‘COMPLAINTS’ and protests that keep pouring into my inbox do not always deserve publication. I deal with them bilaterally. They range mostly from ‘why my letter was not published’ to too much space or too little coverage given to a party or leader. I keep telling them that non-publication doesn’t mean rejection, and a choice has to be made to accommodate a maximum number of letters in the space available.

There are, however, two letters which I believe I must share with our readers. One is a criticism of what the letter writer says was “unacceptable and improper language” used in an op-ed article, titled ‘The dark side’, by Farhan Bokhari in our issue of March 24.

The use of that kind of language, says the writer, “for Pakistan’s bureaucracy repeatedly was in bad taste and made the article “repulsive at the very outset”.

He adds, “One can disagree with the civil servant officials, with the military authorities, with the journalists, but the disagreement should be in proper tone and language. Using terms like baboos, khakis and munshis for these three professions does not behove a writer of his standing or a newspaper of the stature of daily Dawn.”

Checking the content and quality of language is the essence of editing.

The use of “offensive vernacular terminology”, he says, “betrays a lack of manners and paucity of genuine arguments, where [a] point is made through improper slangs”. Instead, he suggests using the term “civil servants or officers or bureaucracy” for referring to the officials of Pakistan’s foreign ministry, which has produced “some of [the] greatest names in our bureaucracy”.

Personally, I believe there is nothing wrong with these words. ‘Khaki’ is a term widely used for the army, especially in the South Asian context. Neither the Chambers nor the Oxford Learners finds it derogatory, the Chambers etymology telling us that it derives from “Urdu-Persian khaki, meaning dusty”. The critic should know that checking the contents and quality of language is the essence of editing, and several layers of evaluation and editing go into copy before a piece is printed.

Here is Mr Bokhari’s response:

“Please allow me to say that the term ‘baboo’ has been widely used in the South Asian media including Pakistan. To consider such a term as evidence of ‘offensive vernacular terminology’ suggesting ‘lack of manners and paucity of genuine arguments, where [a] point is made through improper slangs’ suggests a lack of appreciation of the do’s and don’ts in today’s media. I would, of course, welcome any feedback on the gist of the argument which referred to the policy shortcomings that have led to a continuing decline of Pakistan’s agricultural sector.”

The second complaint concerns our sports editor Rishad Mahmood’s satirical piece on Shahid Afridi, ‘Why should I quit?’ (March 26). The writer also complains that the Pakistani women’s cricket team had not been given due coverage.

Mr Mahmood’s reply:

“As sports editor, I would like to say that our coverage of Pakistan women’s cricket team in the ICC World T20 was quite elaborate and easily the best among the contemporary publications. Not only did we carry a number of photographs of women players on our sports pages as well on Dawn’s front page after their two victories against India and Bangladesh, we also carried match reports and a detailed interview of Sana Mir from Kolkata.

“Since Pakistan women team’s last match against England finished well after the sports pages deadline, a brief report of the match was carried on Dawn’s back page. However, I regret that we did not carry a preview of the Pakistan-England match in the sports pages or the photographs of women cricket team players upon their return from India.

“As for my satire piece ‘Why should I quit?’ being tabloid stuff, I completely disagree with the objection. After spending 24 years in sport journalism, mainly in daily newspapers — not just in Pakistan but Saudi Arabia, the UAE and England — I would like to emphasise that almost all leading newspapers such as The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, the Times of India and others carry dedicated sports satire pieces and spoof pieces written by well-reputed writers which enjoy huge following among the readers.”

As for the editorial, I would like to point out to the critic — a sport journalist who wishes to remain anonymous — that Dawn published two editorials on the Pakistani women’s cricket team. The first one, printed on March 22, titled ‘Women’s cricket win’, was specifically on cricket and paid tributes to Sana’s team by saying they had “achieved new heights”, while their male counterparts had “continued to struggle”. The second leader, that of March 29, was pegged on cricket but discussed the issue in broader terms. Mr Mahmood is right when he says the thrust of the editorial was on Pakistani women’s participation in international sport events.

The writer is Dawn’s readers’ editor.

Published in Dawn, April 12th, 2016