|
|
|
|
 |
 |
   |
comment exhibition Stars
that shone in Peshawar Our
new-age comedy Pakistani comedy since 50/50 has been little more than cheap, pun-oriented fits of epilepsy shared between a group of outdated, unfunny uncles. The first time I witnessed something more, however, was from a group of individuals who took it upon themselves to fill thirty seconds of commercial airtime with something genuinely entertaining. Thirty seconds that would otherwise be wasted broadcasting a talent less fat kid with curly hair… hugging refrigerators.
comment Legal
solution to a political question Whichever
way one looks at it, the beginning and end of the ‘memogate’
controversy is political, as there is no constitutional issue to be
resolved. Ultimately,
Asma Jahangir’s stance on the Supreme Court Order is exactly right The ‘memogate’
controversy is a political question, which means it is a question for
political resolution between the political branches of government (the
executive and the legislature) and other State institutions, like the
military and the intelligence, which are subordinate to the government.
The controversy requires political resolution because it has a direct
nexus with structural issues relating to civil-military relations. To put
it bluntly, the Supreme Court, in principle, has no role to play in this
controversy. Let us see why. The Supreme Court, in
addition to its appellate jurisdiction, has what is known as “original
jurisdiction” to admit and hear cases directly — that is to say, it
can assume jurisdiction over a certain category of cases that need not go
through the usual hierarchical appellate route before reaching the Supreme
Court for ultimate resolution. This category of cases is constitutionally
circumscribed for obvious reasons. If it weren’t so circumscribed,
litigants would flock directly to the Supreme Court for expedited
disposal, creating massive demands on the Court that would be impossible
to sustain over time. Not only that, if the Constitution allowed the
Supreme Court unlimited jurisdiction over constitutional matters, every
dispute, whatever its nature, could potentially turn into a “legal
issue.” Put another way, there would be no boundary between
executive/legislative powers on the one hand, and judicial powers on the
other. That would be a recipe for constitutional disaster as it would
render meaningless the philosophy of “separation of powers” or
“trichotomy of powers” which is the fundamental feature of all modern
constitutional governments. Those who have some
appreciation of history — even of our own limited political history of
the past few decades — would know that combining executive, legislative
and judicial powers in one institution, or even combining two of them in a
single office, is synonymous with tyranny. Separation of powers minimises
the risk of tyrannical government. Article 184(3) of our
Constitution, which spells out the original jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court, recognizes these two critical principles of constitutional dispute
resolution: firstly, that the Supreme Court is, as a general matter, a
court of last resort, except where there is an important constitutional
issue at stake; and secondly, that even where an important constitutional
issue is at stake, the Supreme Court must not arbitrarily assume
jurisdiction over it if it encroaches upon the political powers and
functions of the executive/ legislature. Article 184(3) says: “…the Supreme Court
shall, if it considers that a question of public importance with reference
to the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights…is involved, have
the power to make an order…” [emphasis added] The above provision
provides formidable judicial review powers to the Supreme Court to keep in
check executive and legislative excesses. But the two elements of
“public importance” and enforcement of “Fundamental Rights” are
not discretionary. They are essential threshold requirements. Without
independently establishing both elements, the Supreme Court cannot
exercise its original jurisdiction. If it does, it is doing something as
unconstitutional as, for instance, the prime minister of Pakistan taking
on a judicial role and convicting a person accused of a crime. Only a
deeply misconceived notion of judicial independence can lead one to
support the former as constitutional, and dismiss the latter as illegal. Let us now subject the
memogate controversy to the two-pronged test in Article 184(3). The
Supreme Court’s Order of December 30, 2011 (henceforth SC Order) holds
that the memo petition is maintainable under Article 184(3). Although the
SC Order does not contain the reasons for this decision (as the full text
of the Order is yet to be written), one may attempt to explain the
rationale for maintainability based on the facts of the controversy, the
replies and affidavits filed by the parties, and the judges’ comments
during the hearings. General Kayani (COAS)
has stated in his reply that the there is sufficient evidence to establish
the existence of the memo and that its contents have “an impact on
national security and…attempts to lower the morale of Pakistan Army.”
He bases this conclusion on information provided to him by General Pasha
(DG-ISI) who recently met with Mansoor Ijaz personally in London. Nawaz
Sharif and other petitioners have presented a similar ground, and one
petitioner has even gone so far as to say that “each and every Pakistani
is at security threat due to present government” which is
“collaborating with Pakistan’s enemies”. Presumably, it is on the
basis of these articulations of “national security” that the Court has
held the memo to be a matter of “public importance.” In effect, what
is being alleged is that because the civilian government solicited the
assistance of a foreign ally to prevent a likely military takeover in the
aftermath of the raid on Osama Bin Laden, it undermined the military’s
political power and supremacy over the country and thereby damaged its
morale. Indeed, even if one were to concede the existence of the memo, it
is now a matter many months past and has not accomplished anything by way
of implementing such a threat. Thus, the entire matter, though amenable to
political discussion and investigation, is a moot point in terms of the
current judicial inquiry. In any case, if the Supreme Court was genuinely
interested in upholding and protecting “national security,” the
multiple provisions in the Constitution that unequivocally make the
military and intelligence services subordinate and accountable to elected
representatives could not have gone so brazenly unnoticed. Whichever way one looks
at it, the beginning and end of the controversy is political, as there is
no “constitutional” issue to be resolved. As far as the second
threshold requirement of “Fundamental Rights” is concerned, the SC
Order mentions cryptically the rights to life, dignity, and information.
While the latter is a new and untested addition to the Constitution, the
former two Fundamental Rights have been a regular feature of the highly
thoughtless Article 184(3) jurisprudence emanating from Chief Justice
Iftikhar Chaudhry’s Court since 2005 under the garb of “judicial
activism”. Any number of activities and policies, ranging from wedding
meals and kite flying to development projects and oil pricing mechanisms,
have fallen prey to the Court’s intervention through the “right to
life” (article 9) and the principle of “inviolability of dignity of
man” (article 14). It appears that we are now expected to add a highly
ill-defined and military-centric notion of “national security” to this
inexhaustible and unbounded jurisprudence. The fact that the Court
did not even deign to raise the issue of maintainability of the memo issue
when it first came to the Court indicates how trigger-happy our judges
have become in encroaching upon the representative branches of government.
This is judicial tyranny — not to be confused with judicial
independence. Quite apart from the
question of maintainability, one must ask, what is likely to happen if the
memo does indeed exist along with its alleged contents? Could Mr Haqqani
be criminally charged with high treason under Article 6 of the
Constitution? High treason is established where an individual “abrogates
or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance” the Constitution (or
attempts or conspires to do so) “by use of force or show of force or by
any other unconstitutional means.” Clearly, this is an offence against
the mutilation and subversion of the Constitution, not against lowering
the morale of the security forces. It is ironic that
Article 6 makes one think instantly of Ayub Khan, Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez
Musharraf — as well as the Supreme Court that validated the subversion
of the Constitution many times over. And if Mansoor Ijaz’s allegations
are to be believed in totality, one may add General Pasha to this list,
given his anti-State overtures to Arab allies to overthrow a
constitutional president. Husain Haqqani seems to be quite a lightweight
compared to this veritable military-judicial complex. Yet, as if the memo
weren’t enough, the chief justice of the Lahore High Court has promptly
admitted a petition alleging high treason against Prime Minister Gilani on
the basis of non-conformance with the Supreme Court’s orders. Ultimately, Asma
Jahangir’s stance on the SC Order is exactly right. Even before the
3-member judicial commission initiated its investigation, the Supreme
Court unwittingly exposed its bias against Haqqani and, more broadly,
civilian representatives of the Federation. Consider how the Court
readily lent credence to the claims of an individual as dubious as Mansoor
Ijaz simply because the COAS and DG-ISI affirmed the existence of the
memo, but at the same time discredited the affidavit of James Jones
(former National Security Advisor) that forcefully contradicts Ijaz’s
version of the facts. Consider why the SC Order is conspicuously silent
about Ijaz’s other “revealed facts” that directly implicate General
Pasha in high treason. Consider why the Court dismissed out of hand
Haqqani’s pleas regarding the unauthorised meeting between General Pasha
and Ijaz in October 2011 as “technical flaws,” refusing to recognize
the obvious unconstitutionality of this backdoor rendezvous. Consider what
prompted the Court to immediately and unthinkingly admit as a petition
under Article 184(3) a random letter written to the Chief Justice by a
Canadian national of Pakistani origin alleging that the present government
was a threat to national security, while at the same time ignoring another
petition urging the Court to subject to equal scrutiny Ijaz’s
allegations against General Pasha. If these are not
sufficient grounds for raising doubts about the judiciary’s
impartiality, consider the fact that the judicial commission has already
enlisted the assistance of the ISI — an interested party — in
authenticating the “forensic evidence” pertaining to the alleged BBM
communication between Mansoor Ijaz and Husain Haqqani (para 7 of the
Commission Order dated Jan 2, 2011). Should serving judges need constant
reminders to guard against obvious conflicts of interest? All said and done, the
citizens of this country have available to them two important
constitutional routes to oust the government of the day through their
elected representatives. One is impeachment of the president, the other is
a parliamentary no-confidence move against the prime minister. But the
memo petitioners lack both the numerical strength and the gumption to do
things the constitutional way. And true to its historical legacy, the
Supreme Court seems to be exercising its unbridled powers — with the
support of the security establishment — to again facilitate the ouster
of a civilian government. Who needs martial law or the 8th Amendment when
we have the Supreme Court to do the lynching? The writer is an
Assistant Professor at the Department of Law & Policy at LUMS. Her
areas of teaching and research include comparative constitutional law and
theory, federalism and ethnic politics, and the criminalization of civil
wrongs in Pakistan. The writer may be reached at maryamk@lums.edu.pk
Of
kites, kurties and cartography In
nature there are no borders. Pritika Chowdhry addresses these man-made
divisions and the devastation they brought in her recent works at Rohtas 2 By
Quddus Mirza A child’s act of
scrawling simple shapes like a circle, square and rectangle on sand at a
beach expresses the basic human instinct of conquering one’s
surroundings. Man fulfils it by an elementary method: by marking a
territory before he actually takes it. The act of possession apart from
proclaiming ownership also denies others such claims. Thus, drawing an area or
map-making is not just an effort to know; it is also a way to control. In
nature there are no maps. God created this planet into great stretches of
land, adorned (or disrupted) with natural elements, like sea, rivers,
mountains, deserts, ridges, forests etc. Man divided the world into
continents, countries, provinces and cities: all clearly and
carefully-defined on maps of every sort, size and usage. Often people
living under these man-made demarcations believe them to be natural or
divine; they fight against anyone who dares to question the relevance,
logic or permanence of these boundaries. The concept of borders
is so important in our lives that people are ready to shed blood on a few
furlongs and miles. The notion of a nation is dependent upon the shape of
its boundary on the international map, without examining or questioning
the powers or people who have drawn these boundaries. In one of his short
stories, Jorge Luis Borges comments on the futility of these lines, by
relating how an ancient emperor of China ordered to prepare a map of his
kingdom which was true to scale. Whether the map is of
actual size or is a small representation, in essence it’s a work of
fiction, created by an individual or a group who have managed to convince
the people to sacrifice their lives to uphold the sanctity of these maps.
However, after some years or centuries, they may realise the inaccuracies
of these divisions. If one recalls the maps of medieval ages, one is
bemused by the naivete of these attempts. In modern times, maps of several
regions have been modified due to political reasons. States such as Soviet
Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia were disintegrated at some point in
their history. The role of outside powers is clear if one looks at the map
of Middle East, particularly of North Africa, where the lines separating
one country from the other are straight as if made on a drawing paper. The subcontinent went
through a number of transformations, first in 1947 and then in 1971,
giving birth to three nation states. It would be interesting to compare
how people of these countries refer to same historical events; for
instance Pakistanis see 1947 as independence while Indians call it
partition. Similarly 1971 for Pakistan is the fall of East Pakistan
whereas Bengalis commemorate it as the liberation (something that reminds
of another historical event in 1857, referred to as Mutiny by the colonial
rulers and the War of Independence by the locals). These divisions of
territory, no matter how you classify them, brought devastation in many
forms. One cannot forget the atrocities of 1947. Mass migration of
population, killings of innocents, rape of women and looting of property
mark the memories of our independence from the British Empire. These
incidents have been a subject of our writers (though not many) but none of
our major artists have tackled this sore point from our past. A general
sense of amnesia is seen in art as far as 1947 is concerned. It’s a
serious omission considering that the history books of all three countries
— including Bangladesh — contain multiple and conflicting versions of
events. Actually, in the absence
of an impartial official picture of the past, it is the artists who
interpret reality and usually arrive at a truth that is not bound or
bended for the reasons of State. Pritika Chowdhry has dealt with the issue
of partition not only in South Asia but in other parts of world such as
Palestine/Israel, Ireland and Cyprus; where countries were split on the
basis of faith. This division is different from other racial and
ideological splits like Germany, Korea, Central Europe; and countries of
East and Latin America directed by colonial powers. Chowdhry in her
research has examined the identical motif which testifies a greater
imperialist design, implemented in various parts of the world by
segregating ethnic/religious sections of population. In her works (on display
from Jan 2-14, 2012, at Rohtas 2, Lahore), Pritika Chowdhry has addressed
these divisions using a range of images, symbols and techniques.
Fabricated with paper and other materials, two installations including
cholis (blouses) or kurties (short shirts) and kites are arranged in
circles and suspended on different levels inside the gallery. Along with
handmade paper, thin layers of cow and pig’s guts (both these animals
signify religious taboos of the two large communities of the subcontinent)
are also added on some of the surfaces. Kites and dresses have lines of
maps on them, accentuated with a grid that describes the distribution of
areas into small sections. So in these, one can find details of Indian and
Pakistani cities, regions of Palestine and Israel and areas of North
Ireland and Republic of Ireland (as well as proposed division of Iraq on
the basis of religious population, approved by the US authorities).
Although the artist has used the form of chess as a model and a pattern to
indicate imperialist manouvering, the installations convey her ideas more
convincingly. In these pieces, lines that supposedly mark the division of
maps appear like stitches on bodies, barbed wires and streaks of hair. A
similar treatment of surface is seen in the kite which for Chowdhry
represents male contingent because kite-flying is usually associated with
men. Apart from the obvious
association of male and female, both the kites and kurties suggest that
the segregation of gender may become irrelevant in a great tragedy. Also
like kurties, which are worn across the borders, kites fly without the
restriction of official/political boundaries. So in a paradoxical way,
kites and kurties are made of maps but transcend these limitations. This
reminds one of Shakir Ali’s remark during the war of 1965. When asked
about his apparently ‘unpatriotic’ subjects, he replied that he paints
flowers which blossom in both countries and moon that shines on the two
sides of the boundary. In the same way, kites,
kurties and the art of Pritika Chowdhry (Indian-born US artist) moves
beyond the confines of cartography, especially in a world in which you
wake up in Japan, have lunch in Moscow, make love in London and die in
Detroit — all in the span of a single day. It doesn’t really matter if
you are a national of Madagascar, Malaysia, Macedonia or Mexico.
Giving
heritage status to the ancestral house of Dilip Kumar and Raj Kapoor will
push the wall of prejudice and see talent as it exists By
Sarwat Ali The government of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa has taken a commendable step in naming two houses where the
greatest film personalities of the subcontinent were born, as “qaumi
virsa”. Two stars born in Peshawar are Dilip Kumar and Raj Kapoor who
spent the early part of their lives in Mohallah Khudadad and Dhaki Munawar
Shah of Peshawar before going on to dominate the Indian film industry for
the next few decades. Due to the tense
relationship between India and Pakistan, some of the most evident
realities like the commonality of heritage and the recognition of each
country’s areas of excellence have often been ignored. On the whole the
relationship has been marred with ambiguity and inconsistency and this to
a large degree has blighted the sensibilities and perceptions as well.
When some local film star decides to work in an Indian film it creates
uproar, and is not seen as a natural progression. Qurratulain Hyder was
stymied for having moved to India after making Pakistan her home and Faiz
Ahmed Faiz also resisted taking up assignments in India for fear of being
misunderstood. Dilip Kumar went to
Bombay in search of a film career and after a few failures was able to
make good with ‘Jugnu’ released a few months before the partition of
India. Noor Jehan, the heroine of the film, born in Kasur took an
unexpected decision and came to Pakistan with her husband who was born in
United Province, now Uttar Pradesh. Noor Jehan’s decision has never been
truly acknowledged for she was an established star while Dilip Kumar had
just made it. He decided to stay back in the capital of film making in the
subcontinent and was not to regret it as he went on to become the most
adored hero of the silver screen, winning laurels from connoisseurs as
well as the man in the street. He only came to
Pakistan, that too for a humanitarian cause and as he also went to visit
his ancestral house, he was given an unprecedented welcome and people
actually came out on to the street to greet him like a head of state or a
national hero who has won laurels for the country. Dilip Kumar and Saira
Bano were overwhelmed and thanked Pakistanis for the display of
overflowing love and admiration. Prithviraj Kapoor also migrated first to
Calcutta and then to Bombay from Peshawar and not only became a famous
film personality but founded a whole dynasty that has since dominated the
film world. Ustad Bare Ghulam Ali
Khan too bid goodbye to Pakistan after a couple of years of living and
struggling here to find his true place but was forced to migrate as he
found more appreciation and reward for his music in India. He only came
back once to Pakistan while on his way to Kabul to attend the very famous
annual festival called Jashan-e-Kabul. In the case of Bare Ghulam Ali
Khan, too, though he quit the country he was generously adored and admired
by the lovers of classical music and all his achievements in India were
seen as justified achievements of a son of the Punjab. Even when his son
Ustad Munawwar Ali Khan, who spent his childhood in Lahore and then
grandsons when they visited the city were given a warm welcome and a
protocol that far exceeded what their talent deserved because citizens
were paying homage to Bare Ghulam Ali Khan and not to his grandchildren. If both sides begin to
count the number of such personalities these can run into thousands. Two
of the Nobel Laureates, Hargobind Khorana and Subramanyam Chandrashekhar,
who were acknowledged for Medicine in 1968 and Physics in 1983, were born
in Khanewal and Lahore respectively. Shahrukh Khan, the current superstar
of Indian too would have been born in Peshawar if his father had not
decided to move to Delhi in the middle 1940s just a couple of years before
partition. The rest of the family still lives in Peshawar and his uncles
and cousins all hope that some day Shahrukh Khan will pay them a visit and
probably receive the kind of adulation that Dilip Kumar received in the
1980s. Two of the Indian Prime
Ministers Inder Kumar Gujral and Manmohan Singh played in the dusty street
of Jhelum. Gulzar, a famous lyricist, was born there while the current
honchos of the films, the Chopras — Yash and before him B.R. both toiled
in Lahore in various capacities, primarily film journalism before their
star shone bright in Bombay. Now they make and break destinies and
reputations in the tinsel town. It should not be left to
a few individuals or a particular field because it is all over the place.
In all fields and all sectors, limited not to the generation that migrated
but in their progeny as well. Indeed a very difficult and complicated task
and the people and governments have desisted from it for fear of a
backlash and accusations of going soft on the enemy. But it is a good step
the government has taken because it will push the wall of prejudice and
see talent and greatness as it exists irrespective of religion, colour,
creed or lineage. Perhaps time has arrived to look beyond the narrow
definitions of loyalty and patriotism and feel confident about
appreciation beyond the stigma or the fear of sleeping with the enemy.
This division for long distorted our history as well as perception. Let us
acknowledge all sons/daughters of the soil and pay them homage and expect
that the other side too will be shamed by our gesture of large
heartedness. The first step taken by the government of KPK should be
followed by other such steps by individuals, and more so by the
governments.
It is
raw, uncensored, free of agenda and just as valid as anybody else’s By
Akber Ali Khan We had all assumed that
the worst epidemic to hit the youth of our country was the desire to
abandon ship. We assumed wrong. Instead, over the past couple of years I
have witnessed an undercurrent of comedic talent, as raw as it may be, on
the rise. Pakistani comedy since
50/50 has been little more than cheap, pun-oriented fits of epilepsy
shared between a group of outdated, unfunny uncles. The first time I
witnessed something more, however, was from a group of individuals who
took it upon themselves to fill thirty seconds of commercial airtime with
something genuinely entertaining. Thirty seconds that would otherwise be
wasted broadcasting a talent less fat kid with curly hair… hugging
refrigerators. Carving yourself a niche
in the incredibly close-minded world of mainstream media in Pakistan is
difficult, and as innovative as people groups like The Four Man Show may
be, the parameters of the industry limit their creativity. Which brings me
to the undercurrent that I mentioned earlier. Enter, the world of Youtube.
This boundless and totally free media platform has enthralled hundreds of
young Pakistani’s who now do far more than just watch; they make. And,
the act of making is already in short supply. Youtube just wasn’t
our domain a few years ago, but as of late you’ll find Pakistanis have
settled themselves comfortably enough into the world of internet
video-making and we’ll probably see this trend continue, for better or
for worse. Pakistan’s youth at large has taken many trajectories over
the past couple of years, intoxication being the least productive, second
to event management, of course. But the beginnings of
anything underground start when the ‘mainstream’ turns into a
formidable entity, which it has. Mainstream comedy grows bolder by the
day. Both in its expression and topics, it has progressed well beyond its
timid predecessors. Free media, or whatever you may think it is, manages
somehow to promote some thought provoking anecdotes for the masses to
watch. Sadly, those we invest our hopes in the most we also take for
granted; the educated youth (we do try, promise). As small a percentage as
they may be, these are the solemn few that possess the capacity to
catalyse the nation towards prosperity. Take mainstream
comedians like Sohail Ahmed, for example. They will not only tickle your
funny bone, but bombard it with painfully hilarious punch line after punch
line – lose the fat broad laughing hysterically on his show, however,
and I’d say it would bump up the show’s comedic value even more –
but our troubles are far from over at this point. There is a continued
trend that lies at the basis of all comedy in Pakistan, and that is the
undying desire to pick on specific people. So long as this continues, us
the audience will hardly ever reflect upon ourselves. Comedy isn’t just
about pointing out flaws in a specific person and exaggerating them, or
passing a few witty remarks followed by a punch line about ‘what they
did last year at their French Chateau’. Comedians can do more
than just provide comical commentary for news. We are part of the society
we perpetuate, part of the politics we produce and so very much a part of
our country’s condition. Mr. Ahmed and the likes are but moments away
from reeling in their audience and saying, “Hey, listen, you laugh at
the things I say, but here’s a little food for thought” but that
rarely ever happens. Sadly, this leads me to my next point, that even if
these mainstream comedians were to accommodate such a feature into their
act, the demographic that needs to be reached will still turn a blind eye
to all of this. Though these comedians
have progressed significantly; their humour refined, punch lines improved
and backbones reinforced, the problem with the demographics they target
still remains. Will it be the already consumed corrupt minister that
brings change or his designer jacket wearing greased-up hairball of a son?
The latter, I assure you. The kind of change you can expect by default
from this disappointing pile of genetic refuse probably won’t be what we
want either, so better start ‘enlightening’ them now before it’s too
late. But how do you get through to them? You let their friends make fun
of them. The youth listens to the
youth. It’s hard to come down to our level, but we will eventually reach
yours. Arrogant I know, but such is the nature of things.
Before I myself was
personally involved in making online videos I knew little of what went on
in that realm. I was shocked; long before I even reached, there were
groups of kids making videos with thousands upon thousands of followers on
their Facebook pages. One notable find was a group of young school kids
from Karachi hailing under the name of ‘The 3 Idiots”. They had some
few dozen videos ranging from comedy to serious messages — naïve on
occasion, but it’s the thought that counts right? – But surprisingly,
I had never heard of them through mainstream media. It would suffice to
say that they weren’t making these videos for money; they were doing it
for the recognition they got from their peers. Shortly after this, I
stumbled onto Zero Talent, a group from Islamabad making similar videos.
Now, almost every few weeks I find that something new has started up. Mega Productions,
JangoMango studios, Third World Productions, 3 idiots and Pada
Productions, just to name a few, I could go on. There are dozens upon
dozens. But a little bit of inspiration, a tiny drop of exposure and a
whole lot of freedom isn’t always enough to generate decent quality
comedy. But here are a bunch of O-A level and university students speckled
across the various major cities of Pakistan putting themselves out there
potentially for hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis to love or ridicule.
Yet, for all their fervour they go largely unnoticed by the mainstream. Soon enough, this
impromptu movement will fizzle out and be labelled a ‘phase’, soon
enough. But that is not an outcome set in stone. Let those who are
established stretch their hands out to those who are rising, no need to
pull them all on to the Tele, but a bit of recognition does go a long way.
Changing perceptions is
the name of the game, and these kids are doing exactly that for no reward
other than a comment on their Youtube videos, and a hit of the ‘like’
button on their Facebook pages, boy, talk about a selfless bunch. But
without guidance, or praise or recognition, this potential game-changer
will disappear. The key difference between these ‘amateurs’ and
professional comedians like those of the Four Man Show is that an amateur
opinion is an honest one. It is raw, uncensored and free of agenda and
just as valid as anybody else’s. The youth has been activated, if you
want to know what a lot of young people are thinking, you can find your
answers quicker on Youtube than any place else. The most critical aspect
of all this though, is that these amateur comedians are rising from within
the very ranks of the people they parody, criticise or praise. These things may seem
insignificant now, but what generations share most in common are their
experiences. This generation, the youth of today, is enabling their peers
to laugh at themselves through common experience. This exhibits the
youth’s ability to observe, but even more importantly to articulate
their observations in a way that is creative and daring. Something the
seriousness of our past generations — In culture, religion and society
— did not allow. |
|
