How an event is presented to the Kashmiris and the nation at large helps build the narrative to a large extent. Hence, the media has a larger role to play in Jammu & Kashmir
The State of Jammu & Kashmir is passing through a very crucial phase. While Government agencies are working diligently to restore normalcy in the State, vested interests, which include pro-Pakistan sympathisers and soft separatists, are determined to ensure that the State remains in turmoil. The modus operandi adopted by spoilers is to build a situation that alienates people and gives rise to an anti-Government mindset. In other words, an anti-Government perception is built among the public to promote their narrative of the Government being anti-Kashmiris. In such a scenario, media has an important role to play. The manner in which an event is presented to the Kashmiris and the nation at large, helps build perceptions to a large extent.
Let’s have a look at the recent Pulwama incident which once again was an ugly attempt by spoilers to derail the process set in by the Governor’s Administration to win over the youth and restore normalcy in trouble-torn south Kashmir. Most media headlines read: ‘Seven civilians, three militants, one jawan killed in Pulwama gunfight.’ The vernacular Press crossed all limits and chose to highlight National Conference leader Omar Abdullah’s tweet, who described the incident as a “massacre.” Local Kashmiri media, too, did not lag behind in arousing passions.
Both, technically and grammatically, there is nothing much wrong in the quoted headlines. But factually, it appears to be incorrect and worded inappropriately. The same headlines should have actually read: ‘Seven stone-pelters, three terrorists killed and one jawan attained martyrdom in Pulwama encounter.’ The usage of correct terminology helps build correct perceptions. The media needs to realise this. The second is a matter of fact headline and portrays a better image of the security forces who undertake these operations as duty and service to their nation.
Terrorists are enemies of the nation and those who assist them are their sympathisers. They deserve no leniency. The nation needs to recognise the sacrifices made by soldiers and should be indebted to the forces who are involved in anti-terror operations — be it in Kashmir, the North-East or in the Maoist heartland. It is time that the mainstream leadership in Kashmir and the civil society start investing in the return of normalcy. It appears to be difficult because there are numerous vested interests involved whose existence, politically or otherwise, depends on Kashmir remaining a melting pot.
But the majority, who has only been suffering and has gained nothing from the ongoing turmoil, is yearning for peace. At least for their sake, the need to change mindsets and give peace a chance is essential. Kashmiris have been exploited to the hilt by these power brokers who have given nothing to them except false and broken promises. The effect of the turmoil is equally being felt by other two regions of the State where demand for trifurcation is gaining momentum but it is not in the nation’s interest.
Rather than pacifying the public and preaching restraint, leaders, who have occupied the highest chair in the State, issue provocative statements. Nothing could have been more ill-timed than this tweet of a former Chief Minister: “Protests around encounter sites are now the norm, not the exception. Why are we unable to learn how to handle them better?” Indirectly, the leader tried justifying the stone-pelting on our security forces and blamed them for not being able to handle stone-pelting mobs who are blood thirsty.
Another former Chief Minister tweeted, “No country can win a war by killing its own people.” Even without going through the facts, this leader blamed the Indian nation for the civilian causalities that occurred because the so-called ‘civilians’, who were actually friends and sympathisers of the trapped terrorists, were hurling stone missiles at the soldiers. They were preparing to return to their barracks after a successful encounter with no collateral damage. In the bargain, they lost one of their comrades who made the supreme sacrifice to ensure that Kashmiri awam is not troubled by the terrorists.
Rather than being indebted to the martyr and his family, these goons dared to not only attack the jawans with stones, but also had the audacity to climb on their vehicles and snatch the bodies of terrorists. How then can our security forces be blamed for the civilian causalities? Human rights are universal and applicable to everybody, including the soldiers.
Another tweet of the same Chief Minister read: “South Kashmir has been reeling under fear for the last six months.” As if prior to that, when the leader was at the helm, south Kashmir was a heaven. What does the leader want to convey? If at all south Kashmir is reeling under fear, it is due to the barbaric jihadi terror unleashed by the terrorists, duly financed and supported by Pakistan. Does the leader want south Kashmir to be handed over on a platter to the jihadis? Or does the leader want the security forces to kill the terrorists and eliminate the terror support network? Was no lesson learnt from the unsuccessful experimentation of giving amnesty to stone-pelters who were eventually recycled to strengthen the terror network? Why should terrorists be referred to as militants? There is a distinct difference between a militant and a terrorist. What cause are these terrorists fighting for except furthering Pakistan’s agenda of “bleeding India through thousand cuts?” There is quintessential evidence to prove that what is going on in Kashmir is not militancy but Pakistan-sponsored proxy war.
The entire terror infrastructure and network has the support of Pakistan, including arming, equipping and financing. Unfortunately, even the official handouts issued by the State Government use the word ‘militant’ and not ‘terrorist’, for reasons best known to the police and bureaucratic machinery of the State. Hopefully, the Governor will take note of this anomaly and issue directives for its rectification.
It is a fact that civilians are supposed to be civilised. Certainly those using stone-pelting to kill security personnel deliberately cannot claim to be civilised. The truth is that there were three heavily armed terrorists and seven lightly armed terrorists. All of them were killed in a mandated military operation conducted by the security forces in an area declared “disturbed” by a competent civilian authority.
All of them died of their own will and security forces cannot be held responsible or blamed for the same. The three heavily armed terrorists could have surrendered when appealed by the police and lived thereafter. They chose not to do so out of their own will.
The seven should have used discretion and stayed away from the encounter site. A thorough scrutiny of their call history revealed that they were summoned to reach the site after the encounter began and that they came from different places. They were not essentially locals. They were summoned as part of an escape strategy, which TA soldier-turned-terrorist Gowhar Thokar, had mastered and successfully escaped from the security forces’ cordon on numerous occasions previously.
How can the jawan, who laid down his life for the motherland, be clubbed with the terrorists, the nation’s traitors and referred to as ‘killed’? Let nobody in this country harbour any doubt that the martyrdom of jawans in the line of duty cannot be belittled by using wrong terminology. The jawans (term used for all ranks including officers) are not killed but they willingly die for a cause, which is neither his personal agenda nor his ideology. He lays down his life unflinchingly for namak, naam and nishan and his country without caring for his family. He is a martyr and deserves to be referred to as such. There is no greater sacrifice known to man than to lay down one’s life in defence of the nation. A nation that fails to honour its martyrs is bound to fail. In the words of Napoleon Bonaparte, “It is the cause, not the death, that makes the martyr.”
Discretion is better part of valour. Insensitivity needs to be replaced with apathy and care. Proper selection and use of correct terminology will certainly help the nation win the battle of perceptions.
(The author is a Jammu-based political commentator and strategic analyst. The views expressed are entirely personal)
