Malala shooting: Does the BBC share the blame too?

Malala, a 14-year-old Pakistani girl, an activist who was writing a blog on her life and education in frontier Pakistan was shot in her head by the Taliban. It is one of the most reprehensible acts ever committed and the language for condemnation doesn't exist in me and many. She became known because of the blogs she was writing on her life in her area where the Taliban was active and the BBC was carrying that blog. The Taliban are evil and banal but the BBC and by extension the West also comes out looking irresponsible and selfish, guilty of using a child and putting her in an acutely vulnerable situation.

* * *

The Taliban is a crude, hysterical and violent force which knows no reason. Living in a world dominated by 6th century ideas, beliefs and ideologies, they repress their own future and that of their own people. It would be difficult to find anyone liking them unless forced to. Even staunch Muslims condemn them for many of their acts and a Taliban future in Afghanistan arouses dreadful fear in most minds including of those who follow the faith.  But the Taliban constructed in the Western mind by the media is a product of their own anxiety and carefully designed to create the very images that confirm their ideas of the 'enemy'. It is indeed a clash of two 'civilizations' in the worst possible sense. If the Taliban is a product of ignorance, the West's participation in global conflicts also shows a monumental level of ignorance that is now bordering on being a threat to the life and peace of many of those whom they claim to support.

* * *

Malala is a 14-year-old girl from the Yusufzai tribe who was writing a blog carried by the BBC. It brought her attention, fame and danger in a land where death is always a close neighbour. Didn't the BBC do a minimum risk assessment of having a young girl write a blog critical of the Taliban?

As a BBC journalist, I was not allowed to go to report in Pakistan once because I hadn't completed the high risk contingency training and Pakistan was considered unsafe. If so, how was Malala allowed to go on writing blog that obviously exposed her to extreme danger?

A minor can't make proper assessment of the situation but a global outfit can.  Malala was writing on education and the threat to it by the Taliban. The first duty was to protect her identity but it wasn't done. Till evidence is placed that the BBC took all precautions it has to be assumed that there was wilful omission and negligence.

* * *

The Taliban and the West it seems to have several things in common and one is the intent of trying to impose its notion of right and wrong, its own world view on others. To the West, all the girls in Afghanistan are prisoners of the Taliban which is a bad guy and the West is the only good guy. It is this attitude which the Taliban holds in reverse which says everything Western is bad. What inspires both at least in part is probably the religious tradition they share which has space for only one position. Pluralism doesn't exist in such mental spaces. Hijab is not something most Muslim women wear but taking the hijab off a Muslim woman is not the primary objective of life.

* * *

This 'sexual freedom' issue obsesses the West and a typical example was that of the singer Madonna doing a striptease dedicated to Malala Yusufzai.  To her and many like her, it's only by undressing a woman is freedom achieved. The exact opposite is the Taliban who think all they need to do is put a burqa on a woman's body to save her body and soul. Quite frankly, it's the same Taliban mentality that is working in both cases. So Madonna is a Taliban of the West.

* * *

Is the idea about the education system all true? In my recent conversations with agencies running schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I learnt the following.

A particular agency has been running 7000 + schools for girl children mostly with nearly 20,000 students. Till date nearly 240,000 children have joined and passed from these schools in Afghanistan.  The same agency is running 100 schools in Khyber-Pakhtoon Khowa in Pakistan and 3000 children have already graduated. Next year the number will double.

Does the Taliban bother you? I asked:

–         We work with the community and to them these are schools for children so everyone sends their kids. We don't know who is a Taliban and who isn't and it isn't our business. People know it's safe because it's close to home, doesn't do any propaganda and we respect local customs and people.

–         We also don't do undue publicity or put up signboards everywhere. We are discreet, accepting of the reality of a conflict driven country and within that reality we work to educate children.

–         The key point is that it's a war-torn country and by accepting that face, increases safety, gives education and improve lives. Blogs will not change lives much but schools will and that is where all interests should lie. Only when education goes to scale will things change, not when blogs are read by many.

* * *

Is the BBC really serious about protecting children? The recent case of the late Sir Jimmy Saville is a point. He was a popular DJ who was even knighted for his services but who was also a brutal paedophile who had regular sex with underage girls – some as young as seven years – and boys over many years using his position and influence. After a documentary was produced where victims came forward to speak about abuse at his hand, the police finally moved. Everyday victims are now coming forward including from mental health institutions and schools where Jimmy was given access to as a celebrity. On 12 October 2012, the police announced that they had received 340 lines of enquiry, are dealing with 40 potential victims, and have recorded 12 allegations of sexual offences which date back to 1959.

Many of the abuses took place in BBC premises including its studio and dressing rooms. If this is proved, the BBC premises may well become the most frequently used public office space for sexual abuse of children.

But equally serious is the allegation that the environment within the BBC was conducive to sexual abuse. Now a High Court Judge Dame Janet Smith has been appointed to look into the issues. She will speak to the victims and explore whether the 'culture and practices' at the BBC 'enabled the sexual abuse of children to continue unchecked'.

If sexual abuse was allowed to go on in its premises year after year how serious can they have been about Malala's safety in distant Pakistan?

* * *

What the BBC did was to turn Malala into a partisan in the war against the Taliban without giving her the protection. She didn't know what was best for her and the BBC took advantage of  her age and naiveté  to promote itself and its cause.

The Taliban pulled the gun but the BBC shares the blame.

———————————————
Afsan Chowdhury is a journalist, activist and writer.