On the day, the image of the lifeless body of three-year-old Alan Kurdi -- clad in a bright red T-shirt and blue shorts washed ashore, face-down into the surf at the fashionable Turkish resort of Bodrum -- appeared on the front pages globally, I was sitting in the office of an Islamabad-based daily.

Predictably, the discussion veered around the deeply poignant, if disturbing, frame that seems to have launched a thousand perceptions, including dramatically altered ones.

My editor friend, on his part, lamented the unfortunate cropping of the image into a lame three-column width, wondering how a more generous display would have brought home the poignancy deservedly.

In the wake of the printed image, one was reminded of the Stalinist maxim -- ‘a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic’ -- but that would be debasing a reality that had until now not quite hit home in a world increasingly weary of death, destruction and -- to borrow from William Wordsworth’s lament -- "what man has made of man".

An intense debate has followed over the merits and demerits of splashing the seemingly indignant ‘face-down’ image. Not all mainstream national and international newspapers however, stuck their necks out for the heartrending sight. Many preferred the more ‘humane’ picture of a Turkish gendarmerie cradling Kurdi’s lifeless body even as still others opted to either pixelate the head or, outright, obscure it in choosing the former.

The Guardian felt it necessary to publish a full-length insider account on why and how it chose to make a rare exception in not holding back -- although its front page choice was the Turkish gendarmerie holding the toddler’s body. The explanation offered plenty of grey matter on an issue that should be of considerable interest to decision-makers in the newsroom, anywhere.

In offering a largely holistic approach -- rounded on why "this was not a moment for self-censoring" -- it drove home on the "enormous poignancy and potential power of the photographs" to serve as a "tipping point" to evoke "public sympathy and even anger at Britain’s role as an apparent bystander in this saga".

If that was idea, it certainly paid dividends with Prime Minister David Cameron forced to change his rigid stance on the refugee crisis!

The Independent was the only British paper to splash the ‘face-down’ image, which its editor Amol Rajan put down to shock-into-action mantra. "Ultimately, we felt - and still do - that the power to shock is a vital instrument of journalism, and therefore democracy. Our motivation wasn’t avaricious; it was to shock the world into action," he posited.

But not everyone agreed with the ‘power to change’ truism. Indeed, Bild, Germany’s best-selling newspaper, removed all pictures of Alan Kurdi from its print edition and website in response to public complaints.

The paper which had likened Alan’s image to that of Kim Phuc, the famous Vietnamese girl running naked from a napalm strike during the Vietnam war, asserted: "The world must see the truth in order to change."

We, in Pakistan, had our own hour of reckoning last year, when forced to deal with the nerve-shattering imagery from the brutal Taliban assault on students and teachers of Army Public School. Even though many of us in the newsrooms around the country have grown accustomed to the vicious cycle of violence, for sheer cruelty, the Peshawar episode was unlike any the world has witnessed in recent history.

So while it is true that images can considerably alter perceptions that fuel change, it is undeniable that, in the end, we pick and choose what horrifies us. While one can debate endlessly notions of dignity, intrusion, privacy and compassion, sadly, it has taken the image of a drowned toddler to make the world understand better -- and with a greater sense of urgency as nailed by EU executive Jean-Claude Juncker in reading the riot act to member states last week -- the predicament of a people forced to leave home.

Grim stats

Alan Kurdi may have lost his dream of finding a safe haven, but shaken the world’s conscience, which may now be forced to get its act together in dealing with the biggest refugee crisis on the planet. At 4 million, it is also one of the largest recorded in history.

Amnesty International estimates that some 220,000 people have been killed and 12.8 million require urgent humanitarian assistance inside Syria. Tellingly, more than half the war-ravaged population is currently displaced.

Notably, over 95 per cent of refugees from Syria are being hosted by just five countries: Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt. The UN humanitarian appeal is only 40 per cent funded. Funding shortages leave the most vulnerable Syrian refugees in Lebanon with less than half a dollar a day for food assistance!

In a mockery of Islamic "brotherhood", oil-rich Gulf countries including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Bahrain have offered zero resettlement places to these refugees.

Consider. These five countries have a combined GDP of $2trillion, and a population of only 55 million. They could easily spare their petro/gas dinars/dirhams/riyals/dollars, and share a bit of good neighbourly space, if they wanted to.

Ironically, their only major contribution is to have fuelled the crisis in the first place by taking sides in the Syrian conflict, including arming rebel groups. A poignant Gulf News editorial -- in a rare departure from practice, the paper published a close-up of Alan’s ‘face-down’ image along with the edit -- could well have been literally, a mea culpa.

"We did nothing for him in life. We did not care that he never knew a day’s peace in all his three years. We were unmoved by his family’s plight. We care not that they trekked across borders, walked days and nights without a meal -- but just a dream that there would be a better tomorrow. For little Alan there is no tomorrow," it wrote last Saturday. 

Picture impact

On the other hand, the heartbreaking imprint of Alan Kurdi has taken the Western world by storm. Compare the indifference of some of the ultra rich GCC states with say, Germany, whose humanitarian admission programme and individual sponsorship alone makes up about 75 per cent of the EU total.

In a remarkable show of compassion worthy of a Nelson Mandela, Chancellor Angela Merkel has opened the doors to a sea of desperate refugees, hinting that Germany will take 800,000 asylum seekers this year alone, four times the figure last year. Vice-chancellor Sigmar Gabriel went even further, saying the country could absorb half a million for "several years".

Such has been the impact of Kurdi’s stunning image that British Prime Minister David Cameron, who had previously gone to the extent of derisively suggesting that not helping those on flimsy boats heading out to Europe would make it less tempting for others to follow suit, has now offered to take 20,000 refugees over the next five years. But he is now facing the brunt of critics, who point out that it is a flimsy plan rooted in political expediency, not really driven to alleviate suffering.

France, which has likened to taking in all refugees coming to Europe as a "victory for Daesh", would still welcome 24,000 over the next two years. Even European football clubs have joined the cause, contributing substantially, and making impassioned pleas to fans at multiple fora to push the envelope.

Postscript: The name of the Syrian toddler has been widely misspelt as Aylan; the correct Kurdish moniker is Alan.