Uproar over a Cartoon?

I don`t think there would have been even a single voice of protest had Washington Post labelled the dog as ``Musharraf`` or ``Pak Army Generals`` or just simply ``Pak Army``. There would have been no protests whatsoever just as there weren`t any when Musharraf almost got blown to the sky or when Gen. Ahsan Saleem Hayat narrowly escaped a meeting with Gen. Zia. And as some interactors have suggested that is what is really going on anyway i.e. Army/Generals/Musharraf doing the bidding of the U.S like a faithful dog. So the question is, why all the uproar.

See the thing is, with the dog labelled Pakistan, it somehow implies that the people of Pakistan have some say in (or have some power over) what Musharraf & the Army are doing and whatever is going on actually has the backing of the common Pakistani.

Pakistanis just want the world to know that majority of Pakistanis never agreed to act like America`s dogs. Only Musharraf and his ghairt-mand corps commanders agreed to a role like that. So the solution: the dog be re-labelled properly and that will be the end of all protests.

Re: # 30 Mukhlis

As a matter of fact, the people of pakistan are so adamant about it that they have drawn sketches to show American people how the cartoon should have been:

#28 by Urstruly on May 17, 2005 6:51am PT

nothing hurts my feelings....you can post pictures of pakis standing on the US flag all you want...I hope you aren`t bothered by images of marines with shoes in a mosque(right before they go out and whack a bunch of jihadis...all with your tax $$)...

Re: # 29

I did not write my post to hurt your feeling rather I wrote it to entertain you. I thought I chose the best humor that in my opinion would enrtain a hindu but it seems that I fell short of the standards of you people.

What`s idiotic and offensive there? It`s the ultimate endorsement of your loyalty to Uncle Sam. So all you cousin fuckers should be proud of yourself.

Re: # 27

vagabond78: ``So all you cousin fuckers should be proud of yourself``

I can assure you that the only female cousin(s) of YOURS f***ed by Pakistanis, as per you allegation, are the MOST LIBERAL ONES who courageously work alone at nights, or the ones who go to ME on 3 month visit visas sponsored by their spouses to ``supplement`` the hubby`s income; while the hubby toils away in the desert sun or keeps the camels from off-season breeding in a game of camels-on-the-jockey....lol

Ssaleemi sahib:

Calling Pakistani generals and for that matter Pakistani ruling class dog would be a gross affront of the loyalty of dogs. Producing such disloyal, corrupt and shameless dogs would take much more of genetical engineering than what is available to human race at the moment.
Sorry to remind you, though you definitely have right to have your opinion, insulting cute dogs goes beyond your democratic rights.

Dawn, May 17, 2005

The great cartoon turmoil


By Omar R. Quraishi


THE fact that much of Pakistani society could do with a good dose of tolerance, reason and realism was never in doubt. However, the recent publication of a cartoon in an American newspaper and the near-hysterical reaction of many Pakistanis, especially the members of the National Assembly and assorted politicians drives the point home once again with renewed emphasis.

Consider what happened in the first week of May, after the capture of Al Qaeda’s operational commander Abu Faraj Al Libbi. Bill Garner, editorial cartoonist for the conservative and right-of-centre Washington Times, drew a cartoon showing Pakistan as a dog holding Al Libbi in his mouth, while a US soldier says to the dog: “Good boy! Now let’s go find [Osama] bin Laden”.

The news of the cartoon was published in various Pakistani newspapers, prompting the National Assembly, which was in session at the time, to devote several hours of debate to the offensive cartoon. Politicians of the six-party ARD alliance and from the treasury benches unequivocally condemned the Washington Times and said that the cartoon was proof of the slave-like relationship that Pakistan had come to form with the US.

This line of reasoning fitted in well with the attitude of the critics of the Musharraf government’s policy of cooperation with the US in the war on terror. Among them Tehrik-i-Insaf chief Imran Khan and the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, JUI chief Maulana Fazlur Rahman, were in the forefront of the attacks on the US-Pakistan alliance.

Mr Khan spoke quite severely of the relationship and proposed that Pakistan should deny US forces’ use of bases on its soil. The minister of state for religious affairs, Aamir Liaquat Hussain, joined in saying that the government would take up the matter with the US government. Eventually, much to everyone’s satisfaction, the National Assembly ended up passing a unanimous resolution asking the federal government to take up the issue of the cartoon with the US government.

Following this, even the Foreign Office spokesman got into the act saying that the cartoon was “highly derogatory” and that Pakistan had asked the US government to investigate whether the cartoon was a “deliberate attempt to ridicule the country”.

Then, on May 10, the newspaper itself, in an editorial titled ‘A dog’s life (and times)’, said that the Pakistani embassy in Washington had told the newspaper that the cartoon was “an insult to the sentiments of the people of both Pakistan and the United States as it strengthens the hands of the extremists”. The editorial further said that “this imputes more power to a mere newspaper than any newspaper deserves, but we take the embassy’s point and offer the assurance that no insult was intended.” Quite clearly part of the problem in this case was a lack of understanding of the cultural image of dogs in this country and the West.

There is no denying that the cartoon was indeed offensive and that its timing, appearing just when Newsweek magazine had reported that US soldiers were deliberately desecrating the Holy Quran while interrogating prisoners at Guantanamo Bay detention centre, couldn’t have been worse. But the over-reaction seen in Pakistan is clearly not justified. First, the cartoon appeared in a private publication and to ask the US government to take the matter up with the newspaper’s management seemed to make little sense, reflecting a lack of understanding of how the print media works in the US.

Some of the main critics of the cartoon, especially Imran Khan, have lived in the West and should be aware of the fact that the media there often pokes fun, sometimes in poor taste, at prime ministers, ministers, other domestic politicians, royalty, entertainers and various public personalities. As already pointed out quite aptly in a Dawn editorial the other day, British newspapers routinely show their own Prime Minister Tony Blair as George Bush’s pet dog.

However, neither did Mr Blair’s government order a crackdown on the offending newspapers or ‘take the issue up with the management’ of the newspapers, nor did the House of Commons pass a resolution against any such portrayal of the prime minister.

One argument used by those who have huffed and puffed about the cartoon is that it reflects the very poor opinion that the newspaper has of the US-Pakistan relationship. These people should have known that the Washington Times is a very conservative newspaper which makes no bones about its political and ideological leanings and its editorial content generally reflects its reactionary views. And as the newspaper itself indirectly admitted in its editorial, the unanimous resolution passed by the National Assembly seems to have given the Washington Times and its cartoonist far more importance than the matter warranted.

Also, what exactly is the US government expected to ‘take up’ with the newspaper given that lampooning and ridiculing domestic politicians, especially presidents, is quite common in America. Mr Bush can perhaps express anger and frustration in private with the constant ridiculing he receives at the hands of many a prominent late-night talk show host (and indeed from many cartoonists and stand-up comics as well) but his administration cannot really extract an apology from the management of a newspaper or a TV network, unless libel or defamation is involved.

For their part, the members of the National Assembly (who must be feeling quite happy and content for passing the resolution) should perhaps devote equal time and attention to other pressing matters. For instance, not a single member of parliament could find the courage to express even shock and outrage at the recent lynching of a man in Nowshera by an enraged mob after he was accused of blasphemy or to take on the self-styled guardians of public morality who recently attacked a women’s race in Gujranwala.

Similarly, when incidents of harassment and violence against women, children or religious minorities happen inside Pakistan — quite regular occurrences — one never sees any MNA or senator huffing and puffing or proposing resolutions against the discrimination or demanding that the federal government arrest and punish the perpetrators.

In fact, how many members of parliament have found the time to debate issues and provide solutions to problems that are close to the heart of most Pakistanis such as provision of clean drinking water, combating rising environmental pollution, providing cheap and affordable public transport, or having schools that have walls and teachers and basic health units which actually have doctors, nurses and medicines at government subsidized rates.

For example, instead of promising that the government would take follow-up action on the cartoon insult, the minister of state for religious affairs would have done better if he had, instead, chosen, for example, to inform parliament of the progress, if any, on the registration of madressahs and the measures, if any, being taken to modernize their curriculum.

When they are not absenting themselves from the house, something that is quite the norm given the frequent adjournments that happen because of lack of quorum, they are busy making fiery speeches and passing unanimous resolutions on non-issues like a cartoon appearing in a country thousands of miles away.

Email: omarq@cyber.net.pk

We ordinary Pakistanis firmly believe that it would be much much closer to the reality and truth if the word PAKISTAN on now that famous dog of Washington Times should be considered and read PAKISTANI GENERALS instead. Yeah, RULERS would be more appropriate but RULERS = Generals. More or less same crap. Hats off to the Washington Times that calls thing with their true names. Please be sure that 90 % Pakistani civilians think like this.

#17 by Urstruly on May 16, 2005 8:00pm PT

Re: # 22 arjun

Thank you arjun for the picture; but don`t you see that it is just the carpet they are standing on. Going by the logic in this article and through the interacts from the people who are custodians of western interests in our lands, I don`t see a difference if you address your brother in law as b/chod or father as m/chod because that is what in fact they are. We are all bhonsri.../ke since that is where we all come from (I was a scissarian by the way). A hindu man when committs a sexual congress with his niece, is addressed as mamon/ mama in India by the woman, and other address him as bhaanji ke. These are all words.

#18 by nauman9 on May 16, 2005 8:11pm PT


Please see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1454897.stm. However, that is not what Indians believed when the burned the effigy of George W. Bush. They were taken for a free ride by the Indian politicians, just like their Pakistani counterparts.


How many people were killed in the Indian protests? Did the Indian parliament pass a resolution against Dubya`s cat?

No...? Then it`s not the same....nice try, but no cigar....