This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 22 May 2015, At: 03:58

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK

Contemporary South Asia

Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccsa20

Kashmir, human rights and

the Indian press
Teresa Joseph
Published online: 01 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Teresa Joseph (2000) Kashmir, human rights and the Indian
press, Contemporary South Asia, 9:1, 41-55, DOI: 10.1080/713658719

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713658719

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and
views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor
& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information.
Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:58 22 May 2015
 Contemporary South Asia (2000) 9(1), 41–55

Kashmir, human rights and the

Indian press
TERESA JOSEPH
Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:58 22 May 2015

ABSTRACT The contemporary discourse on governance and social con ict is generally
marked by its state-centric approach, particularly in the mass media. Issues which are
perceived to have a bearing on national interest/security, particularly those relating to
defence, foreign policy, insurgency, and human rights are usually portrayed from a state
security perspective, relegating the priorities and concerns of the people to invisibility. The
Indian press is no exception to this practice, with the coverage of the human rights situation
in Kashmir an explicit case in point. Given the fact that to most Indians an understanding of
the situation in Kashmir is largely gathered from the mass media, this paper strives to analyse
the nature of the coverage of the human rights situation in Kashmir by the Indian press. In
order to enable a comprehensive analysis the focus of this study has been restricted to a
content analysis of three English language newspapers over a period of three months. The
nature of the coverage of the situation by the Indian press is juxtaposed against the actual
situation in the Kashmir Valley as depicted by alternate media sources.

The contemporary discourse on governance and social con ict is generally

marked by its state-centric approach—with an inclination to stress the import-
ance of the state rather than that of the people, particularly the security of the
nation-state over that of the populace. This trend is remarkably evident in
discourses perceived as relating to the so-called ‘national interest’ or ‘national
security ’. The removal of actual or perceived threats to the state is seen to be
more crucial than threats to the very survival of the people. The fact that security
also has a meaning at the individual level which is independent of the state is
often overlooked.1 Such a tendency is strikingly conspicuous in the mass media.
The media are evidently an integral part of the political power structure,
re ecting the priorities and preoccupations of the dominant power groupings,
and thereby supporting and perpetuating the basic norms and values of the
dominant order and the business interests of the media.2 Issues ostensibly having
a bearing on national security are usually portrayed from a state-security
perspective, relegating the priorities, concerns and sufferings of the people to
Correspondence : Teresa Joseph, School of International Relations, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam-
686560, Kerala, India.

ISSN 0958-493 5 print; 1469-364X online/00/010041-15 Ó 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd
 TERESA JOSEPH

invisibility . The realm of issues ranging from the obvious ones of defence and
foreign policy to that of human rights’ violations (particularly when the state is
involved) are usually considered sacrosanct and are viewed from a national
interest or national security perspective. Voices of dissent not subscribing to the
dominant discourse are portrayed as anti-national , being actual or potential
agents of external powers, thus setting forth a paradigm of ‘patriotism’.
The Indian press is no exception to the rule. Although an otherwise healthy
institution , so-called sensitive issues relating to defence, insurgency, human
rights which are perceived to have a bearing on the country ’s national security
interests are viewed with trepidation and portrayed purely from a state-centric
angle. Although such reporting was evident in the coverage of Punjab and the
North-East, the coverage of the human rights situation in Kashmir is an explicit
Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:58 22 May 2015

case in point. The dominant discourse on Kashmir characterises it as a dispute

over real estate between India and Pakistan, and a matter of national prestige.
Consequently , the situation inside the Vale, or Valley of Kashmir is viewed
strictly in terms of the Indian State vs Pakistani sponsored terrorism. Those who
do not subscribe to the dominant discourse are portrayed as anti-national . The
human rights issue is depicted merely as part of the proxy war waged by
Pakistan to defame India.
In reality, Kashmir emerged at the top of the human rights agenda of the
world in the late 1980s as a fallout of the policies adopted by various Indian
governments and the sense of alienation among the people of Kashmir to which,
of course, Pakistan contributed its share. As Balraj Puri succinctly puts it:
… one can trace the beginning of the Kashmir problem and its growth to its present
dimensions to the denial to the people of the state of civil liberties, democracy and human
rights including the rights to freedom of speech, rights to protest and form an opposition
party, right to vote and to elect a government of their choice.3

International human rights organisations, as well as several Indian civil rights

groups, have documented in detail the atrocities committed on the people of
Kashmir by both Indian security forces and militant groups. However, public
opinion in India remained largely silent on the issue. Given the fact that to most
Indians an understandin g of the situation in Kashmir is largely gathered from the
mass media, which not only provides necessary input for the decision-maker , but
also helps in shaping public opinion, this paper strives to analyse the nature of
the coverage of the human rights situation in Kashmir by the Indian press
through a content analysis of selected national newspapers.
Except for a brief interlude soon after the Farooq Abdullah government came
to power, human rights violations in the Valley have been consistent since 1989.
However, in order to enable a comprehensive analysis, the focus of this study
has been restricted to a period of three months. A random selection of the period
from 1 December 1991 to 29 February 1992 was made, and a content analysis
of three English language newspapers over this continuous period was done. The
selected newspapers—The Hindu, Indian Express and The Times of India—were
the three largest circulated national English dailies and among the ten largest

42
 KASHMIR AND THE INDIAN PRESS

circulated newspapers in any language in the country at the time.4 Although the
coverage of local and regional news differs among the various editions of each
newspaper, national and international news coverage in all the editions remains
the same. A cross-veriŽ cation Ž nds that there are no variations in the nature of
the coverage of Kashmir in the various editions of national newspapers.
The present study is based on the Coimbatore, Kochi and Bombay editions of the
three newspapers respectively. An analysis of this nature necessitates the
juxtapositio n of the actual situation in the Valley as depicted by alternate
sources, against the nature of the coverage of the situation by the Indian press.

The human rights situation in Kashmir

Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:58 22 May 2015

During the last 10 years, thousands of ordinary people have lost their lives in
Kashmir. Although ofŽ cial sources claim the number to be around 19,956 only
(as of September 1998),5 reports by various non-governmenta l organisations put
the number to be around 50,000.6 Statistics, of course may, vary depending on
the source. Various reports by both national and international human rights
organisations—including the Committee for Initiative on Kashmir (CIK), Peo-
ple’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR), People’s Union for Civil Liberties
(PUCL), Asia Watch, and Amnesty International—have given Ž rst-hand ac-
counts of the human rights situation in the Valley since the late 1980s. These
reports give detailed accounts of the innumerable instances of security excesses,
the militancy in the Valley, and the plight of the civilians caught between the
security forces and the militants. A brief overview of the human rights situation
in Kashmir around the speciŽ c period of focus of this study as depicted by
alternate media sources is essential for an understandin g of the issues concerned.
The two reports by the Committee for Initiative on Kashmir, India’s Kashmir
War and Kashmir Imprisoned: A Report, give Ž rst-hand accounts of the situation
in the Valley.7 They describe the innumerable cases of daily raids on houses,
assaults on peaceful demonstrations, indiscriminat e arrests and harassment of
ordinary civilians by the security forces. There are numerous accounts of various
forms of torture—both psychologica l and physical—and extra-judicial murders,
including those resulting from Ž ring on peaceful processions and funerals,
encounters and killings during cordon and search operations, and crossŽ re.
Various other reports, including the Amnesty International report, India: Tor-
ture, Rape and Deaths in Custody, and the Asia Watch Report, Kashmir Under
Siege, released in May 1991, also detail descriptions of the human rights
situation in the Valley.8 With concrete examples they elucidate the various
incidents of torture—including those against women and children—the numer-
ous cases of extra-judicial executions in fake encounters and also details of
political prisoners under detention without trial in the Valley. Similarly, report-
ing from Srinagar, Edward W. Desmond wrote in Time (4 November 1991) that,
while the Government and rebels clashed in prolonged encounters in the Valley,
it was the Kashmiri bystanders who paid a high price. Daily life was Ž lled
with tension in all the major towns, where gun battles broke out regularly and

43
 TERESA JOSEPH

civilians were the main victims. Reports by the British Parliamentary Human
Rights Group and the US Department of State also describe the human rights
situation in Kashmir around the period of this study.9 The People’s Union for
Democratic Rights in their report, Lawless Roads: A Report on TADA, points out
that the killings of unarmed civilians in ‘extra-constitutiona l violence ’ was the
dominant feature in Kashmir.10
There are also numerous accounts of kidnapping , torture, murder, and the
molestation and rape of women, both by the security forces and the militants, on
grounds of the victims being informers or traitors or simply because they hold
public ofŽ ce. The targets of the militants were not always security personnel or
informers, but also included civilian ofŽ cials, political leaders, journalists and
common citizens. This was the dismal picture of the human rights situation in
Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:58 22 May 2015

Kashmir, which was brought to light by various national and international human
rights organisations.
In stark contrast, the Government of India initially denied all allegations of
human rights’ violations and the so-called security excesses were termed mere
propaganda by Pakistan and the militants of Kashmir. It later maintained that
such allegations were an interference in the sovereign rights of India. Purport-
edly, such charges were made in order to defame the country ’s security forces,
and human rights activists within the country were often maligned as anti-
national. 11 Under pressure from national and international human rights groups,
the government realised that its propaganda line was counter-productive , and
began to occasionally publish details of action taken against erring security
personnel. However, it continued to adhere to the position that such eventualities
were exceedingly rare, and that human rights’ violations in the Valley, if any,
were largely the work of militant groups aided by Pakistan.

Reporting Kashmir: a quantitative analysis

A study of Indian newspapers over any period of time will reveal that, although
a substantial number of reports on Kashmir can be found on the front pages, they
are usually mere quotations of ofŽ cial speeches and press releases or straight
news without any kind of analysis, having as their sources press releases,
statements/speeches of government ofŽ cials, and leaders of mainstream Indian
political parties. Editorials, lead articles, features or news analyses are hard to
come by. Over the course of the three months of this study, there were a total
of 423 reports relating to various aspects of Kashmir in the three newspapers
under study. An interesting fact is that, although 208 of these were considered
important enough to be placed on the front pages, the number of editorials/lead
articles/features/news analysis was exceedingly negligible. On the other hand, as
many as 346 pieces were mere news reports or straight news without any
analysis (see Table 1).
More signiŽ cantly, a survey of the sources of these reports revealed that 230
of them were based on ofŽ cial statements/press releases. Of these, an over-
whelming 78% had as their sources Indian Government ofŽ cials and leaders of

44
 Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:58 22 May 2015

Table 1. A comparative quantitative analysis of the nature of reports on Kashmir (1 December 1991–29 February 1992)a

December January February Total

Grand
TTOI IE TH TTOI IE TH TTOI IE TH TTOI IE TH total

Front page reports 8 5 11 18 20 23 40 31 52 66 56 86 208

Editorials — 1 — 1 2 1 3 4 2 4 7 3 14
Lead articles/features 3 — — 1 — 2 3 5 4 7 5 6 18
News reports 30 13 26 39 29 32 58 49 70 127 91 128 346
News analysis 1 1 1 2 1 1 13 4 14 16 6 16 38
Photographs 2 — 1 1 — — — 2 1 3 2 2 7
Total number of
Reports 36 15 28 44 32 36 77 64 91 157 111 155 423
a
TTOI—The Times of India (Bombay); IE—Indian Express (Kochi); TH—The Hindu (Coimbatore)

45
KASHMIR AND THE INDIAN PRESS
 TERESA JOSEPH

mainstream Indian political parties. Only 7% were based on Kashmiri sources,

8% on Pakistani sources and 7% on other sources, including that of ofŽ cials
from other countries (see Table 2). It is indeed thought-provokin g that reports on
the actual situation in Kashmir quoting such sources as the ordinary people of
the Valley, the militants or Pakistani ofŽ cials are extremely scarce, while there
is no dearth of quotations from Indian Government sources on Kashmir. Even
more interesting is the fact that, although very often headlines are in effect
statements by government ofŽ cials, many of them do not bear quotation marks
or any other signs to depict them as such, thereby misleading the reader into
believing them to be actual facts. In today’s busy world, news reports are often
only skimmed through, and it is the headlines and front-page block items which
are retained in the subconsciou s mind. The dominance of a particular image
Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:58 22 May 2015

therefore, leaves a correspondingl y strong impression in the minds of the

readers.

Deaths and ‘encounters ’

Most of the news reports/straight news on Kashmir relate to deaths and
‘encounters’ in the Valley, largely quoting ofŽ cial sources. The focus of
attention is primarily on either the deaths/capture of militants, or the deaths/
attacks on security forces by the militants. Incidents of the violation of the
human rights of ordinary citizens by either the militants or the security forces are
completely neglected. Even in those reports where some mention is made of
civilians in this context, they are only passing references in reports focusing on
‘ultras’, ‘militants’ or ‘security forces’. Only the discerning reader can glean
some understandin g of the actual situation by a careful reading between the
lines. This trend can be elucidated with concrete examples.
The headlines of a report in The Hindu on 29 December 1991 states: ‘5 killed
in Kashmir’. But the report opens thus: ‘Five militants and two civilians were
killed, and eleven persons injured in the Kashmir Valley today’ (emphasis
added). Another report on 20 January 1992 bears the headline ‘4 Militants killed
in encounter in Valley’. But the report opens:
At least six persons—four militants and two civilians were killed and twelve others
including Ž ve jawans of the BSF [Border Security Force] and CRPF [Central Reserve
Police Force], injured in continuous exchange of Ž re in the curfew bound areas of the
Kashmir valley since last evening [emphasis added].

The headlines of a report in The Times of India on 1 January 1992 states: ‘2 BSF
Men Killed in J&K Attack’. However, the report opens: ‘2 BSF Jawans were
reportedly killed in a grenade attack here today, while a civilian was allegedly
tortured to death during interrogation ’ (emphasis added). The death of the
jawans was apparently of more signiŽ cance than the death due to torture in
police custody of a civilian. The Indian Express also was not devoid of the trend.
On 10 January 1992, the headlines of a report stated: ‘6 Militants Killed in
Kashmir’, while the opening lines read ‘Nine people including six militants were

46
 Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:58 22 May 2015

Table 2. A comparative quantitative analysis of the ofŽ cial sources of news reports on Kashmir (1 December 1991–29 February 1992)a

December January February Total

OfŽ cial Grand
Sources TTOI IE TH TTOI IE TH TTOI IE TH TTOI IE TH total

Indian 12 7 14 24 15 16 32 17 43 68 39 73 180
Pakistani 1 – 1 1 – 1 3 6 5 5 6 7 18
Kashmiri 1 – 2 1 1 – 3 2 5 5 3 7 15
Others 3 – 1 3 1 – 3 4 2 9 5 3 17
Total 17 7 18 29 17 17 41 29 55 87 53 90 230
a
TTOI—The Times of India (Bombay); IE—Indian Express (Kochi); TH—The Hindu (Coimbatore).

47
KASHMIR AND THE INDIAN PRESS
 TERESA JOSEPH

killed and thirteen suspected subversives arrested as the army and paramilitary
forces stepped up their anti-militant campaign in the Kashmir Valley since
Tuesday night ’ (emphasis added). It proceeds to give a detailed account of the
manner in which the six militants met with their death, with not even a passing
mention of the three civilians who were also killed. Similarly, such headlines as
‘Militant Among 7 Killed in Kashmir’, ‘6 Ultras Among 9 Killed in J & K’, and
others which appear almost every other day in all newspapers reveal this trend
of highlightin g only the death of militants while innocent civilians do not appear
to matter even if they have met their deaths in police custody. The need of the
hour appears to be only to stress the successes of the security forces vis-à-vis the
militants.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:58 22 May 2015

On security excesses
More importantly, although there were numerous international reports of human
rights violations by the security forces itself, Indian newspaper reports on
Kashmir fail to impart any such information. At the same time there are any
number of reports, often quoting ofŽ cial sources, that allegations of security
excesses were a part of the propaganda campaign against India. Editorials, like
the one in the Indian Express of 19 February 1992, often stress ‘the obvious need
to counter Pakistan ’s propaganda blitz over Kashmir which is magnifying out of
all proportions the alleged excesses by the armed forces on the civilians in the
Valley’. A report in The Times of India on 1 January 1992 states: ‘The persistent
propaganda campaign launched by certain terrorist outŽ ts about the atrocities
being perpetrated by the security forces in the Valley was bound to have an
effect on the morale of the personnel who were performing their duties under
extremely trying conditions ’.
A. Basu, in an article in The Hindu, writes in similar vein. He contends that
unlike the mercenaries of other countries (e.g., the French Foreign Legion), the
Indian security forces consist of selected and motivated people of the same
country:
A unit or sub-unit of the security forces engaged in counter-terrorist or counter-insurgency
actions accordingly operates under severe psychological and physical constraints because
of the very nature of the political directives. A unit suffering steady causalities under such
handicapped operational conditions has a natural tendency to retaliate with counter-
measures, sometimes, regrettably, even more than what is appropriate for a trained and
disciplined force. It is a tribute to the leadership and discipline of such forces at unit
and sub-unit levels that this inevitable retaliatory syndrome does not go completely out of
hand except in rare cases. … It is very easy to level charges against security forces for
alleged excesses, rapes, burning houses and other sundry crimes; but it needs to be realised
that one vital arm of militancy and insurgency is propaganda warfare, waged with expertise
and relentlessness against the security forces, adopting the well known adage that lies and
half truths repeated often enough become eventual truths.12
During the entire three months under study, there were only two reports, one
each in The Hindu and The Times of India, which reported the atrocities

48
 KASHMIR AND THE INDIAN PRESS

committed by security forces on civilians. The Hindu, in its report ‘J & K Probe
into Alleged Atrocities by CRPF Men’ on 19 December 1991, reveals several
incidents of gang rape by the security forces. The Times of India, in its article
‘Security Forces Violate Rights’ on 22 December 1991, quotes from V.M.
Tarkunde’s address at a symposium organised by the Bar Association of India,
which points out that the security forces are stated to be the main violators of
human rights in the country. Innocent people in Kashmir were being searched,
arrested and tortured without even being given a chance to approach the law.
However, these two reports were the only exceptions to the rule.
Most reports sought to maintain that allegations of security excess were
merely part of the propaganda campaign against India, and even sought to justify
the ‘few’ such cases of security excesses which may have occurred. The irony
Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:58 22 May 2015

of the situation becomes explicit when one considers the almost verbatim
reproduction in the very same newspapers of those parts of human rights reports
which are critical of the situation in Pakistan.
For instance, during this period, Subhash Kirpekar, a correspondent of The
Times of India, published three articles (one of them in three instalments)
strongly criticising the Asia Watch and Amnesty International reports described
above as being biased against India.13 Kirpekar contends that both reports take
a one-sided view of the situation in India and, in the process, became an
‘intrinsic part of Pakistan ’s propaganda offensive against India’.14 The write-ups
even question the credentials of one of the co-authors of the Amnesty report,
implying that she had links with Pakistan. Kirpekar also claims that both the
reports seek to scrutinise governments while turning a blind eye to violations by
non-ofŽ cial agencies. They do no not mention the killings of minorities and of
brutalities against them by terrorists. Highlighting the numbers killed by terror-
ists, he states that the reports have not mentioned the actions taken by the
government against erring personnel of the security forces. Moreover, he argues:
It is to be borne in mind that the stress level of the security personnel on the street in
Srinagar or elsewhere in the Valley is very high as he does not know wherefrom an attack
would come. This leads to a tendency to overreact at times. But then prompt remedial
action is taken.15

Kirpekar’s reports in The Times of India project a nexus between Pakistan and
the two human rights organisations, Asia Watch and Amnesty International. His
articles staunchly assert that allegations of security excesses were mere propa-
ganda by Pakistan and the militants, and the few such cases had been punished.
In the process, one can see a reiteration of the Indian government posture on the
issue. However, the same writer, in the very same newspaper quotes almost
verbatim the US Department of State’s 1991 Human Rights Report which
strongly criticises the situation in Pakistan.16 Indeed, this State Department
report has been extensively quoted by all the three newspapers in this study in
order to highlight the human rights situation in Pakistan. In ‘Pakistan Rapped for
Human Rights Violation ’ in The Times of India on 4 February 1992, ‘Pak
Victimising Opposition, says US Report’ in The Hindu on 4 February 1992, and

49
 TERESA JOSEPH

‘Minorities Suffer in Pakistan: A Report’ in the Indian Express on 8 February

1992, the papers quote the report as accusing Pakistan of subjecting political
oppositio n to ‘harassment and victimisation ’, the abuse of power by the police,
extra-judicial killings, the alleged gang rape of Farhana Hayat, the detention of
hundreds of workers of the Pakistan People’s Party, and so on.

Debate on the Press Council of India report

Another instance of the Indian press’ selective reporting on Kashmir can be
elucidated. In December 1990, the Press Council of India (PCI) appointed a
committee to study the role of the press and its functioning in Jammu and
Kashmir, as well as the alleged reports of excesses by the armed forces against
Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:58 22 May 2015

the civilians of the state. The committee paid a visit to the state and its report,
Crisis and Credibility, was adopted by the PCI in July 1991.17 The Ž ndings of
the committee showed that the reports of excesses were ‘grossly exaggerated or
invented’. These conclusions were highlighte d and extensively quoted in both
the print and electronic media. However, the report has been faced with
innumerable criticisms based on the manner in which such conclusions were
reached. Criticism ranged from the composition of the committee, its reliance on
the army’s version of events, its requirement that alleged rape victims had to
provide conclusive evidence that they had been raped, its spending of just one
day in the Valley (and that too escorted by army ofŽ cers), the lack of a woman
investigato r or an interpreter in the team, and its offensive remarks on women.18
As the report was largely devoted to dismissing allegations of rape by the
army in Kunnan-Poshpor a during February 1991, the Forum for Women and
Politics organised a debate on the report in Delhi during the Ž rst week of
December 1991. B.G. Verghese, the main author of the PCI report, was also
present but reportedly unable to defend himself against the criticism and
questions put forth by the participants.19 However, although the original report
had been much highlighte d by the Indian press, this debate challenging the very
basis of the report found absolutely no mention in either The Times of India or
The Hindu. The coverage of the occasion in the Indian Express on 10 December
1991 is very revealing. Welcoming the initiative taken by the women’s organis-
ation, it gives a brief overview of the two main reservations against the report;
that is, its methodology , and parameters for investigatin g allegations of rape.
However, the report goes on to state:

The question and answer session turned into an inquisition with some interrogators even
resorting to personally offensive remarks … . The scene was dismaying not merely because
it betrayed a lack of decorum, but also a frighteningly black and white approach on the part
of those who call themselves society’s conscientious objectors … . Apart from one or two
speakers, nobody seemed to be in a mood to admit that just as a fact Ž nding team can walk
into public relations traps set by the army or the state, or get swayed by the rhetoric of
national integrity, journalists and human rights activists can also be manipulated by
militants in a climate of Ž erce insurgency or be in uenced by the rhetoric of azadi. …20

50
 KASHMIR AND THE INDIAN PRESS

The divergence in the wide coverage given to the PCI report and the negligence/
criticism of the critique against it again divulges the nature of press reporting on
Kashmir.

Strikes, bandhs and curfews

Similarly, we Ž nd that even strikes and bandhs held in protest against security
excesses are completely ignored or, at the most, receive a mere passing mention
no matter however successful or widespread they may have been. Even the
imposition of curfew, sometimes extending for days and causing extreme
hardships to the common man, is often ignored. More importantly, the severe
socio-economic hardships of the people, the high levels of unemployment and
Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:58 22 May 2015

corruption, and the failure of development funds reaching the masses are also
neglected.
On 26 December 1991, government employees in Kashmir went on a general
strike protesting against security excesses in the Valley. The spark was lit by the
alleged torture and resultant death of seven persons, including government
employees, by the security forces since 21 December. The strike was completely
overlooked by both The Times of India and the Indian Express. Although The
Hindu had a small report on Kashmir, ‘Strike Hits Work in Government OfŽ ces’
on 27 December 1991, as is evident from the headline itself, the reason for the
strike was glossed over. It only highlighte d that work in the ofŽ ces was affected.
Again, in January 1992, a two-day bandh was called by militants to protest
against alleged atrocities by the security forces. Here again, the negligence was
evident, with only a brief report on it in the Indian Express on 13 February 1992,
and no mention at all in the other papers. Similarly, the strike call in Pakistan
Occupied Kashmir (POK) by the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF)
protesting against the killings of the JKLF marchers received meagre coverage
in The Hindu and The Times of India, and no mention at all in the Indian
Express. This period also witnessed the imposition of curfew in several places
in Kashmir, sometimes even extending up to Ž ve days at a time, thereby causing
severe hardship to local people. This issue was once again sidelined by the
mainstream press, with brief reports tucked away on the inside pages.

Internationa l perspectives
Another revealing aspect is that the condemnation by other countries of human
rights violations in Kashmir and their calls for the respect of the rights of the
people of Kashmir, including the right of self-determination , is very often
blacked out in the Indian press. On the other hand, any international criticism of
the human rights situation in Pakistan and its role in abetting terrorism in
Kashmir is devoutly quoted. During the three months under study, as far as the
reactions to the Kashmir issue at the international level were concerned, all the
newspapers sought to highlight a pro-Indian stance by other countries. These
included reports on British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd’s disapproval of

51
 TERESA JOSEPH

Pakistan’s hand in terrorism in Kashmir, Pakistan ’s failure to enlist the support

of the Central Asian Republics on Kashmir, Libya’s endorsement of India’s
stand on Kashmir, Kuwait’s statement of support for India’s stand on Kashmir
and the Portuguese President ’s condemnation of Pakistan ’s hand in Kashmir.
It is interesting to see the kind of events which were not reported at all by any
of the three newspapers. During this period, various countries like Australia and
Sudan expressed their concern over the violation of human rights in India,
particularly in Kashmir. The Chairman of the British Parliament’s Human Rights
Committee, Lord Eric Avebury, also expressed the hope that Kashmir would
attain freedom peacefully under the United Nations framework. More impor-
tantly, the communiqué adopted at the concluding session of the European
Co-operation (ECO) summit at Tehran stressed the need for respecting the
Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:58 22 May 2015

human rights of the Kashmiri people and called for settling the issue expedi-
tiously in accordance with the wishes of the people of Kashmir (which are yet
to be ascertained). 21 However, no such report appeared in any of the three
newspapers under study.
In December 1991 a summit of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC)
at Dhaka adopted a resolution condemning the massive violation of the human
rights of the Kashmiri people. It called for the respect of their rights, including
the right of self-determination. The summit demanded that the Kashmir issue be
resolved in accordance with the UN resolution and in the light of the Simla
Agreement. Addressing the summit, Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif
called upon the Islamic world to help resolve the Kashmir dispute, which
contributed the greatest single potential threat to peace and security in South
Asia.22 Without exception, the three papers examined in this study expressed
criticism of Pakistan ’s raising the Kashmir issue at the OIC meeting, yet none
quoted either the resolution as such or even Sharif’s speech.

The milieu
Evidently, most Indian newspapers are merely concerned with reinforcing the
standpoint of the Indian government vis-à-vis Kashmir, restricting their reporting
to the reproduction of government data and information while failing to verify
facts or send their own correspondents for Ž rst-hand coverage of the issues
concerned. Of course, reporting on Kashmir is not an easy task. Militant factions
have often targeted the media; harassing, kidnapping and even assassinatin g
journalists, bombing presses, and closing down dailies while trying to control the
news. The brunt of this repression is faced by local media personnel, although
journalists visiting the Valley also do face problems. The press has met with
equally harsh treatment from the security forces who have disallowed it from
carrying reports about militants or condemning security forces for atrocities.
They have imposed restrictions on the press and often given misleading infor-
mation, besides seizing newspapers and conŽ scating copies. Various other
factors have contributed to the pressure on the press including the fact that the
government was its major advertiser, and had the power to confer or withhold

52
 KASHMIR AND THE INDIAN PRESS

accredition facilities. These have been used as coercive instruments, besides

other extra-legal methods such as the impounding of vehicles distributin g
newspapers, cutting off the electricity supply, and increasing the price of
newsprint. The PCI has also reported on government decisions to prosecute
editors of local newspapers under Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Preven-
tion) Act (TADA) on the grounds that they had published provocative news
items highlightin g the activities of militants, and also circulated anti-national and
secessionist programmes intentionally . Most often during times of tension in any
particular area of Kashmir, the media is kept out of the vicinity.
It has often been pointed out that one could only visit Kashmir escorted by
either the security forces or the militants. The question is whether this is an
acceptable line of defence. What about the various human rights reports on
Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:58 22 May 2015

Kashmir? Given the risk factor involved, does the dependence on government
sources alone do justice to the people of the Valley or, for that matter, is it fair
to the general reader?

Conclusion
Although human rights organisations, both national as well international , and
also other media sources have documented in detail gross human rights viola-
tions in Kashmir by both the militants as well as the security forces, the general
reader does not get any such picture of the situation from the mainstream Indian
press. On the contrary, the entire issue has been portrayed purely from a
state-centric approach. The Indian press has consistentl y projected the govern-
ment’s stance on Kashmir and, in this particular context, its position that the
reports of human rights violations in the Valley are merely the result of
propaganda by Pakistan and the militants of Kashmir. The press often has even
justiŽ ed the so-called few cases of security excesses, and questioned the
credibility of human rights reports on Kashmir. Even the condemnation of
human rights violations in Kashmir by other countries is often blocked out.
There appears to be a policy of self-censorship based on a misguided sense of
patriotism , whereby anything that is critical of the security forces does not Ž nd
its way into newspapers. The extent of near-jingoism in the press becomes
evident when one considers its staunch criticism of reports of human rights’
violations in India, while reports of violations in Pakistan are quoted verbatim.
The underlying determinant of the nature of the reports on Kashmir is the
identity of the sources on which they are based. The over-dependence on
government sources appears to be the bane of the Indian press reports on
Kashmir giving them an inherent bias towards the government position on the
issues concerned, while ignoring the ground reality. In this context, the recom-
mendations of the PCI appear very relevant. The Press Commission report of
1954 recommended that government handouts should not be accepted as they
are, but should be supplemented where need be by clarifying the essential points,
necessary for a proper understandin g of the issues. 23 In the context of Kashmir,
the committee appointed by the PCI to examine the role of the press in Kashmir

53
 TERESA JOSEPH

made numerous recommendations, including: identity cards and curfew passes of

journalists should always be honoured by security personnel; journalists on
perilous assignments should receive special incentives together with compen-
sation in case of death, injury, hospitalisatio n or loss of property; employment
assistance or pensions to next of kin; and other proposals. More importantly, all
aspects of events should be fairly and objectively reported, ‘… citing sources,
verifying facts, and, where possible offering their own eyewitness observations,
analysis or interpretation without editorialising. ’24 However, such recommenda-
tions continue to remain on paper only.
In her book, Kashmir: A Tragedy of Errors, Tavleen Singh has gone so far as
to state that the press was the main reason why the alienation of Kashmir began.
The people were sensitive about the way they were being reported in the national
Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:58 22 May 2015

press which was deliberately mis-interpreting facts and events, making it

possible for governments to get away with any short-sighte d policy.25 It cannot
be denied that a basic responsibilit y of the press to society is to ensure the
accurate reporting of events. However, it is beyond doubt that in the context of
Kashmir, the press has failed to play its role as the watch-dog of democracy, as
it has by-and-large collaborated with the government in not revealing actual
occurrences in the Valley. It thus has not helped in any way to alleviate either
the sense of alienation among the people of Kashmir, or the atrocities committed
against the common citizen, or even to provide a clear picture of events in the
Valley to the Indian general public. On the contrary, by its continued reiteration
of the ofŽ cial version of events in Kashmir, the Indian press has helped only to
increase the sense of alienation among the people of Kashmir, and to keep the
general public ignorant of what is really happening in the Valley.

Notes and references

1. For further discussion see Barry Buzan, People, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in
International Relations (New Delhi: Transasia, 1983); Rajni Kothari, State Against Democracy: In Search
of Humane Governance (Delhi: Ajanta, 1988); Heinrich Von Treitschke, ‘Politics’, in Carl Cohen (ed)
Communism, Fascism and Democracy: The Theoretical Foundations (New York: Random House, 1972);
Robert E. Osgood and Robert W. Tucker, Force Order and Justice (Baltimore: John Hopkins University
Press, 1967); and Robert Nozick, Anarchy State and Utopia (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974).
2. See Philip J. Tichenor, George A. Donohue and Clarice N. Olien, ‘Communication and community
con ict’, in Doris A. Graber (ed) Media Power in Politics (New Delhi: Macmillan India, 1990) pp 96–107;
Robert G. Picard, ‘The journalist ’s role in coverage of terrorist events’, in A. Odasuo Akali and Kenoye
Kelvin Eke (eds). Media Coverage of Terrorism: Methods of Diffusion (London: Sage, 1991) pp 40–62;
and Ammu Joseph, ‘Press in India today: priorities and preoccupations ’, Mainstream, Vol 35, No. 43,
1997, pp 12–15.
3. Balraj Puri, ‘Kashmir problem thrives on denial of human and democratic rights’, Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol 34, No 14, 1999, p 794.
4. The Indian Express, published from twelve centres, had a circulation of 709, 793; The Times of India,
published from six centres, had a circulation of 592,873; and The Hindu, published from Ž ve centres had
a circulation of 336,670. For details, see Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Press in India 1990:
34th Annual Report of the Registrar of Newspapers for India (New Delhi: Government of India, 1991).
5. See Keesing’s Record of World Events, Vol 44, No 9, 1998, p 42506; and Brian Cloughley, ‘Nuclear
risk-reduction measures in Kashmir’, in Nuclear Risk-Reduction Measures in Southern Asia (The Henry
L. Stimson Centre Report No. 26, 1998) p 54.
6. See Tapan Bose, ‘Kashmir: a time for dialogue and opening up the issues for public debate’, Mainstream,

54
 KASHMIR AND THE INDIAN PRESS

Vol 37, No 33, 1999, p 19; and Rekha Chowdhary, ‘Kashmir: changing dimensions of electoral politics’,
Economic and Political Weekly (Calcutta), Vol 34, No 34, 1999, p 2383.
7. Tapan Bose, Dinesh Mohan, Gautam Navlakha and Sumanta Banerjee, India’s Kashmir War (Delhi:
Committee for Initiative on Kashmir, 1990); and Saqina Hasan, Primila Lewis, Nandita Haksar and
Suhasini Mulay, Kashmir Imprisoned: A Report (Delhi: Committee for Initiative on Kashmir, 1990).
8. Amnesty International, India: Torture, Rape and Deaths in Custody; and Asia Watch, Kashmir Under
Siege (New York: 1991).
9. British Parliamentary Human Rights Group, Kashmir: Heaven on Fire (London: 1992); and United States
Department of State, Country Report on Human Rights Conditions in India (Washington DC: 1992).
10. People’s Union for Democratic Rights, Lawless Roads: A Report on TADA, 1985–1993 (New Delhi: 1993)
p 41.
11. See ‘Rights charges only to defame security forces: PM’, The Hindu (Thiruvananthapuram ) 22 May 1997;
and Balraj Puri, Kashmir: Towards Insurgenc y (New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1993) p 64.
12. A Basu, ‘Investigative journalism and security forces’, The Hindu (Coimbatore) 25 February 1992.
13. See ‘Human rights I: Amnesty, Asia Watch biased’, 28 January 1992; ‘Human rights II: Dubious role of
activists’, 29 January 1992; ‘Human rights III: Human rights panel stressed by Chavan ’, 30 January 1992;
and ‘Asia Watch report pro-militant’, 10 February 1992; all in The Times of India (Bombay).
Downloaded by [New York University] at 03:58 22 May 2015

14. Human rights I, op cit, note 13.

15. Human rights II, op cit, note 13.
16. Subhash Kirpekar, ‘Pakistani Women get Raw Deal’, The Times of India (Bombay) 14 February 1992.
17. ‘Crisis and credibility’, Press Council of India: 13th Annual Report (New Delhi), 11 April 1991–31 March
1992.
18. See ‘Apologia for the army’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 36, No 29, 1991, p 1707; Rita
Manchanda, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 25, No 13, 1990, pp 1899–1900; B. M. Sinha, ‘Verghese
Committee Report: how reliable’, Mainstream, Vol 29, No 46, 1991, pp 15–19; Amiya Rao, ‘I am the
judge and I am the jury: Report of the Press Council on Kashmir ’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol
26, No 50, 1991, pp 2856–2857.
19. ‘The press: one sided view’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 26, No 50, 1991, p 2845.
20. Anjali Puri, ‘Dismaying debate on Press Council Report on J & K’, Indian Express (Kochi), 10 December
1991.
21. ‘Pakistan and the World’, Pakistan Horizon, Vol 45, No 2, 1992, pp 131–140.
22. ‘Pakistan and the World’, Pakistan Horizon, Vol 45, No 1, 1992, pp 101.
23. Report of the Press Commission: Part I (New Delhi: Governmen t of India, 1954), pp 164–165.
24. Press Council of India, op cit note 17, pp 372–373.
25. Tavleen Singh, Kashmir: A Tragedy of Errors (New Delhi: Penguin, 1996) pp 20–38.

55