates into financial gain for the proprietor and his news organisation. After buying the Washington Post in 1933, Eugene Meyer laid down a principle which stated: “In pursuit of the truth, the newspaper shall be prepared to make sacrifices of its material fortunes, if such a course be necessary for the public good.”

Such an approach frees the journalist from the burdens of corporate pressures, and allows him to pursue professional excellence. This is what is expected from him. But to do this requires a deep understanding of the philosophy of journalism which is deeply woven into the fabric of a free and democratic society. What are the chances that the likes of Maya Khan know such a responsibility weighs down on their shoulders when they venture out with cameras and DSNGs? What are the chances that proprietors of media houses are aware of the sacred trust they have been bestowed upon when they get a license to start a news channel? And what are the chances that journalists working in the electronic media in Pakistan realise that their primary loyalty lies not with their corporate organisations, but with the average citizen of Pakistan.

This here is where the root cause of the media crisis lies. And to overcome it, we the media will need to do more than just fire an anchor who prances around in public parks demanding to see nikah namas.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 1st, 2012.

&nbsp;]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Bloggers vs thanedars</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/329396/bloggers-vs-thanedars</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/329396/bloggers-vs-thanedars#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 12 18:07:25 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[feisal.h.naqvi]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=329396</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Our argument was that it was Maya Khan’s burden to show basis on which she harassed people, not of those being hounded]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[As many people know, Maya Khan used to be employed by Samaa TV as the host of a show called “Subah Saveray Maya kay saath”. Last week, she and about 10-15 other women descended upon a park in Karachi, cameraman in tow, after which Ms Khan proceeded to first approach and then harangue ‘couples’, the term ‘couple’ being loosely interpreted as any woman either sitting or walking within five feet of an adult male.

Ms Khan’s theatrics set off a veritable firestorm in Pakistan’s burgeoning social media. A number of bloggers wrote furious letters to the world at large, five thousand people signed an online petition to Zafar Siddiqui, the Chief Executive of Samaa TV, and a series of very agitated columns appeared in the English media. In my own case, I was angry enough to offer my legal services for free to anyone desirous of challenging Ms Khan’s theatrics in court, an offer accepted first by Nighat Dad at Bytes for All, and then by other organisations.

But just as the final touches were being put on the petition, news arrived that Ms Khan’s employment with Samaa had been terminated. Given that Marvi Sirmed and some other brave spirits had also been agitating within Pemra for action, the issue was whether there was any point in proceeding. After some discussion, the general conclusion that — at least at this stage — there was little to be gained from flogging a dead horse.

Let me make it clear though that this issue is not forgotten. Our media explosion has so far not been accompanied with any real sense of limitation or propriety. In some ways, this is exhilarating. But in some ways, as shown by the Maya Khan episode, there needs to be some minimal sense of propriety, otherwise the media winds up becoming a tool for hypocrisy and bigotry.

From a legal perspective, there are also serious issues that need to be examined. Where, after all, does the right to privacy come from and is it indeed protected by our Constitution?

To begin with, there is no doubt that the Constitution recognises a fundamental right to privacy. In Presidential Reference No. 2 of 2005, PLD 2005 SC 873 a nine-member bench of the Supreme Court had declared the Hisba Bill passed by the NWFP Assembly as violative of the fundamental right of privacy enshrined in Article 9 (Right to Life) and Article 14 (Right to Dignity of Man).

The real questions that arose out of the Maya Khan episode were thus more complex. What are the contours of the right to privacy? And, how is that right to be balanced against the freedom of the press and Pakistan’s ostensible status as an Islamic country?

Our fundamental argument was based on Article 4 which says that every person has a right to be treated in accordance with law. The applicability of this norm to young couples loitering in a park may seem odd but we were trying to invoke the reverse aspect of Article 4, that is the right of every person to be left alone by others except to the extent authorised by law. In short, our argument was that it was Maya Khan’s burden to show the basis on which she was harassing people, not the burden of those being hounded out of a park to show the legal basis for their being allowed to walk together in public.

In terms of the balance between privacy rights and media rights, the short answer is that there is no clear dividing line. Instead, what is ‘appropriate’ depends considerably on how society responds to media intrusion into the private sphere. However, we were trying to establish three basic points.

The first point is that privacy rights differ depending upon the people involved. The media thus may have a legitimate interest in poking into the private lives of public individuals — note, “may” — but that certainly does not justify the media intruding into the private lives of entirely private individuals. None of the young men and women taking a walk in the park was inviting media or public scrutiny and none of them were candidates for public office. Maya Khan’s intrusion was thus unjustified.

The second point that we were trying to establish is that irrespective of where the line between private and public is to be drawn, the Maya Khan episode was certainly well on the wrong side of any line a reasonable person would draw. And it is in this context that we wanted to take advantage of public anger to show that Pakistani society does not support vigilante action in the private domain.

Our third point was in relation to the religious angle. In this context, our point was simple: the Supreme Court had already stopped a provincial government from setting up a ‘morality police’. If so, how could individual television personalities become self-appointed ‘thanedars-at-large’?

Looking back on the affair, I am actually happier that we did not have to file a petition. The firm action taken by Samaa against Maya Khan has caused more ripples in the media world than any judgment could have done. Let’s be honest: television anchors contemplating similar shenanigans are far more likely to be worried about being fired than about becoming the subject matter of Supreme Court petitions.

For media analysts, there is a further point to be noted. Pakistan’s social media world has often been derided by ‘real’ journalists as being just an elitist farce, just like Pakistan’s English print media is routinely scoffed at by Urdu and television journalists as being out of touch. In this case, the outrage was almost entirely confined to Facebook, Twitter and the opinion pages of the English print media and yet, the force of this outrage was enough to cause a television channel to fire their anchor. This shows that social media is not as disconnected from the ‘real’ Pakistan as ‘real’ journalists like to believe. It also shows that social media is becoming a force to be reckoned with.

Time will tell whether the Maya Khan episode is just another flash in the pan or whether it reflects the first inklings of maturity in our media. Let’s all hope it’s the latter.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 31st, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Karachi’s parks are for the people, not the ‘ghairat brigade’: KMC official</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/329076/karachi%e2%80%99s-parks-are-for-the-people-not-the-%e2%80%98ghairat-brigade%e2%80%99-kmc-official</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/329076/karachi%e2%80%99s-parks-are-for-the-people-not-the-%e2%80%98ghairat-brigade%e2%80%99-kmc-official#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 12 23:22:43 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[our.correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Sindh]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=329076</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[AIG says policemen should focus on catching criminals, not young couples.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Hand holding and sitting close to each other in a park should not be judged, said an official from the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation. “It is not obscene.”

His remarks come at a time when four non-governmental organisations are suing a television channel for a programme in which a host ran around a park trying to ‘expose’ the ‘immorality’ of the couples sitting there. The ‘witch hunt’ was steamrolled by public indignation that this kind of policing had no place in parks, which serve as a respite for the residents of Karachi, a city that is bursting at its seams.

“If we start going around checking up on people like this, then the first ban would be put on a man and his wife,” said the director general of the city parks, Liaquat Ali Khan, referring to the close contact necessitated by sitting on a motorcycle. He stressed that couples were free to use Karachi’s parks and did not have to declare or justify the status of their relationship to anyone. The security guards have been told not to harass anyone.

The KMC official gave the example of Dubai where there was a mosque but anyone could also go to a night club if they wanted. “If it is a matter of right and wrong, then let the people decide,” he said.

There are 1,500 public parks in Karachi, some of which charge an entry fee. Safari Park, Hill Park and Quaid-e-Azam’s mazaar’s grounds are some of the most popular places for young couples, including those from lower middleclass families who may not have the luxury of their own spaces at home. “Attempts to raise the entry fee at the parks have failed repeatedly,” he said. “Some people who come here only have Rs5 or Rs10 to spare after they pay for their bus fare.”

Last month, 27-year-old AA took his girlfriend GH to a park on his motorcycle. “From the gate all the way to the bench, everyone was staring,” he said. “The security guards, the gardener – even men who were there with their families were staring at us.” He added that going somewhere else was out of the question. While talking to The Express Tribune, he said that he had thought of renting a beach hut for Rs1,000 but it would only create more problems. He said that couples went to restaurants to eat and liked to relax and have a romantic time under the shade of a tree in a park.

“There are no rules which can dictate how someone should behave in a park,” said Sindh High Court Advocate Shaukat Sheikh while talking to The Express Tribune. “The KMC and cantonment boards have made their own code of conduct for some parks but officials claim that they do not dictate the way people are supposed to behave.” According to the advocate, a couple of years ago some people were arrested and penalised for objectionable behaviour.

The additional inspector-general of Karachi, Akhtar Hussain Gorchani, said that he would not defend the conduct of policemen who harassed couples to make money. He added that he was shocked at this sort of behaviour and would prefer the force to focus on catching criminals.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 30th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Morning show host Maya Khan fired from Samaa TV</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/328465/morning-show-host-maya-khan-fired-from-samaa-tv</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/328465/morning-show-host-maya-khan-fired-from-samaa-tv#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 12 11:16:57 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[taha.siddiqui]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=328465</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Maya Khan and her team fired; independent sources from Samaa confirm termination.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[After an intense online campaign, television channel Samaa TV has fired morning show host Maya Khan and her team, and has said that her show will be taken off the air.

The decision comes after a controversial episode of the morning show, where Khan was seen conducting a ‘raid’ on a public park in Karachi and questioning couples about whether their parents were aware of their whereabouts and going as far as asking them about their marital status.

Maya Khan was at first reluctant talking about the decision, but later confirmed that her show had indeed been cancelled.

The morning show host blamed “a vicious media campaign by rival groups” for the outcome of the fiasco. She said that those campaigning against her had wanted her to be removed and this is exactly what had happened.

Khan stressed on the fact that no one had highlighted the “good things” she had done on her show.

Speaking to The Express Tribune, she confirmed the authenticity of the letter (below) by senior Samaa TV management and her termination from the channel.

Independent sources from Samaa have also confirmed that Maya Khan has been fired along with the production team of the show.

The letter, which was reportedly sent out by the management, states that Khan had refused to apologise 'unconditionally'. It also adds that official termination notices will be sent to her on Monday morning.

The letter which says Maya Khan’s services from Samaa TV will be terminated has been circulating on social media websites and is reportedly signed by CEO Zafar Siddiqui.
Dear All

Your feedback is appreciated. As a responsible corporate citizen, Samaa TV did what was required under the circumstances. We do not and have not in the past or intend to in the future to take our viewership or reporting requirements without the seriousness that they deserve.

You would appreciate that as an organisation with a functioning management team, we had to conduct certain legal requirements over the past week and internal review processes (which are operational in nature) before procedding further.

As a result of which I can inform you:

	We asked Maya to apologise unconditionally which she did not.
	The CEO asked her to do that on Friday which she refused.

As a result of which the following will be put in place on Monday, Jan 30th.

	Maya and her team will receive termination notices.
	Her show is being stopped from Monday morning.

Our deeds and actions taken since this episode occured are there for the record and hope this will settle issues as far as the station is concerned.

A lot has been written about the race for ratings. Well, we do absolve such behaviour irrespective of ratings that the show was getting.

With best regards and thank you for your understanding.

Zafar Siddiqi

Chairman CNBC Arabiya

Chairman CNBC Africa

President CNBC Pakistan]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Maya and the media</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/327624/maya-and-the-media</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/327624/maya-and-the-media#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 12 18:29:04 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[fifi.haroon]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=327624</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Morning shows are either deliberately frivolous or, as is the case with Khan’s park run, dangerously judgemental.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[This is not an op-ed entirely about Maya Khan; it is also about the inflated television culture we inhabit in Pakistan and how all-encompassing it has become. Sociologist Jean Baudrillard has famously pointed out that modern ‘reality’ is so intricately bound up in the media that it is increasingly constituted by it. Hence, the images we see on television become the lives we live. A live broadcast, of course, makes the overlap even more compelling; certainly the unedited chaos of Samaa TV’s park invasion has spilled over into viewer’s homes.

When presenters like Maya Khan are given too much power they become society’s judge and jury, with trials that are played out on television in much the same way as political talk shows practice political interventionism. The real question, of course, is how do we regulate such power while shielding the media from state pressure and simultaneously protecting society from media vigilantism? As her fall from grace illustrates so many of these issues, Maya Khan is a convenient take-off point for this discussion.

In the 10 days since she and a haranguing mob of ‘citizen-journalists’ (I use the term loosely) invaded a local Karachi park in search of dating couples Khan has been trending on both traditional and digital medias. In keeping with the unforgiving nature of a viral medium, the vitriol has been plentiful.

There is also blogger Mehreen Kasana’s eloquent open letter to the presenter where she pleads the case for young, ambushed love. I find Kasana’s dispatch particularly relevant, since it hints at how Khan seems to have taken up cudgels on behalf of her perceived viewership (housewives and mothers) without any real effort to understand why younger people need spaces in which they can interact. In response to this media backlash, Khan has recently made two public ‘apologies’, neither of which come across as particularly apologetic — at no point does she acknowledge any specific wrongdoing on her part.

As more videos from “Subha Saveray” come to light it is clear that Khan’s obsession with prodigal daughters (as opposed to wayward sons) is not new. Take for instance the “Do you know where your daughter is?” campaign (October 2011) where the presenter and her panel chastise young girls perceived as unruly. Mothers receive empathy while daughters are routinely interrogated. It is also a one-sided, castigatory format which eschews alternative perspectives. Khan’s park foray is merely an organic development of this worldview.

Yet, Maya Khan is not alone. She represents a comfort zone from which our television networks operate. Mornings throughout Pakistan are the domain of chatty, perky and often intellectually-challenged breakfast presenters with what our channels consider broad appeal. Content providers feel this sort of female presenter appeals to the housewife demographic. The issues with such shows are multifarious; either they are deliberately frivolous (which stereotypes female viewers) or, as is the case with Khan’s park run, dangerously judgemental. Khan, a former actor, plays reporter but is clearly unaware of basic journalistic ethics. Perhaps, her inspiration comes from political talk shows, which tango rather often with libel but the presumption of guilt throughout the episode is alarming. Khan and her vigil-aunties are unanimously accusatory, running after couples shouting, “Don’t deceive your parents!”

That the channel has offered an unconditional apology, disavowing the content of the show and promising this will not happen again is commendable, but for those who remember Mehr Bokhari glorifying Mumtaz Qadri on the same channel last year, it seems to not have learned lessons well.

What Pakistan urgently needs is a well-defined media standards body like Office of Communication in the UK that governs with a crystal clear code of practice and standards. Is Pemra up to the task? Certainly its ‘Code for Media Broadcasters’ is scarily vague. And it was quite happy to accuse channels of “provoking anti-national sentiments” during the PNS Mehran attack. If Pemra is to function as a fair media regulator it will have to rewrite its Code in clearer, more detailed language without potentially manipulative rules. Perhaps then our channels will make sure that their Maya Khans think before they speak.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 27th, 2012.

&nbsp;]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Wasted youth</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/327078/wasted-youth</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/327078/wasted-youth#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 12 17:40:22 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[sami.shah]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=327078</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Quest for entertainment led me to listen to some terrible songs, hold some regrettable hands. No more though]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Young? Bored? Lonely? Get used to it. Given the current direction that we are moving in, the only remaining option for young people to entertain themselves will be to stare contemplatively at the wall. Just fix your eye on a spot and wait for sleep to take over. If nothing else, it will help pass the time. This is not necessarily a bad thing. A strict diet of quiet meditation could have served me well in my youth. The quest for entertainment led me to listen to some terrible songs and hold some regrettable hands. Thankfully, from this moment on, Pakistanis will be spared such traumatic experiences.

The War against Youthful Experiences is being fought hard and unrelentingly by brave warriors like Punjab Law Minister Rana Sanaullah. Using the kind of deft touch that can only be taught in the same school that produces Lahore High Court judges, the minister looked at the problems plaguing Pakistan today, like corruption, poverty, crime and terrorism and did the only thing a man devoted to the law could do: he proposed a ban on concerts. It was a tough decision and someone had to make it. And when times are as dark as these, with challenges as insurmountable, Rana Sanaullah is the man you want fighting for truth, justice and the Pakistani way. Like a local Judge Dredd, he saw past the clutter and brought down his meaty fist of logic. His mind leapt like Alexander confronted with a Gordian knot, except instead of slicing it in half, he proceeded to tie his own brain in the same knotted configuration. His reason for banning concerts was unquestionably manly. Anyone else would have taken a look at the tragedy that occurred at a recent Atif Aslam concert and decided to make whining and mewling complaints about greater need for proper event organisation and venues with properly marked exits. Maybe even a stricter adherence to limiting audience numbers. But Rana Sanaullah has no time for such childish haggling. If a tragedy occurred at a concert, then to him the concert is to blame. That’s just how he rolls. He is now going to shift his focus towards the recent tragic deaths of over 65 patients caused by medicines prescribed by the Punjab Institute of Cardiology. It’s only a matter of time before he responds by banning medicine, institutes, cardiology and patients.

So if you are young and wanted to listen to some live music, maybe jump around in an awkward approximation of rhythm, then do it fast while you are still allowed to. If, however, you want to indulge those yearnings for companionship and romance that we all feel and find that an open air park is just the place to do so, then your luck ran out already. No more can the young lover sit under the shade of a tree and read poems to his intended, nor can he and she inch their fingers towards one another’s hands on a wooden bench while birds chirp in the background. Maya Khan, self-appointed avenging emissary of decency, celibacy and parental disapproval will swoop down on you like a drone that is prone to breaking out into Bollywood dance routines. Flanked by an army of women who will hunt you down and lecture you with the precision of a laser-guided missile full of self-righteousness, she prowls the grasslands of Pakistan seeking out romance wherever it may dare to blossom. Samaa TV, on which she airs her wretchedly unwatchable morning show has clearly decided that ratings spikes are far more important than, say, responsible behaviour or respect for privacy. Which is why I am planning to put up cameras in their bathrooms that broadcast live.

So if you are young, get ready to get bored. Until someone finds fault in that too.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 26th, 2012. ]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>In the parks of Karachi</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/326519/in-the-parks-of-karachi</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/326519/in-the-parks-of-karachi#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 12 18:02:31 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Ejaz Haider]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=326519</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Ms Khan is boorish &amp;amp; uncouth, as was her self-righteous posse who felt happy chasing boys &amp;amp; girls in Karachi parks.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[No, this is not about the non-memogeist, though it was funny, and deeply ironic, how Akram Sheikh, the counsel for Mansoor Ijaz, lamented that neither the army nor Mian Nawaz Sharif seemed much interested in it any more. Did he imply that the army should have remained seized of the matter even if it meant deepening the crisis and seizing the reins of the government in collaboration with the judiciary and supported by the political opposition? Seemed thus to me.

Neither is this about the selective application of NRO and the President’s immunity, though it was equally amusing to see Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan demolish Justice (retd) Khalil Ramday’s argument on immunity.

All of this and much more, being routine and interminable we shall have time to write about. So, this week it is about the media and the do-gooders.

We now have, Allah be praised, one Maya Khan, whose secret desire in life is to take the camera to the parks in Karachi and catch dating “couples”. She has taken it upon herself to rid the society of this menace, boys and girls responding to their hormones in this repressed society being the number one problem of this country.

Reminds me of this 2009 episode at LUMS when one student, a woman again, decided to videotape “couples” on the LUMS premises. Under the caption PDA@LUMS, this is what I wrote:

“Far from the usual misconception that totalitarian mindsets are always bloody, they are often grounded in a deep desire to do something good. In fact, so deeply ingrained can be the desire to do good that it can convince someone that he/she alone knows what is good for others.

“And doing good, or getting others to do good and by implication preventing them from doing what is not good and therefore harming themselves and others must always be good...no? At the level of the primer, yes.

“Beyond the primary level, however, someone hell-bent on doing good is as much a social nuisance as a misanthropist. Indeed, while one doesn’t often see ‘bad’ people hawking their wares, the do-gooders strut around like cocks (yes, there was a time cocks were just called that!) and wear their do-goodness on their puffed up chests and colourful plumes.

“The history of ideas is interesting in this regard and one sees how a person moves from accepting an ideology of goodness to wanting to spread it around to realising that doing good demands that others, if necessary, be subjected to the ideology, too bad if the process involves some violence and the killing of a few million here and a few million there. The end, after all, is all – or, as Albert Camus said, even to achieve innocence we have to wade through bloodshed.

“If goodness is the end-result, and if it demands that a few be put to the sword, the benefit of recreating Eden far outweighs the cost of condemning some because those who are thus condemned are the ones standing between the utopia and its realisation anyway.

“The journey from conceptualising, doing, and spreading good, to a violent realisation of the perceived Eden is one of the most important lessons of the history of ideas and the strand that runs through it is the paradox.”

Of course it would be optimistic to think that Ms Khan is privy to the history of ideas or would even know such an animal exists. From the way she conducted the programme it is clear that she is even ignorant of the technical and professional requirements of the medium she is using to earn a hefty salary package. She typifies what TV has come to in this country; not only that but also how people with no ideas and brains the size of peanuts have actually come to define the genre and become powerful and, yes, dangerous.

Any decent editor/director would have fired her. But I am wrong. No decent editor/director would have hired her in the first place. The problem with engaging such small and vulgar minds is that one can’t rely on the strength of ideas because appreciating ideas requires sophistication that normally eludes such people. There’s an adage in Punjabi, chirriaan di maut tay ganvaraan da haasa. Ms Khan is not someone who could appreciate Faberge eggs because she won’t be able to eat them. She is boorish and uncouth, as was her smirking, self-righteous posse who felt happy at chasing boys and girls in the parks of Karachi.

Inquisitiveness and doubt are two basic ingredients of knowledge which requires connecting dots, finding affinities, to quote Wordsworth’s line, in objects where no brotherhood exists to common minds. There are many aspects to this debate at the individual and collective levels. I would be the first to acknowledge that it is difficult to draw lines and even determine hard cases. What should be allowed, where, how, when and to what extent? What is the dialectic between tradition and the change that comes in many ways and puts its own burdens on the known and the accepted.

I’d also acknowledge that there is no rule of thumb. There never can be in human affairs which is why righteous, linear approaches fail so badly. But when we insist on ethics and norms, we ignore, wittingly or unwittingly, the fact that ethics is a veritable minefield. One just has to read the trolley experiments to see the inability of linear thinking to grapple with choices.

My problem then is: how can we allow a woman as dumb as this television anchor to wield so much power through the camera? Are we, in the media, prepared to look at these issues beyond TRPs? Perhaps not. We now take the camera even to people lying in coma, Arfa Karim, God bless her, being a case in point, with channels vying to get breaking news on her. From the terrible scarcity of information we now have a nauseating excess of it.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 25th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Vigil-aunties</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/325990/vigil-aunties</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/325990/vigil-aunties#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 12 17:56:23 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[bina.shah]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=325990</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[A recent episode of a morning show makes one wonder about how Talibanisation has invaded our mindset.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Imagine this: you are a young Pakistani woman walking in a Karachi park with a young man. He could be your brother, cousin, university friend, fiance, or husband. You are wearing a full burqa, and your companion is walking beside you, carrying on a conversation. You are a middle to lower-middle-class girl, with a lot of restrictions on your life, and this time in this public space, where you are modestly dressed and doing no harm, give you a bit of respite in a life that carries a lot of expectations about how you conduct yourself and what weight that places on your family’s respectability.

Suddenly, from out of nowhere, a group of fifteen upper-class women descend upon you. One of them has a microphone which she thrusts into your companion’s face, and there is a camera crew behind her, filming every moment. She claims to be doing a survey on mobile phone crime, but the questions she poses become more and more intrusive. “Are you college students? Yes? Then why aren’t you in class? It’s morning time.” The woman with the microphone assures you the camera is not recording, but the accusations become more pointed. “Are you on a date? Are you married? Where’s your nikahnama?”

You become afraid, because you know that if anyone from your family sees this spectacle, there will be no mercy for you. They will believe that you are an immoral girl: maybe you’ll be taken out of college. Maybe you’ll be beaten. Married off to someone you don’t know as a way of forcing you to behave. If you’re very unlucky, you might even be killed as a way of avenging the family honour. You hide behind your companion, but the microphone is thrust in your face. You scream out that you don’t want to be harassed like this, that you don’t want to answer any questions. Finally, you flee, while the group of women and camera crew chase after you, screaming “Bhago bhago bhago!” They are laughing and giggling hysterically, because to them, this is a fun game, while you are crying with fear and anxiety.

And then, the entire clip is shown on a morning breakfast show on a local television channel.

The television anchor who conceived of this segment for her television show thought she was doing a great service to society. “We need to make this park safe for families!” is her justification as the segment begins. But safety and families are not the words that come to mind when watching this clip. Instead, witch-hunt is one of them. Zia is another. Hudood Ordinance is a third. And privacy, hypocrisy, and ethics soon follow.

This clip brings to mind the tales of countless couples harassed by the police to prove they’re married in order to extort money out of them. It makes one wonder what drives a group of educated, affluent women to embarrass a young couple from a lower socioeconomic class, harass them to the point of hysteria, and then drive them out from a public space which is paid for by government taxes which that same socioeconomic class is more likely to pay than the class the affluent women come from. It makes one wonder whether Pakistanis have the right to privacy, and question the need to browbeat young adults about their presence in a public park, engaged in nothing more harmful than a walk on a beautiful winter’s day. It makes one wonder about how Talibanisation has invaded our mindset, when we can see something obscene in a normal act which people engage in all over the world.

Time and again the ethics of our media have been called into question, as channels embrace sensationalism in order to achieve the highest ratings. The television channel in question will find themselves open to legal action by victims of their harassment who are being portrayed on television without their consent. Airing this segment also appeals to the worst instincts in our hypocritical society by passing moral judgment in the name of family values upon two innocent people, which makes for some of the most irresponsible broadcast journalism found in Pakistan today. At the very least, the channel and the anchorperson owe an apology, if not compensation, to those two individuals who had hurt nobody on that day when they were ambushed and harassed by the television anchor and her Moral Aunty Brigade. The irony is that she describes herself on her Facebook page as “very fair and honest in her dealings”. I think that girl in the niqab, crying in the park, and her blameless friend, as well as any sane person with a conscience and a respect for other people’s privacy, would beg to differ.

(The headline for this article is courtesy of Anthony Permal.)

Published in The Express Tribune, January 24th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item>	</channel>
                </rss>
