War of narratives: Why we must all speak up for Gaza

What has emerged is an unspoken rivalry between independent voices on the ground and global media giants — the judges of whom are the people.

Noor Usman Rafi 

Published November 17, 2023

In 2007, Palestinian poet and author Mahmoud Darwish wrote, “The Palestinians are the only nation in the world that feels with certainty that today is better than what the days ahead will hold.” Today, 75 years after the Nakba, the poignancy of his words cut deeper; echoing the unceasing suffering of the Palestinians.

Following the Hamas attack on Israel last month, the region witnessed yet another violent chapter, with thousands of innocent civilians killed and hundreds of thousands displaced.

“We are fighting human animals,” said an unapologetic Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on October 9, after Israel imposed a total blockade of the Gaza strip, cutting off electricity, and blocking the entry of food, fuel, and water. Subsequently, Israeli airstrikes bombed the besieged land, reducing entire neighbourhoods to rubble. These tides of brutality disregarded the difference between militants and civilians, exposing the invasion for what it really is — a blatant breach of international and humanitarian law, and a mockery of Israeli claims that their operation is against Hamas.

Today, the death toll in Gaza has risen over 11,500, nearly a third of whom are children, while an estimated 2,700 people remain missing.
The Palestinian counter-narrative

Even as Israel launched its offensive, another front opened up against the Palestinians — the mainstream Western media. Media outlets such as BBC, CNN, and Fox News acted as unofficial spokespersons for Israel.

Every Palestinian guest appearing on these channels was prompted to “condemn Hamas”, while pro-Israeli guests were rarely asked to condemn the brutality of Israel’s response. Claims of Israeli war crimes from Palestinian sources were consistently met with scepticism and demands for evidence, while Israeli claims were taken as the gospel truth and given extensive coverage.

This muffling of pro-Palestinian voices stirred a huge reaction from social media. What emerged was an unsaid rivalry between independent voices on the ground and global media giants — the judges of whom are the people. Public opinion on social media challenged the Israeli narrative as loud as the mainstream media carried it.

Social media became a vital source of information that showed the unfiltered ground reality. Merely hours into the conflict, social media platforms were flooded with content from both Palestine and Israel.

Over time, this became all the more important as journalists reporting from the Gaza strip were killed in numbers never seen before. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), between October 7 and November 16, at least 42 journalists have been killed in the violence. Among the victims are 37 Palestinian journalists, four Israeli, and one Lebanese. Another nine journalists have been reportedly injured, three are missing and 13 have been arrested.

In spite of this, the world saw images that mainstream media downplayed or simply ignored — gut-wrenching videos of injured children in crowded hospitals, vacant gazes and uncontrollable trembles from trauma; pictures of infants with fragile bodies, bombed, drenched in blood, lying limp in the arms of wailing parents, cradling them as if they were alive; rows upon rows of lifeless bodies, once vibrant and breathing, now reduced to mere statistics.

These devastating visuals, combined with the rejection of a ceasefire by Western powers, added to the social media uprising for Palestine.

“It is heartless to not speak up. While some may understandably feel reluctant or overwhelmed by the distressing content, this is an issue that transcends individual discomfort,” says Irum Amir, 50, from Lahore.
Censorship and consequences

And so, with the rise of the ‘conflict’ rose the global conversation about Western media bias, complicity and double standards.

On one hand, there was an inflow of provocative content from pro-Israeli accounts, marked by a celebratory, mocking tone directed at the Palestinian plight, while on the other, pro-Palestinian accounts encountered perplexing and excessive content moderation — also known as ‘shadow banning’.

Posts and comments containing words like “genocide”, “Free Palestine”, and “Gaza” were subject to flagging and removal. Even factual records of the violence were met with bans.

One of the most prominent voices, Motaz Azaiza, a Palestinian journalist who shares extensive live coverage and content from Gaza has garnered 14.5 million followers on Instagram and 494,000 followers on X (formerly Twitter). Amidst the vicious assaults, his account on X was temporarily suspended.

Eye on Palestine, an Instagram account with over 8m followers, delivered first-hand reports of the attacks and the aftermath on civilians. This page also faced a temporary ban, and these acts of censorship were met with strong backlash from online users.

Rasha Abdul-Rahim, Director of Amnesty International Tech stated on October 27, “As Israel intensifies its unprecedented bombardment of Gaza that has killed over 7,000 people, most of whom are civilians, we are extremely concerned by reports of partial blocking and removal, known as ‘shadowbanning’, of content from advocates of Palestinian rights.”

Gaza 2.0 — The world’s first digital genocide

Nonetheless, this act of censorship served as a catalyst for social media users. Those in support of Palestine posted even more fervently, with a fierce conviction as the plight of Palestinians that was already disturbingly unaccounted for was now also being deliberately suppressed.

“Their statements alone stir our emotions, as they refer to Palestinians as ‘children of darkness’ and accuse everyone in Palestine of being a terrorist. They’re blatantly killing journalists, silencing voices on social media,” says Maryam Goheir, 33. “They’ve silenced the Western media but our silence cannot be bought.”
Palestinian dehumanisation and the price of speaking up

For people, especially in Western countries, showing solidarity with Gaza or taking a pro-Palestine stance comes with numerous obstacles, including the risk of losing their jobs.

Over the past weeks, Palestine Legal, an organisation that specifically works to protect the civil and constitutional rights of those based in the US, documented 260 instances of individuals losing their jobs, students and professors facing disciplinary measures, and even award-winning novelists having their events cancelled as a result of expressing their support for Palestine.

The restriction on freedom of speech fuelled a fresh surge of anger and disappointment among people who now find themselves unable to voice their opinions.

A*, who works for a social media platform in the UK and asked not to be named for fear of repercussions, described how he had to hold back even if he felt strongly about the issue. “This constitutes a humanitarian crisis, a genocide. While I’ve been vocal on social media and have participated in protests, the question remains: can I discuss it openly in my professional environment? Probably not.”

He also stressed the dehumanisation of Palestinians. “There seems to be a diminished level of sympathy for Palestinians. There is a prevailing narrative that categorises Arabs and Muslims as inferior. There is a lack of empathy and a general perception that Palestinian lives do not have equal worth.”

The Arab Centre Washington DC reported an unprecedented scale of disinformation and hate speech against Palestinians since October 7, including calls to “flatten Gaza” and to “kill all Palestinians”. As the conflict has intensified, so has hate speech.

Two days into the conflict, a 6-year-old Palestinian-American boy became the target of a hate crime and was stabbed 26 times by his American landlord. It is this anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab prejudice that justifies the genocide of Palestinians. The Western psyche, tainted by racism, poses a grave threat to Muslim communities at large. When media and political figures cast Muslims as a “security threat”, these sentiments reverberate through the broader populace, fuelling a hostile breeding ground for Islamophobia.

Moreover, any critique of Israel is often quick to be characterised as an act of anti-Semitism. This tactic effectively mutes many individuals, discouraging them from adopting a clear stance on the genocide.

The internet blackout and a glimmer of hope ahead

Since the start of the invasion, Israel has imposed several communication and internet blackouts in Gaza in attempts to silence key voices in the region while bombing civilian sites including refugee camps, and hospitals.

These internet blackouts also mark a crucial juncture in the ongoing conflict, where it falls upon us, the spectators, to find our voices and vehemently speak for justice.

Then there are the outright lies and attempts at deception, perpetuated by accounts linked to the Israeli government ranging from the fake news about the beheading of babies to a staged video of a Palestinian nurse condemning Hamas and claims of finding evidence of Hamas command and control centres established in tunnels beneath medical facilities. While these stories have been propagated by many Western media outlets as hard facts, they have been subsequently debunked by individuals on social media, who have painstakingly gone through the evidence and ripped apart Israel’s claims, exposing its blatant lies.

“Not speaking up is like siding with the oppressor. Some people who like to talk about moral and social issues, choose to not advocate for the Palestinian cause, perceiving it as an exclusively Muslim issue. It is our responsibility to take a stand in this regard.” says Irtiza Hassan.

Simultaneously, there is a prevailing sentiment among some individuals that the situation is unlikely to improve, given the actions of the policymakers. “Everything is being done by the governments involved, and I don’t think people speaking up will change their policies,” says Dr Amir Manzur.

Yet, a beacon of hope emerged from the amplification of our collective voices. Social media activists initiated the #ESIMSForGaza movement, facilitating the distribution of thousands of ESIMs and mobile data plans to Gaza through a network of individuals. This movement highlighted a notable shift in public opinion, showing how people worldwide united in collective action to oppose state tyranny.

In the past weeks, millions of people of all religions, races, and countries have come out on the streets, marching in solidarity, expressing their anger, and demnding that Israel and the US be held accountable for the attack on Palestine. In the largest pro-Palestine march in US history, protestors chanted: “Netanyahu, you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide! Biden, Biden, you can’t hide; we charge you with genocide,” outside the White House.

As the global uproar intensifies, US officials fear that it won’t be long “before support erodes” and uproar against civilian casualties reaches a tipping point.

Through our will and determination, we must continue to speak up and compel the world to address the pain and trauma that defines Gaza at this very moment. If your voice can serve as a vessel of acknowledgement for Palestinian suffering, let the words come out loud and clear. It is time to say “enough”.

Header illustration: Areesha Rehan

Noor Usman Rafi is a writer with a focus on social and political issues. She is a Journalism graduate, holding degrees from IBA and NUST.

Climate action

Aisha Khan 

EIGHT years after the Paris Agreement, the global community is nowhere near reducing emissions to keep temperature increase within the safe threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030. According to a study led by James Hansen, who is Nasa’s top scientist, “The 1.5ºC limit is deader than a doornail. The 2ºC limit will also be dead unless we take purposeful actions to reduce the Earth’s energy imbalance.”

In the backdrop of this apocalyptic scenario and no breakthrough in climate negotiations, the International Court of Justice has commenced advisory proceedings which include written submissions and oral hearings to give guidance on the obligation of states in respect of climate change, with a view to handing down an advisory opinion in late 2024 or early 2025. The UNGA initiated a formal request after adopting a resolution by consensus, supporting the government of Vanuatu’s request for an advisory opinion from the ICJ regarding state obligations on climate change. This offers a unique opportunity to shape the future of climate action with a pivotal shift in interpreting climate justice.

For countries that risk disappearing from the face of the earth and others that face life-threatening challenges, the ICJ’s upcoming advisory opinion can help in holding big emitters legally accountable under international law. The advisory opinion may also bolster climate litigation and court cases in jurisdictions across the globe — now seeking to hold governments accountable for climate acts and omissions that cause harm or injury to the most vulnerable of present and future generations. This offers a breakthrough opportunity for changing the course of climate action. The deadline for state contributions of the first round of written submissions to the ICJ has been extended until Jan 22, 2024. For countries in the forefront of the crisis, this opens the door for broader engagement in the climate justice discourse to strengthen arguments and place legal perspectives before the court.

Much will depend on how countries present their cases with strong evidence and progressive views on human rights and environmental and climate international law to help the justices of ICJ to underline what those most responsible for the climate crisis must now do to prevent significant harm to vulnerable nations.

ICJ’s advisory opinion can help hold big emitters legally accountable.

This is also an opportunity to place loss and damage at the forefront of future climate negotiations and make the global community realise that managing the climate crisis beyond moral responsibility also entails binding obligations that can be viewed as legal duty.

The ICJ’s advisory opinion may shift the discussions from countries merely offering charity and aid to vulnerable nations to fostering a fair and legally sound form of reparations for climate harm and injury. For countries like Pakistan that contribute the least to the crisis but suffer the most, this opportunity must be used for timely and strongly argued submissions. With the world caught in the grip of violence at a time when the planet is burning, this development infuses new hope in multilateralism and the global justice system. The idea of voluntary reduction in emissions has not worked. It was instrumental in developing an ‘Agenda of Solutions’ but hope of a fair future has been on the decline. This offers state and non-state actors a unique chance to participate in a process that can clarify countries’ legal obligations and hold them accountable for delivery.

As governments and civil societies around the world get ready to participate in COP28, this opening should be used to press home the point that no country has the right to put at risk the lives of people living in other parts of the world in the name of development that is neither fair nor sustainable. With only seven years to go before the projected scor­ching heat and devastating deluges overrun half of humanity, it is hoped that the ICJ will use past damages and projected future catastrophes to take a decision on what constitutes a global common and how best the international community can assign responsibility and liability for violations. This call for action has come at a time when the global community has taken cognisance of the impact of climate change on the cryosphere. The first inter-polar conference organised by ICIMOD in Nepal followed by a Polar Summit in France, signals that the planet’s equilibrium is at risk and cannot be managed without a “whole of planet approach”.

The decision of the UNGA to request the ICJ to address this issue should not be seen only through the lens of climate justice; instead what is needed is a more holistic view that involves the survival of life systems on Earth of which human beings are the only species accelerating their own extinction.

The writer is chief executive of the Civil Society Coalition for Climate Change.
aisha@csccc.org.pk

Published in Dawn, November 18th, 2023

PAKISTAN
Scapegoating the refugee

Pervez Hoodbhoy 

HERDED like cattle, over 1,700,000 Muslim refugees — more than twice the number of Palestinians evicted in 1948 by Zionist Israel — are presently being expelled from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. A compliant caretaker government wants all undocumented Afghans booted out of the country.

Taking this a step further, the Balochistan caretaker information minister declared earlier this week that, in line with the state’s decision, even those Afghans with legal documents would be expelled. Who runs the state is clear.

Once these unfortunates cross the Torkham border, hell awaits them. Large numbers have never visited, much less known, the famine-stricken land to which they allegedly belong. Hundreds of thousands were born on Pakistani soil but could never acquire documents.

Pakistani authorities gave but 30 short days to sell off possessions acquired over a lifetime, decreed that only Rs50,000 per family could be carried in cash, and forbade evictees from taking along their livestock. Who could be more heartless? Zionists?

The story of loss and displacement doesn’t end here. After enduring extortion by Pakistani border guards, they will enter a country run by a primitive, murderous and misogynist militia that hates all forms of modernity except its guns. No girl may go to school, no woman may work, music and art are forbidden, limb-chopping and stoning to death are back in vogue.

In 1996, Pakistan was the first of three countries to recognise the Taliban as Afghanistan’s lawful government. They committed hideous crimes but Pakistan’s high-placed duffers — as the inimitable Asma Jahangir famously called them — carefully explained away their savagery. For decades Pakistan remained the Taliban’s chief champion and loudspeaker to the world.

Failure of Pakistan’s strategic depth doctrine is why Afghan refugees are being victimised.

When the Ashraf Ghani government fell in 2021, there was glee all around. Then-ISI chief Gen Faiz Hameed preened before television cameras in Kabul as though celebrating his personal victory, while then-PM Imran Khan famously proclaimed Afghans had “broken the shackles of slavery”.

Things have changed dramatically since then and we know exactly why. After a victory, the force of fanaticism does not diminish — it grows. Backed by the government in Kabul, TTP now savagely attacks Pakistan’s army and police almost daily.

Worried Pakistani rulers tried persuading Afghanistan’s rulers to denounce these terrorist acts but met a brick wall. Why expect otherwise? Both the TTP and Afghan Taliban carry the same mindset and have the same goals.

Although many Afghans fled to Pakistan after the 2021 Taliban victory, they are now being falsely accused of providing TTP terrorists a base. In fact the TTP was born in Swat under the nose of our security forces. Had there been a will, Maulana Fazlullah — aka Mullah Radio — could have been instantly neutralised in 2006-2007.

To cover up the establishment’s past incompetence and complicity, hapless refugees are now being scapegoated. They are victims of Pakistan’s bungled foreign policy and its delusionary pursuit of strategic depth. The days of dollar-fuelled ‘jihad’ being over, these penniless people are no longer useful as cannon fodder. Rich Afghans, of course, may stay.

Had Pakistan ever been serious about wanting to destroy TTP’s ideologically charged terrorism, it would have looked for places where the call to ‘jihad’ is loud and strident.

All across the Muslim world the mullah has been tamed by the state. Yet there’s little chance that Pakistani madressahs preaching violence will be investigated. Maulana Abdul Aziz, leader of the Lal Masjid insurrection that killed well over 200, supports the TTP but struts around Islamabad with armed escort.

Those who ordered the sudden deportations claim to defend Pakistan’s ideological frontiers. But unknowingly they are hollowing out the Islamic premise upon which Pakistan was founded.

To understand this, let’s wind back to the mid 1940s when the secular Indian National Congress was in power in NWFP and Dr Khan Sahib, brother of Bacha Khan, was chief minister. The All-India Muslim League was rising but still on the back foot.

To woo the Pakhtuns and counter the Khan brothers’ popularity, Mr Jinnah insisted that Islamic unity must trump ethnicity. As recorded in the Jinnah Papers, on June 29, 1947, he declared, “I want the Muslims of the Frontier to understand that they are Muslims first and Pathans afterwards”.

With closely knitted Pakhtun families living on either side of the Durand Line — a British construct designed to demarcate British from Russian spheres of influence — Jinnah never suggested Pakhtuns would ever be prevented from freely crossing over.

How could a Muslim from Uttar Pradesh become a Pakistani but not another Muslim living right across an arbitrarily drawn line? It made no sense. Jinnah thus won over the Pakhtuns.

The Afghan refugee issue starkly exposes the inherent contradictions within a state created on the basis of religious identity. Still, in my opinion, Pakistan cannot and should not allow every Muslim from anywhere to migrate to the country. While the mass deportation ordered by the government is wrong and has been widely condemned, the wishes of the majority must be kept in mind.

We know, for example, that tensions exist in interior Sindh between the indigenous Sindhi population and the newly arrived Afghans, the latter tending to be socially conservative but also ready to work harder. Such tensions bring to mind Pakistani migrants in Europe who bring along with them their conservative culture plus a host of other problems, particularly crime.

Still, mass deportations of Pakistanis from Europe similar to what Pakistan is doing to Afghans would be wrong and immoral. Migration across borders is now a universal feature of humankind for which there are no absolutes and no clear answers. Open borders are still a distant dream for humanity. For now, sensitive, scientific management is needed. Europe is only halfway up the learning curve.

Afghans in Pakistan must be dealt with as per universal norms that respect human rights and dignity. At a very minimum, those born in Pakistan must be declared Pakistani citizens with rights equal to the rest.

For this, the documentation process must be simplified. Girls and women must not be forced back to suffer at the hands of misogynist rulers. Individuals at high risk must be given asylum, not deported. Nothing less is acceptable.

The author is an Islamabad-based physicist and writer.

Published in Dawn, November 18th, 2023

The other partition

Danyal Adam Khan 

THE Partition lives strong in public imagination. It triggered mass migrations; millions died and even more were displaced. Generations of South Asian writers have since revisited its horrors, allowing us, in so many small ways, to grieve for what was lost. What there is far less recognition for is the other partition; the one that took place along the western border of our country exactly 130 years ago this week.

The formation of the Durand Line was not nearly as violent, but it did formalise a boundary, which permanently split a group of people into two in order to create a buffer zone between the British and Russians. Like most things irredeemably wrecked by imperial interference, the Durand Line was a colonial quagmire inherited by modern-day Pakistan and Afghanistan. And its anniversary could not have come at a more grievous time for relations between the two countries.

This kneejerk policy of expulsion has been adopted by a caretaker setup that lacks the mandate for decisions of such consequence. Afghan refugees have been asked to pack up entire lifetimes in a matter of days as the state resorts to seemingly deliberate obfuscation on who is to be expelled and who is deemed legal. A door-to-door witch hunt has ensued against all. Afghans are being rounded up like cattle, herded into holding centres and pushed across a border — the other side of which some of them have never even seen.

Public opinion, meanwhile, has been rife with hate. The levels of empathy and nuance extended to conflicts farther away disappear when the bigotry is closer to home. Some attribute it to security, others to the economy. ‘Pakistan is for Pakistanis,’ say the people most furious about Western countries exhibiting xenophobia. More gratitude is demanded of Afghans, with no thought given to why their country was rendered unlivable in the first place.

Sending them to an uncertain future with the Taliban does not reduce our economic burden.

We would like to think of our hospitality, not of discriminatory state policies or awkward truths such as the fact that the third generation of a family born in Pakistan is still foreign. For every Afghan who has prospered (and why should they not?), there are countless others living in squalid conditions as permanent residents of refugee camps. Sending them to an uncertain future with the Taliban does not reduce our economic burden, only our moral standing.

But what happens when Afghans are indistinguishable from us? It enables the state to, once again, extend xenophobia towards unprivileged Pakhtuns. They will be harassed, intimidated, and forced to carry documentation for fear of deportation — all with legal cover and carried out in our collective name. What happens when the state treats a certain segment of Pakhtuns as the ‘other’, but does not appreciate expressions of solidarity with their Afghan counterparts over the mutual devastation they have endured for decades? For the past few years, we have been too sensitive about expressions of unity; they are often seen as something more, something treasonous. Any cross-border display of familiarity or critique of our own policies seems to trigger a deep-rooted insecurity. This is precisely why questions of language and identity cut to the heart of state formation. Can the Pakistani state only exist in negation of all other identities? Or is it possible for Pakhtuns to share a nationality with other Pakistanis and an ethnicity with other Afghans? Is there a mutually exclusive hierarchy of identities?

The 130th anniversary of the Durand Line is an apt moment to introspect on all these questions. The answers may very well be the missing pieces in Pakistan’s existential puzzle. Acknowledging this country’s reality of being a state comprising a few nations sets us at ease. It reminds us that the imposition of a homogenous identity on one of the most diverse populations in the world has already cost us half the country.

Expressions of empathy and shared culture and heritage between people on both sides of the border bring us closer. But blanket denial of the existence of these sentiments with threats of sedition charges only makes them resurface with a vengeance. Targeting the most vulnerable segments of society deepens wounds, whereas recognition of the impacts of this other partition will pave the way for a healing process necessary to establish lasting peace.

To achieve such a reconciliation, we must seek comfort in our discomfort. When a country contains multitudes, it is impossible to segregate the populace into black and white.

Such a move is entirely antagonistic to its own parts. Therefore, when things don’t fall into neatly packaged categories, all rage against the grey is futile.

The writer is a journalist.

Published in Dawn, November 17th, 2023

Lethal pesticides

Shweta Dabholkar 

THE World Health Organisation estimates over 19,000 suicide deaths every year in Pakistan, with evidence suggesting that the actual number could be significantly higher due to under-reporting.

Previous research from across South Asia indicates that 20-30 per cent of these deaths are a result of pesticide self-poisoning. This is a particular problem among women and young people below the age of 30.

Counselling, therapy, and medication have been the most popular approaches in policy discourse for suicide prevention. However, to benefit from these services, a person either needs to survive an attempt or have access beforehand.

Strategies that would help a person avoid or survive a suicide attempt could therefore prevent deaths.

Many suicides in Pakistan can be prevented through stricter policy regulations.

Low intent to die: Not every person who dies from suicide intends to take their life.

Evidence shows that most suicides in low- and middle-income countries are of low intent. Often, it is an impulsive act of self-harm, or cry for help, taken in the heat of the moment without premeditation.

Young people may self-harm after being shouted at by parents, scoring low marks in school, or being bullied by their peers. Many instances of self-harm among women are due to domestic violence issues.

These low-intention suicides can be prevented by restricting easy access to lethal means of suicide.

Access to lethal means: During moments of crisis, the method of self-harm available can determine whether someone will survive. If a person has easy access to lethal means of suicide, such as an acutely toxic pesticide, there is a very high chance that the person will die.

However, if they do not have access to these lethal means, their chance of survival greatly improves. Either they will use a non-lethal means, or the self-harm impulse may pass before they act.

Surviving an act of self-harm allows people to access services and support from within their community. The evidence shows that they are unlikely to reattempt.

For this reason, restricting access to lethal means of suicide is recognised as a cost-effective suicide prevention strategy by the WHO. In particular, the WHO, along with the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), recommends banning highly hazardous pesticides.

The problem of pesticide suicide: Pesticide poisoning is the second most common method of suicide in Pakistan. It is also a major global health crisis, responsible for an estimated 150,000 deaths every year. The majority occur in low- and middle-income countries, where rural farming communities have easy access to lethal pesticides.

All pesticides are toxic, with some designated as Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs). These are particularly dangerous to people or the environment. A relatively small number of pesticides are extremely toxic to humans and it is these that cause most deaths in cases of self-harm.

Pakistan is predominantly an agrarian nation, with more than 40pc of the country’s workforce employed in the agricultural sector. Most farmers and agricultural workers use HHPs, believing they protect their crops and livelihoods. Unfortunately, many are unaware of the risks of HHP usage, and lack any means to mitigate those risks. They are also generally unaware of safer, more sustainable alternatives.

In the absence of stricter national regulations and effective enforcement, these deadly pesticides are sold in local shops without controls. They are then kept in homes and fields, within easy reach of family or community members.

As pesticide self-poisoning is usually an impulsive act, it is the easy availability of HHPs that puts people at risk. If lethal pesticides are regulated and replaced by less toxic, preferably non-chemical alternatives, the chance of survival is greatly improved.

Examples from across Asia: This approach has already worked in other countries across South-East Asia. Between 1980-2010, Sri Lanka implemented a series of carefully considered bans on a number of HHPs, resulting in a staggering 70pc drop in the annual suicide rate. There has been similar success in Bangladesh and South Korea.

Importantly, analysis of existing bans has shown that when implemented correctly — ensuring safe alternatives are available to farmers — there has been no adverse impact on agriculture. Food production, and farmers’ livelihoods, are protected.

Of course, this approach does not replace the need for mental health services, which remain crucial for any suicide prevention strategy.

Pakistan’s encouraging approach: Recently, Pakistan has taken an encouraging approach to the issue of HHPs and suicide. In 2019, the government proposed a ban on all WHO hazard class 1a (extremely hazardous) and class 1b (highly hazardous) pesticides, subject to availability of alternatives.

However, Pakistan’s efforts would be bolstered if data on suicides were centrally collected. Currently, there is no official data on suicides, which makes it difficult to inform policy. It is hoped that Pakistan’s progressive step to decriminalise suicide will improve suicide reporting.

There is also little information on how many deaths are due to pesticide poisoning, or which pesticides are responsible in these cases, as hospitals and police record poisoning cases under the broad category of ‘injuries’.

New analysis of research papers has recently identified the two main pesticides responsible for self-poisoning in Pakistan. However, only one of these is included in the WHO hazard class, used as the criterion for proposed bans. The other pesticide, despite being responsible for many deaths, will remain available.

Hope for the future: If all acutely toxic pesticides are removed from agricultural practice, it is estimated that the global pesticide suicide rate will fall rapidly from 150,000 deaths a year to less than 20,000.

A nuanced understanding of mental health-associated risk factors, suicidal intent, and methods of self-harm, will help policymakers to frame effective policies to save lives.

The writer is project and policy officer, Centre for Pesticide Suicide Prevention.

Published in Dawn, November 18th, 2023

PAKISTAN
Growing millions

Zubeida Mustafa 

ONE of the major factors contributing to the environment crisis in Pakistan is the unbridled population growth rate. Environmentalists generally focus more on issues such as climate change and global warming caused by carbon emissions, which are the result of industrialisation, deforestation and water mismanagement. It must, however, be noted that rapid population increase is at the root of all these evils. Moreover, it also has a negative impact on human development, both individually and collectively.

More shocking than the country’s astounding fertility rate is the government’s indifference vis-à-vis the demographic problem. We are way behind many developing states that have a phenomenal record in curbing their population growth rate. We are the fifth most populous state in the world today. I believe this is the major cause of our underdevelopment as it is not possible to meet the basic needs of the whopping numbers who constitute Pakistan today, plus the six million or so who join their ranks every year.

The census in 2023 recorded our population at 241m, an increase of 33m in just six years since the previous head count of 2017. The growth rate was 2.55 per cent. Unless drastic measures are taken the numbers will grow. As Thomas Malthus has reminded us again and again, population grows geometrically while food production increases arithmetically. If this pattern continues for too long then famine, conflict and epidemics intervene to restore the balance.

To give one an idea of how this is reflected in the people’s lives take a look at this data. Today, the Total Fertility Rate (the average number of children that married women of reproductive age have) stands at 3.6. It should be 1.9 if we want our population size to be stationary. The contraceptive prevalence rate is 34pc, which includes the 10pc who claim to use conventional methods that are not reliable. Worse still is the high unmet need of 17pc, denoting couples who do not want to have more children but do not have access to contraceptives. The government has failed in all respects due to a lack of political will, corruption and ineptitude.



The focus should be on the 6m babies born each year.

Also at work is the planners’ inability to understand the relationship between family planning and the empowerment of women. The fact is that underpinning our population programme is the low status of women in Pakistan. That creates pressure on mothers of girls to continue bearing children until two sons are born. Sons are regarded as status symbol for a family.

Interestingly, some NGO members in the family planning sector tell me that the latest trend among women who have had some education and are working is to opt for a small family, even if it means forgoing sons. The problem is that even these women generally have no control over decision-making in their homes and are as powerless in the latter as they are in society. Hence their wish with regard to family size does not prevail. It seems so unfair that women have to submit to their menfolk’s diktat even though the burden of pregnancy and child-rearing falls on the mother.

Yet our population planners are blind to this new trend. Small wonder the focus is heavily on women who are at the receiving end of all counselling on the use of contraceptives and the importance of planned families. Why are men not mobilised and made aware of how our rapidly growing population is creating problems for them as well as for the country?

There is growing evidence that mindsets can be changed by talking to people and giving them the space to talk about their views regarding their problems and how they can be resolved. This dialogue is important if solutions to people’s problems are to be found and awareness created. True, these are issues of a very personal nature but they have a direct bearing on people’s lives.

Hence the need of the hour is to make the subject of family planning a priority and part of the national discourse. Its implications must be discussed freely in all private and public forums. The focus should be on the 6m babies born each year. They have basic rights which neither the state nor the parents can fulfil. That makes their lives brutish. The newborns add to the backlog of poverty, illiteracy and disease, and also make development an impossible task. Ironically, this is happening in a country that is already child-unfriendly and where children are maltreated and abused.

Were the caretaker government to launch a national discourse on the population issue on various public platforms and get population departments to pull up their socks, a useful beginning could be made.

www.zubeida-mustafa.com

Published in Dawn, November 3rd, 2023

Dealing with depression

Zafar Mirza 

“There are wounds that never show on the body…” — Laurell K. Hamilton



Asim Jamil, a young man in his 30s, killed himself some days ago. A huge tragedy. May Allah bless his soul. My heartfelt condolences to the grieving family. He was the second son of the famous Maulana Tariq Jamil, a renowned religious scholar and a household name in Pakistan.

To quell rumours, the bereft older brother recorded and released a video message on social media, explaining the circumstances of his death. Tired of the chronic depression he had been suffering from since the age of 13, Asim took his security guard’s gun and shot himself in the chest.

The brother explained that for the last six months his depression had become severe and he was undergoing ‘electric shock treatment’. This was the will of God and we are satisfied with His will, he said.

What is the depression the late Asim Jamil was suffering from?

We all feel low from time to time for various reasons. Usually, it is due to some loss or sense of failure — for example, the loss of a loved one. Sometimes one feels low without any understandable reason. But most often, the sadness goes away in a few days or weeks and we are back to normal. However, if it persists beyond two weeks and in­­creases in severity, then a point comes when it becomes a disability — a depressive illness or a de­­­­pressive disorder — and requires therapeutic intervention, like any other physical health condition.

Globally, an estimated 5pc of adults suffer from depression.

It is just like having a common cold which generally stays for a few days and then goes away, but then, sometimes, turns into a respiratory tract in­­fection requiring antimicrobial treatment. Rarely, it may even turn into life-threatening pneumonia.

In the manner of a physical health condition, depression is a mental health condition. Human health, according to the WHO definition, is a state of complete physical and mental well-being, together. So, the physical and mental dimensions are inextricably woven in the word ‘health’. They coexist within us, influence each other and require equal attention.

According to WHO, a depressive disorder involves a depressed mood or loss of pleasure or interest in activities for long periods of time. It can affect all aspects of life, including relationships with family, friends and community. Other symptoms may include poor concentration, feelings of excessive guilt or low self-esteem, hopelessness about the future, thoughts about dying or suicide, loss of or disrupted sleep, changes in appetite or weight, and feeling very tired or having low energy. A person suffering from depression prefers isolation.

A depressive episode can be categorised as mild, moderate, or severe, depending on the number and severity of symptoms, as well as the impact on an individual’s functioning. There can be a single episode of depressive disorder or there can be recurrent episodes. Depression can be a part of bipolar disorder, in which depressive episodes alternate with periods of manic symptoms, which include euphoria or irritability and increased activity or energy. Sometimes depressive illness runs in families.

Depression is on the rise. Globally, an estimated five per cent of adults suffer from depression. In Pakistan, in 1990 depressive disorders ranked 22nd among the leading 25 causes of Disability Adjusted Life Years, a metric calculated by adding years of life lost due to premature death and years of life lived with disability. By 2019, depressive disorders had jumped to the 16th position. Depression is about 50pc more common in women than men. Globally, one in four women suffers from pregnancy- or childbirth-related depression (perinatal/postnatal depression), the prevalence of which would be even higher in Pakistan.

Depressive illness or depressive disorder is a treatable condition. For mild depression, cognitive behaviour therapy, a form of talking therapy or psychotherapy by a trained person is helpful. Moderate to severe depression requires high-intensity psychological intervention or antidepressant medication or both. Antidepressant medication must be taken only under continued medical supervision.

The treatment is long-term — six months or more — and the medicines have side effects (dependence is not one of them). They are usually quite effective but must be taken under professional supervision. In a few cases of severe depressive illness, psychotherapy or medication don’t work.

In such cases, sometimes electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is also administered but it is a very specialised treatment and has to be administered at the advice and under the supervision of a psychiatrist. In common parlance, ECT is referred to as ‘electric shocks’, as Asim Jamil’s brother mentioned in his message.

There is a general lack of awareness and understanding about mental disorders, including depression, even among educated people. Commenting on Asim Jamil’s unfortunate death by suicide due to depressive illness, a senior and popular media anchor described depression in his vlog as a special kind of madness and a contagious condition! Because of such ignorance, people suffering from mental illnesses are stigmatised, called mad, mocked and mistreated.

Our medical training also lacks the required attention to mental health. In our country, mental health issues are increasing and so common that they cannot be left to psychiatrists or psychologists alone. In any case, we have only less than 1,000 psychiatrists and less than 3,000 psychologists in the country. Globally, it is estimated that around 60pc of patients with depression lack treatment, one can well imagine the situation in an income-poor country like Pakistan.

Physical and mental illnesses often coexist. Preventive, promotive, curative and rehabilitative mental health services should be an integral component of quality primary healthcare, and all members of the PHC team and the people themselves must be trained to deal with mental health issues.

Asim Jamil’s tragic death was highlighted be­­cause of his famous father. It is, however, a stark reminder of the vast amount of silent and unaddressed mental health suffering all around us.

The writer is a former SAPM on health, professor of health systems at Shifa Tameer-i-Millat University, WHO adviser on UHC, and member of the Pakistan Mental Health Coalition.
zedefar@gmail.com
Published in Dawn, November 3rd, 2023

Understanding suicide

Zafar Mirza 


“No one commits suicide because they want to die”… “Because they want to stop the pain”.

Tiffanie DeBartolo

WHILE late Asim Jamil’s tragic suicide is fresh in minds, it is important to talk about the phenomenon by way of demystifying and destigmatising it.

I know three people in my life who took their own lives. One had been visibly in a low mood for some time before he hanged himself. Another, an adolescent, had a fight at home on some sticky matter and in the evening his body was found on a nearby railway track.


The third one was burnt in his house; there is speculation that the arson was deliberate, as he was living alone following a separation. Now that I have sat down to write on the subject, the faces of all three dear ones are coming to my mind, two cheerful, one sad. May Allah bless them all.

Suicide, “the deliberate act of killing oneself”, indeed can happen as a premeditated act or on an impulse. It can happen due to a stressful life situation or because of mental illness.

Sometimes people kill themselves when they reach a dead end in a crisis situation, e.g. Hitler, and sometimes it runs in the family, for example, the famous writer Earnest Hemingway had seven members over four generations who took their own lives. There are also instances of mass suicides. Suicide, hence, is a diverse phenomenon in terms of its occurrence, reasons and methods.

Mental disorders and suicide are closely related. Systematic reviews inform that up to 70 to 80 per cent of suicide deaths are attributed to a mental or substance use disorder. Relative risk of suicide in people with depressive disorders is highest followed by bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.

Psychological autopsy studies have shown that 40pc of suicides in China, 35pc in India, and 37pc in Sri Lanka are linked with the diagnosis of depression. However, an important study published from Pakistan in 2008 by Murad Moosa Khan et al found even stronger association between mental disorders, especially depression and suicide.

Of the 100 suicides the team studied, 96 were established as having psychiatric disorder through psychological autopsy and 79 out of these had depression as a principal diagnosis.

The most common methods of suicide were hanging, followed by poisoning. Firearms were used in 15pc of these suicides. And only three of these 96 victims were undergoing treatment, one from a psychiatrist and two from family physicians. These numbers speak for themselves and reflect the mental health care situation in the country.

Regardless of the causation, the incidence of suicide is increasing the world over. Globally, around 800,000 people take their own lives every year. Seventy-seven per cent of these suicides take place in low- and middle-income countries.

Globally, among young people between 15 and 29 years, suicide is now the fourth leading cause of death, according to WHO. Of all suicide deaths, 58pc occur between the ages of 15-49.


They are patients, not sinners.

There is a generally accepted rule of thumb that for every suicide there are 10 unsuccessful suicidal attempts and for every such attempt there are 100 people who harbour suicidal thoughts.

According to the estimate of Mental, Neuro­logical and Substance Use Disorders, Burden of Disease study in Pakistan in 2019, there are 9.77 suicides per 100,000 population, which comes to around 20,000 suicides per year in the country. Going by the above, there would be 200,000 attempts and two million people with ideas of suicide.

These are high numbers. In the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region, among 22 member states, Pakistan has the third highest rate of annual suicides after Djibouti and Somalia.

Lately, there have been reports about high rate of suicides from northern areas, especially in Gilgit-Baltistan and especially among young women. Some researchers have been probing the causes but until now there is no conclusive inference.

More women are educated than men in the main cities and nearby areas in GB, there are limited job opportunities and there are strong local traditions for not allowing young people to exercise their life choices. These and others may be the causes, and it may be simply that suicides are being reported more in the media from these areas because similar causes are not less prevalent in many other areas of Pakistan.

Until this point in the article, I have avoided using the word ‘commit’ with ‘suicide’ as ‘commit’ connotes a crime or a sin. There is a history of how suicide has been considered a crime in different countries. This was the case in Britain until 1961. P

akistan continued with it until Section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code, a law from 1860 and a colonial legacy, was repealed in May 2022 by the Senate and in October 2022 by the National Assembly. It was a result of a successful national advocacy and lobbying campaign, ‘Mujrim Naheen Mareez’ launched by Taskeen Health Initiative, a Karachi-based not-for-profit working on increasing mental health awareness, providing free-of-cost mental health support and advocating for mental health policy change in Pakistan. Taskeen is also an active part of Pakistan Mental Health Coalition, an alliance of more than 100 members and organisations working to promote mental health.

Under Section 325, suicide was an offence. A person attempting suicide could be imprisoned for up to one year and could also be fined. The state could take over the assets of those that committed suicide. This would result in non-reporting, stigmatising and lack of treatment. The law has changed now and needs to be fully implemented.

Patients with mental disorders, with previous suicidal attempts and suicidal ideation need special attention. Suicide prevention is critical and complicated and professional help must be sought at the right time.

Suicide is also a taboo. Enlightened religious scholars especially need to play an important role in destigmatising suicide as more than 90pc of people taking their own lives are actually suffering from mental illnesses. They are patients, not sinners.

The writer is a former SAPM on health, professor of health systems at Shifa Tameer-i-Millat University, WHO adviser on UHC, and member of the Pakistan Mental Health Coalition.

Zedefar@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, November 17th, 2023

More than 1 in 10 pediatric ambulance runs are for mental health emergencies

Peer-Reviewed Publication

ANN & ROBERT H. LURIE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF CHICAGO

A new study offers a novel look at the scope of the youth mental health crisis across the United States – in 2019-2020, more than 1 in 10 kids who were brought to the hospital by ambulance had a behavioral health emergency. Out of these behavioral health emergencies, 85 percent were in 12-17-year-olds. Findings were published in the journal Academic Emergency Medicine.

“Our study found that pediatric behavioral health emergencies requiring an ambulance were much too frequent,” said senior author Jennifer Hoffmann, MD, MS, emergency medicine physician at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. “And yet, there are no national guidelines for EMS personnel to manage these patients. We found considerable variation in the use of sedative medications and restraints across different parts of the country. There is a great need for standardized EMS protocols for pediatric behavioral health emergencies. Currently only four states have these available.”

In addition to regional variation, the study found increased odds of restraint use among patients 6-11 years old. Children with developmental, communication and physical disabilities were three times more likely to be restrained than children without these disabilities.

“EMS personnel are likely less comfortable with weight-based dosing of sedative medications and EMS agencies in most states don’t have pediatric-specific sedative protocols, which might contribute to the increased use of physical restraints for younger children while in the ambulance,” said Julia Wnorowska, medical student at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and first author on the study. “Also, protocols for EMS personnel are needed to help manage children with autism spectrum disorders and other neurodevelopmental disabilities. Specific interventions could be developed to prevent and reduce agitation in this population, such as personalized emergency information forms that delineate patient-specific triggers and de-escalation techniques.”

“Future research should determine whether the use of restrictive interventions can be reduced, while simultaneously promoting staff safety, through strategies such as education and adoption of pediatric-specific protocols,” said Dr. Hoffmann, who also is the Children's Research Fund Junior Board Research Scholar.

Research at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago is conducted through Stanley Manne Children’s Research Institute. The Manne Research Institute is focused on improving child health, transforming pediatric medicine and ensuring healthier futures through the relentless pursuit of knowledge. Lurie Children’s is a nonprofit organization committed to providing access to exceptional care for every child. It is ranked as one of the nation’s top children’s hospitals by U.S. News & World Report. Lurie Children’s is the pediatric training ground for Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. Emergency medicine-focused research at Lurie Children’s is conducted through the Grainger Research Program in Pediatric Emergency Medicine.

---

JOURNAL

Academic Emergency Medicine

DOI

10.1111/acem.14833 

PATRIARCHAL PAKISTAN

Sexism continues to live on through men like Javed Sheikh

Sheikh believes even saying 'Mera Jism Meri Marzi' (‘My Body, My Choice’) is not right.

COMMENT
Hawwa Fazal
Updated 13 Nov, 2023

Even after six years of women explaining what the slogan ‘Mera Jism Meri Marzi’ really means and the problems women face because of a lack of understanding of a basic concept like consent, men like Javed Sheikh still refuse to understand. They have buried their heads under the sand, pretending the problems faced by women don’t exist and reducing the slogan to a cheap gimmick.

Whenever ‘Mera Jism Meri Marzi’ is discussed, it always ends up being a barometer for misogyny in Pakistani society. In a podcast with FHM Pakistan’s Adnan Faisal, the ‘legendary’ actor Javed Sheikh implied that he does not believe in consent.

The conversation about women started when the host asked the actor about his opinions on the Aurat March and the slogan, which translates to ‘my body, my choice’. The Quaid-i-Azam Zindabad actor began by saying that though he greatly respects women, women should remain like women. He did not clarify, however, how exactly women should “be like women”.

He stated that he is against the slogan. When the host tried to explain the context behind the slogan, Sheikh brushed it off, saying, “kehna bhi acha nai lagta [even saying isn’t good]“, like a typical misogynist man who is set on his opinion.

His words indicate that he thinks that the slogan is about men and the male gaze, when in reality, it isn’t about men at all. It is about all genders having the ability to have control over their own bodies — including refusing to be touched, stared at or harassed. It is about the every day struggles of women who have to think twice before stepping out of the house. It is about all genders who feel unsafe in public and private spaces due to a looming fear of being touched against their will and much more.

In the podcast, Sheikh went on to explain why he was against women saying the slogan, “This is an Islamic country, you are born in a Muslim family”. Before he could complete his statement, the host interjected to explain that the slogan is about consent. However, it failed to make any impact on the actor. “I disagree with this,” he said nonchalantly, sliding back in his chair.

“Aurat jitne covered hogi utni achi lagay gi, meray hisab say [The more covered a woman is, the beautiful she will look, according to me],” the actor said.

One would think that as the father of a daughter, Javed Sheikh would be more empathetic in understanding the need for women to have control over their bodies and have the power to refuse anybody who tries to force themselves onto them. On the contrary, he said he didn’t even feel that women should have this power. He failed to grasp the concept that no one should be able to have power over anyone else’s body but their own.

It seems like Sheikh lives in a bubble where the worst problems are the way women dress. He seems to be under the impression that having agency over your body means women in Pakistan will be running in the streets in their birthday suits. We think he needs some lessons on what women who live outside his bubble experience and how they often have to bear the consequences of a lack of understanding of the word ‘consent’.

His words and actions clearly show that he, like most bigoted Pakistani men, has failed to understand that the word jism is not sexual. Instead, the “slogan is fundamentally saying you don’t get to set the terms of my life, my body, my decisions, my agency, you don’t get to dictate,” as beautifully put by Mira Sethi.

 

We Are Not Beautiful

As Pakistanis, we need to come to terms with our innate prejudices about beauty, writes Tyrone Tellis.

TYRONE TELLIS

UPDATED 19 OCT, 2023 

When my son first started school, an interesting incident occurred. He was asked to write a few sentences about his mother. So he wrote his mother’s name and that she is tall – and he also wrote that she is fat – and that is where the problem arose. Apparently, two teachers tried their best to convince him that he could not write this description about his mother. He was adamant that he could. My wife, for her part, had a good laugh. However, the incident does reveal a lot about our attitudes towards body appearance and that old subterfuge beauty.

Beauty has been part of history and folklore for millennia. Men, we are told, have desired and admired beautiful women. Standards of beauty have, of course, varied from age to age and culture to culture, and just as customs and traditions have changed, so has the idea of what beauty is. It’s no secret that good-looking people are popular even when the facts tell another tale. Take the myth about Cleopatra’s beauty. The Egyptian queen, who was of Macedonian descent, was, according to historians, not the iconic beauty we have seen immortalised on the big screen; she was in fact a woman with a strong personality.

However, talking about the personality of a woman without clubbing it with the word beauty seems like heresy in our modern day and age. We have experienced quite a few revolutions in the past 150 years, and one of them has been the rise of the body positivity movement. The logic we hear time and again is that everyone (women in particular) is beautiful. To suggest anything else would warrant a lynch mob and brands, it seems, have embraced this mantra. Dove especially has won accolades and public support for embracing body positivity and empowering women to believe they are beautiful.

From an ethical perspective, the reality is different and global brands are dangerously spreading Western ideals of beauty – especially of fair skin. Even in Africa, women are turning to whitening creams, while closer to home in India, there has been a backlash against fairness creams, the ripples of which have been felt in Pakistan. Rights activists have castigated the emphasis on fairness as whitewashing and colonialist. However, to be honest, brands do prey on people’s low self-esteem, so it is not surprising that activists and even ordinary people have been condemnatory of certain brands – and while it is true (hate it or love it) that the world is appearance-driven and to a large extent obsessed with perfection, this mindset is nevertheless a dangerous one that breeds low self-confidence at best and self-loathing at worst.

Do brands generate low self-esteem especially among women or do they rely on it? Although this seems to be a chicken-and-egg discussion for most, I feel that brands zero in on the insecurity and sense of inadequacy created by the negative incidents that affect our lives. Do brands in the beauty and personal care business have a moral responsibility to change the way they communicate and advertise? Yes, they do; more so in the age of social media where the veneer of fakeness has become so thick and can lead to damaging mental and emotional consequences.

---

In Pakistan, however, it is rare for a beauty or fashion brand to divert from the stereotypical skin colour, body type and height seen on international ramps and screens. For things to change, we need to accept our colourism and prejudice towards darker complexions first.

---

So are beauty and personal care brands stepping up to the plate? While some have, by embracing plus sizes and ethnically diverse faces, most are still perpetuating the fair skin, slim figure and thin waist stereotype that has influenced millions of impressionable women globally. This is not to say that efforts have not been made towards diversity and inclusivity. I remember when I was doing my A’ levels, a student from Somalia joined our class. To introduce himself he told us his name and which country he came from. As expected, very few of us had heard of Somalia, so he asked us if we had heard of supermodel Iman, informing us that she too was from Somalia. We all knew that Iman was among the most beautiful and celebrated women in the world, but for that student, it meant representation and global prestige for his country.

So has enough been done? The answer is that small steps have been made. We all know how Dove made body positivity a cause. Furthermore, the popularity of people like Priyanka Chopra and the launch of brands by Rihanna has meant that women who are not necessarily fair or slim can find suitable products for their skin tones. In Pakistan, however, it is rare for a beauty or fashion brand to divert from the stereotypical skin colour, body type and height seen on international ramps and screens. For things to change, we need to accept our colourism and prejudice towards darker complexions first.

As any sociologist will tell you, beauty is a social construct, and although it varies from society to society, the ideal of beauty is the same; to be thin and fair. Cindy Crawford made a telling point when she said she wished she could look like Cindy Crawford when she is on screen.

Today, brands in the beauty and personal care segment are endorsing body positivity and as far as good intentions go, this is worthy, but it is not enough. In my view, beauty standards are not the issue. Beauty as a standard is.

We need to drop the slogan that everyone is beautiful and I also think that the adage that beauty is only skin deep is even more toxic. We need to tell ourselves and especially our children that what we need to do is focus on what is beneath – that is what really matters. As a society, we – the public, the activists and brands – need to learn to celebrate substance instead of something as superficial as skin. Ed Sheeran embraced this mindset in his song Beautiful People: “That’s not who we are; we are not beautiful. Yeah, that’s not who we are; we are not beautiful.” And that is not something to be ashamed of.

Tyrone Tellis is Senior Manager, Corporate Sales and PR, Bogo. tyrone.tellis@gmail.com