Sharmeen Vs. The Victims: Ethics of the Academy Awards

Polarization acts as an insidious disease to society. Once any matter is affected by it, all nuances are consumed by this evil and all shades of gray are seemingly omitted to place various aspects and factors simply in black or white. Stringent dichotomies are produced and there seem to be no rational means to reach a conclusion. A recent example of such a polarized debate is in regards to Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy’s documentary A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness. Two opposing perspectives emerged; one that believed this film to be shameful for Pakistan while the other argued for it to have been a source of tremendous pride. Any other criticism or appreciation which was not related to either of the matters of “shame” or “pride”- was forced into these categories by default. However, some aspects beg to be reviewed and evaluated in isolation from the ongoing debate; for these aspects are not fuel to intensify the fire of any one side, but are in fact matters completely different. In the case of Chinoy, her team, and documentary- the aspect which needs to be evaluated in isolation is; the questionable ethics employed by Chinoy while filming her documentaries.

On the 9^th of April 2016, the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) had scheduled the screening of Chinoy’s academy award winning documentary A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness. The screening was to be followed by a discussion led by a panel, which included; Aimen Bucha, Hadi Hussain, Sonia Qadir, and Sarah Suhail. Furthermore, two members of the team behind the documentary were also invited; Saleha Qureshi and Wasif Arshad. What was especially intriguing about this specific screening was that, Saba Qaiser- the protagonist of the film who shared her story with the entire world, was also invited to be present as a special guest. The audience was disappointed by the fact that Saba Qaiser had not shown up for the forty-minute documentary. However, just as the discussion was to begin, Qaiser and her family members entered the auditorium. Once the floor was open to questions, it was blatantly evident that there were grave inconsistencies in the narrative told by Saleha Qureshi and Wasif Arshad and the responses of Saba Qaiser. Upon the question arising if Qaiser had herself seen the documentary, it was astonishing to find that her answer was no. She later also mentioned how her life had now been exposed to even more threats by her Uncle and Father. What can only be described as perhaps the most stifling moment of the correspondence between the guests and audience, was when Saba Qaiser was asked how she gave consent to a documentary that could potentially endanger her life even more. The representatives of the documentary quickly piped up -assuring the audience more than Saba- that she had signed a consent form. Saba was left bewildered stating that she does not recall because everything seemed to have occurred in a haste. The very next day after having been a victim of the brutal ‘honor’ attack, Saba Qaiser was visited by Sharmeen Chinoy in the hospital. Perhaps it was then when Qaiser had signed the consent form. However, the doubt regarding how ethical this timing was for Chinoy and her team to get the consent form signed, still lingers heavily in the minds of those who attended the talk.

While every single aspect that was revealed during the talk permits one to question the ethics employed by Chinoy and her team, perhaps the most troublesome aspect of all this is not related to what was revealed during this specific talk. This particular aspect is in regards to a certain pattern of controversy that surrounds Chinoy’s works. Previously, in 2012 after Chinoy had won her first Oscar for the documentary Saving face, Rukhsana Bibi -who was featured as one of the victims of acid attacks- claimed that she had been cheated by Chinoy. Rukhsana Bibi claimed that Chinoy had promised her a certain amount of money and a five marla plot which she failed to give her. Moreover, she stated that she was not aware of the fact that she was to be featured in a documentary that would be screened worldwide. The repercussion being that since she belonged to an extremely conservative family, she had now been disowned for appearing in front of the entire world without her veil.

While it is essential to always remain objective and neutral in the face of controversy, it is also equally important to remind ourselves that no individual should be exempt from warranted speculation and analyses. We must not thrash those who attempt to bring good in the country but we must neither place them on pedestals that are soaring in the skies, high above rational criticism. The controversial ethics involved in Chinoy convincing these women to take part in her documentaries; the incomplete information conveyed to them; and the unfilled promises -are all cases of her word against theirs’. Yet, one cannot dismiss the pattern that has emerged following the International and National recognition of Sharmeen Chinoy’s documentaries and one can definitely not dismiss her questionable ethics.

-Meshal Malik

*Apologies for citing the names of Haya Fatima Iqbal and Asad Faruqi previously. They were not the representatives of the SOC team present during this time, instead it was Saleha Qureshi and Wasif Arshad.