While an undergraduate at Smith College, Sharmeen Obaid became politically and journalistically active, lecturing, and writing for publications such as The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Coast (a Canadian weekly), and several Pakistani newspapers. One of Obaid's articles for The Coast examined the plight of Afghan refugee children in Pakistan. Her interest was piqued, and she decided to continue to explore the issue through a different medium. The product was a film entitled Terror’s Children, which premiered on the Discovery Times Channel on March 25, 2003. Obaid is currently completing her MA in International Policy Studies and Journalism at Stanford, and editing her second documentary film for the Discovery Times Channel.
You started off writing as a freelance journalist about Afghanistan and Pakistan while you were an undergraduate at Smith College. What made you shift from a print medium to a visual one? What are the ways in which the latter genre is more powerful?
I was a freelance journalist when I was in college. After September 11th I realized that people in the West really have no concept about life in Pakistan or in Afghanistan. If you just read newspapers here, you simply get a description, but unless you have seen pictures or been to that part of the world, there is no way that you can really understand the situation there. So I wrote a story for one of the papers I was freelancing for about Afghan refugee children but I didn't feel that I did justice to the cause or to the children. People can pick up the newspaper, read an article, close it but they do not have a mental image of what they have read. That is why I decided to show my readers what life is really like in these Islamic religious schools, and in the refugee camps.
One of the most compelling reasons why I thought my making a documentary would be an excellent means of communication to the Western world was because I am from Pakistan. So I am not a Western journalist who has been planted there for three days to survey the scene. I can bring a fresh perspective.
I think visual media are more powerful if you're talking about a part of the world that very few people have either gone to, read about or spent time in; Pakistan is one of these places. Since Pakistan has perpetually been on the list of terrorist countries, very few people actually venture there. That is not the case with India. People have a very different perspective of Pakistan.
I wanted to show them sides of Pakistan that wouldn't necessarily ever come out here, and I think making a documentary was a very effective way of doing that.
When you were thinking of making this documentary on Afghan refugee children who fled to Pakistan in the wake of the American bombing in October 2001, to what extent did your intended audience shape the form your proposals took?
Well I had to be realistic. I was a 23-year old graduate out of Smith College. Who would give me money to make a documentary, considering I was not a film student, or a journalism student? So when I wrote the proposal up, it came out of the article I had written previously.
Also, after watching a lot of news shows, I decided that I had to write a proposal that offered something different from the news shows that were on television, projecting Pakistan in a very negative light, and also sensationalizing the situation. The war in Afghanistan became about Osama bin Laden, and not about the Afghani people. So in my proposal, I simply wrote that this documentary is not about the so-called bigwigs: Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar and so on. It is about the people who are actually on the ground, suffering, without any food, who have had 20 years of civil war. I think in that sense when I was pitching my documentary, I decided I was going to take the path of the "ordinary" person, something that is not done in news shows here. I think that really made the people who funded my film attracted to the proposal.
You have said elsewhere that you wanted to tell the story of these Afghan refugee children from a "Muslim" perspective. What, in your view, did that entail and how is it that the final product reflected that intention?
Well, a Western journalist would go to Pakistan, go to an Islamic religious school, see young boys being recruited and reading the Quran in a trance, and would immediately equate that with terrorism, or future terrorists. If a Western journalist goes to the refugee camps, they would automatically look for the Taliban there. They would not concentrate on the children or the women for example. It would always become a hunt for "evil."
Being a Muslim, I decided I was going to have a fair and balanced point of view. Yes, there are Islamic religious schools in Pakistan that do train terrorists, but there are others that provide a social service. Pakistan is a Third World country, and we are one of the largest recipients of Afghan refugees in the world. We can't even afford to feed and clothe and educate our own population. So these Islamic religious schools are providing a service and my film shows the balance between the two kinds of schools, which I don't think is usually shown in other media outlets here.
I also picked up children who came from various different backgrounds. They were not only Pashtuns who supported the Taliban. There were a lot of people who were happy with the Taliban being gone. I tried to get a variety of children, so the audience could get a flavor of how not everyone is a terrorist in Afghanistan, and not everyone supports the Taliban, and not all Muslims are the way they are projected in the West.
One of the things that is most striking about Terror's Children is the extent to which you avoid any mention of the political context which forced these children to live under such conditions in Pakistan. Was that a deliberate choice, and if so, why was this choice made?
I made a documentary about life in the refugee camps from the eyes of a Pakistani. I did not have the credibility to be a political commentator in my first film. It was more of a social film with a hidden message. There are instances in the documentary where you have the young children commenting; one young boy says something about Musharraf being a traitor, for example. There are other hints here and there. I generally felt though that I would keep away from the politics and just present the social picture the way it is. I did not opt to go and talk about Musharraf, or talk about Pakistan being a terrorist ally in the past with the Taliban, and now being an ally of the US. I just did not want to go there.
The film also seems to confirm certain assumptions - already widespread in the mainstream media - that this region breeds hatred and antipathy towards the West without providing much historical or political background (for instance, you discuss the madrassahs in Pakistan without mentioning the conditions under which they flourished during the Cold War). Did you do this because you felt that making a "human interest" story - focusing exclusively on the everyday lives of these children - would likely gain greater sympathy from your intended audience?
One of the reasons that I did not delve into a lot of the political context was because I felt that the stories of the children would tell themselves. My audiences have reacted and have been interested to know firstly why there is a refugee problem in Pakistan. It is because of the US, and it does come out in the film that the US was bombing, and that is why the children left. But I was not overt in placing blame on the United States. In my whole documentary, I am not blaming anyone: I am not blaming the Pakistanis for having these madrassahs, etc. and nor am I blaming anyone else. My job was to go there and be in a refugee camp and in an Islamic religious school and talk about the lives of the children, and that is what I limited myself to. However small or narrow the context might be, I just felt at that point in time that nothing had been projected about this aspect of the situation; there had been a lot of documentaries made on Al Qaeda and terrorism, but nothing about the human aspect.
There were in fact a lot of political documentaries in general, about the role of Pakistan after the Cold War and so on. I stayed far away from those political documentaries. I grew up in Karachi, so the stories about Karachi, and how these children are affecting Pakistan were interesting to me. In some sense I do talk about politics; for instance, the June 14th bomb blasts that happened at the US embassy. It is these children who perhaps came in 1990 after the end of the Soviet war and are now adults. There are hidden messages here and there and a clever audience would really understand what I am talking about.
My second film, though, which I am editing now, is very much political.