Having done research for the same NGO which facilitated Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy in making her documentary — including firsthand meetings with many acid attack survivors, as well as with some of the perpetrators of such attacks, and visits to communities within which such heinous incidents had occurred — one does appreciate the nuances behind this seemingly strange turn of events.
I certainly do not begrudge Ms Obaid-Chinoy or her Oscar. Her accomplishment, in fact, has instilled a sense of pride among Pakistanis around the world. I also do not think that shedding light on a disturbing phenomenon, which continues to afflict tragedy and suffering in the lives of many people in our country, should be avoided out of fear that it will reinforce Western stereotypes. Even the fact that the US was quick to hand out an Oscar for a movie highlighting gender violence and thereafter denied granting a visa to another Pakistani documentary maker who chose to focus on the human cost of drone strikes, is more of a problem for US analysts and concerned citizens to contend with or to challenge. It is the ethical dimension surrounding the screening of Saving face documentary within Pakistan, however, which has evoked a personal sense of distress in me.
On the one hand, I realise the need to not only create awareness, but to take practical steps to prevent acid attacks in Pakistan. It is great to see Ms Obaid-Chinoy becoming very proactive on this issue subsequent to the Oscar win and the honours conferred on her by our government. However, she must stop insisting on screening the documentary within Pakistan if these survivors feel that they could be at risk of a backlash when and if the released film is seen by people they know. Given that the movie itself acknowledges the complex realities that these acid survivors must contend with, Ms Obaid-Chinoy must respect the wishes of these survivors, even if she had obtained some form of consent from them regarding its release. After all, the survivors featured in the documentary have not exactly signed acting contracts.
The NGO which initially provided access to the acid attack survivors — it prefers to use the term ‘survivor’ instead of ‘victim’ in order to infuse a sense of empowerment amongst people trying to recover and rehabilitate subsequent to acid attacks — is now trying to help them by providing assistance in going to court if required, to stop the documentary maker from showing the movie in Pakistan.
I have not had a chance to speak with Ms Obaid-Chinoy directly on this issue, so I do not know her side of the story. But whatever her perspective is, surely the need to protect the very people who have propelled her to international fame and glory must take precedence over any further publicity of her work. Moreover, there are several other ways to help create awareness on this issue, as well as countering the prevalence of acid attacks. Ongoing advocacy by those working on this issue have identified many practical means which merit further attention, ranging from curbing unregulated sale of concentrated acid to the need for demanding effective implementation of the new legislation that provides for the prosecution of acid attack perpetrators and to simultaneously paying greater attention to help survivors cope with recovery and rehabilitation. It is these unaddressed areas that Ms Obaid-Chinoy must offer greater attention on, rather than trying to insist upon screening her already awarded documentary in Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 2nd, 2012.
COMMENTS (14)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1713853507-0/MalalaHilary-(2)1713853507-0-270x192.webp)
I agree with you, Ali.
Responding to the above comments: I think it is just that the writer having worked with the acid attack survivors is aware of the ground realities surrounding the survivors’ lives, and is concerned. And perhaps, being an insider, the writer is also more sensitive about the issue than those trying to grasp it while sitting on the periphery. Since the purpose is to help the cause of acid attack survivors, it does make sense to address their concerns.
http://newsweekpakistan.com/culture/1253
According to Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy's statement she was not insisting on screening the film. Although she was legally allowed to air the film, it is all over her interviews and her twitter that the film will only be released in Pakistan once the women in it feel safe and comfortable. Her statement says that plans to air the film have been suspended. I'm confused about why the writer did not just contact Obaid-Chinoy for a comment?
Why was the head of ASF on the press tours PROMOTING the film AFTER THE OSCAR and saying himself he wanted to screen the film not only all over Pakistan, but all over the world? I think it's supremely bizarre that an organization first was one of the biggest proponents of the film, and now is trying to sue the directors for a large sum? Do I need to spell this out any more clearly?
While the concerns of the acid survivors are valid, I'm confused about why the fear of backlash would come up now. Despite the fact that they are not educated enough, they were under the care of ASF who I would assume were completely involved in the whole process and would have explained all intricacies and legalities to the women involved. How does one let themselves be shot by cameras so extensively and then not understand that it is a big exercise? Also the woman who is repeatedly being mentioned in the article http://newsweekpakistan.com/culture/1227 , Miss Naila Farhat claims to not have had any knowledge of the fact that the film would make it to the Oscar and nor does she think it is right stating that "It is wrong". Since the name rung a bell, I recalled reading her name earlier when the Oscar win had happened and found an alternate version on in an article:
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2012/03/31/city/karachi/‘saving-face’-for-pakistan/?printType=article
Also I assumed that someone who wants privacy and anonymity would avoid being photographed so much and having her picture posted all over the internet on a website that is easily accessible in Pakistan. the events she attends are all media covered, often with press photographers and camera people. Is this not going to be visible in Pakistan? If one goes through the website one realizes that Naila is not a shy Survivor but an active one who speaks out and makes herself visible to empower others. This is all commendable. But when one contradicts one's self and begins to slander someone, it is not done.
http://acidsurvivorspakistan.org/workshop-on-acid-violence-as-a-worst-form-of-gender-based-violence-and-child-violence http://acidsurvivorspakistan.org/2nd-consultation-on-acid-crime-and-prevention-bill-through-photos
Im interested in hearing the other side of this story, but I suppose its not as interesting as the "Oscar woman seeks to destroy Acid survivors" narrative.
The above three comments are so accurate. I couldn't put it better myself.
Well the victims were poor, illiterate women who never understood the terms and conditions they signed. Why would they protest now, if they had no problem earlier? I agree; the safety and will of the victims is more important.
the writer seems very concerned about shame this documentery has brought to pakistan.i also cannot understand what he ultimately wants to say in this article. i get the impression that he wants to hide this aspect of pakistani life from scrutiny. one way of stopping such acts of revenge is to give widespread coverage so that the people are aware that this is happening in their backyard. and off course there has to be very strong rules so that it act as deterrence. pakistan is quite content living in middle age practices and try to justify them by going into the " root causes " there by putting the onus on victims. and this is not the only social ill but the wide spread practice of "bacchabaazi" in rural pakistan which no one ever dare to highlight.
I think Mr. Ali is all over the map on this issue.If the acid survivors gave consent to be in the documentary then they have given any legal rights to where & when it can be screened. We do not need someone from the kangaroo court to define the legal analysis. No one in their right mind had any idea at the concept that this earth shattering documentary would be nominated to,later win an Oscar. Mr. Ali is fanning the waves of hysteria that the US immigration denied visa to the producer of a film about drones, he has NOT presented any factual information connecting the denial to the subject matter. Before the film there was NO awareness of acid throwing therefore it is not the responsibility of MS Obaid Chinoy to protect the survivors if the documentary is screened but the citizens of Pakistan to accept the acid attacks and stop with what the Western world think of the existing stereotypes. MS Obaid Chinoy has presented the subject, the documentary has spotlighted the issue now all of you bear the responsibility of stopping this barbaric action and screening the film is a positive step in the right direction.
Rather than censor the film -- why not just protect the innocent women who have been subject to these gruesome attacks. The fact that these women still feel threatened should be a national shame.
I am unable to understand this article at all. These acid victims first gave consent for their stories to be used in the documentary and then as it became famous, these same victims are afraid of backlash? what kind of backlash? from whom? this is so preposterous. Instead of supporting these victims and their families to fight back or even better, providing them with protection, the author is insisting on this? Where is the police and the courts? What a joke it would be for the Pakistanis to get their first ever Oscar on something which is not even being screened in Pakistan. These families should be provided protection. The perpetrators should be given sentences and that is it.
The documentary and the Oscar are meant for PAK and the survivors have nothing to fear. The state should stand behind the survivors and protect them at all cost, having failed once. So should the NGO'.
Fear of retribution is the message of acid crimes and by resisting the public showing, you let the perpetrators of the crime victimize you again.