GRETA Thunberg’s brave Gaza foray drew global praise. However, questionable reactions rose at home, saying Malala Yousafzai’s absence proves she is woke and weak. The Stockholm syndrome makes some love their harassers. Our reverse ‘honour’ syndrome means we often hate our do-gooders.

Both Malala’s old rightist and new liberal critics ask why she is not like Greta, who’s also young, a big-city Westerner born to rich famous stars. Malala, with her humble roots, still rose to be Malala. One left riches, one beat poverty. Both also gain from their own roots. Ordinary Pakistanis were among those who went with Greta in the Gaza flotilla, so why not those chiding Malala? Some say it was Malala’s duty as a do-gooder to go. But why aren’t they do-gooders too? What about other do-gooders like the Edhis who didn’t go? The ire is a reflection of an uber-competitive capitalism urge to junk even do-gooders for not being the best one; West-infused racism that locals can’t ace the whites; native elite and sexist ire as a poor girl got global fame; rightist ire at her liberal dare; and the echo chambers that run on social media.

People facing injustice need both advocacy against it and aid to meet their urgent survival needs — till advocacy slowly wins. Both can go hand in hand. But advocacy against abusive states can risk aid work. Do-gooders tackle the risk wisely. Some do loud advocacy only and others muffle it to retain aid access to save lives — the top humane aim.

Without scaling the heights these two did, I have done global advocacy and aid work in 50 places including war-torn Gaza, Sudan, Yemen, Congo, Somalia, Sri Lanka, our ex-militant-run areas, Haiti, Liberia, Afghanistan and Myanmar. I too undid this dilemma via this duality. In being with people living in misery in remote war-ravaged areas, some make the hard choice — to quit global advocacy that results in fame and give aid quietly to save lives. We need both. Aid is Band-Aid but advocacy is surgery. Aid more often meets its simple aim than, sadly, advocacy meets its lofty one.

Malala, with her humble roots, still rose to be Malala.

Malala gave millions, co-signed letters and spoke much on Gaza from day one, more often than her many critics. She said early on, “Aghast to see the bombing of al-Ahli Hospital and unequivocally condemn it. I urge Israel to allow aid and repeat my call for a ceasefire”, and later, “makes me sick to my stomach to see Israel’s brutality”. But she is cautious unlike activists not doing aid work. So are even big old set-ups like Red Cross and the UN facing the vile ‘USrael’ duo to retain aid access and funds. More so are our Edhis, Chhipa, etc, who shun state money. But even so, to have access in crises, they never chide the state that causes them. The Edhis sent aid to Gaza but did no advocacy. To not impute such good motives to a do-gooder, and instead, call her selfish is naïve.

The good advocacy that Amnesty and others do via reports and meetings in the West is safe. But when aid staff face death, injury, kidnapping, trauma or disease in remote areas, it is not safe. The Greta-style combative activism is risky. Heads of aid set-ups, such as Malala, or even those of big advocacy groups don’t undertake such activism, not just given the risk but also their agency stakes and duties linked to their critical work. So, while both Greta and Malala are young do-gooders, they don’t do identical work as their work choices, paths and stages differ.

Malala took more risks than most and sustained injuries that left her nearly dead, in long and painful therapy and sca­rred forever. That is enough harm so early in life for a lifetime. Is she evil in seeking safety now like all of us who shun risk? She still does good and speaks loudly on the school ban on girls by the Afghan Taliban that some of her critics vainly dismiss as a cultural issue. One can chide her for interactions with those who support Israel but without smashing her whole person and work with a sledgehammer. We too err much.

Comparisons between Greta and Malala tend to buck such issues and vainly pit one do-gooder against another. In fact, looked at through a different lens, they both complement, and compliment, each other. Foes hate Malala for not being her but Greta loves Malala as her idol. As a young lady like Greta, Malala needn’t be her clone. The world adores Malala as she is. Those who dislike her have erred in their judgement.

The writer has a PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, in political economy and 25 years of grassroots to senior-level experiences across 50 countries.

murtazaniaz@yahoo.com

X: @NiazMurtaza2

Published in Dawn, October 14th, 2025