A View Point
Shun violence and save Kashmiriat

By Jagjit Singh Gandhok

Where Maharaja Hari Singh faultered, is now an acknowledged historical blunder. That had he taken a timely decision to declare accession of J&K State, with the Union of India well before the stipulated dead-line of the partition of India, the people of this sub continent would have not faced three wars, which have claimed thousands of innocent lives, division of J&K State, the unending miseries and sufferings by the people of J&K and the acute bitterness between India & Pakistan. Billions of Rupees spent on wars, defence and enormous stockpiling of armaments and other related huge expenses, could have been saved by both the countries, which otherwise would have wiped out poverty, ignorance, illiteracy and disease from the two poor nations of South - East Asia. Instead good and brotherly reltions between 'now the bitter enemies', could have encouraged trade, exchange of expertise and above all peace and tranquility between the two countries, by virtue of which the people of this sub continent could pass peaceful nights. Had goodsense prevailed upon the Maharaja in time and Pak-aided invaders would have not been able to capture a big chunk of the State in Oct-Nov; 1947, resulting in division of the State and now a bone of contention between the two countries, which is being talked of 'A flash Point' in South-East Asia. Thus a stitch in time could have saved many nines.

But who knew that the untimely stitch of the Maharaja would prove to be a timely stitch by the wise leadership of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah for the people of Kashmir. After the belated declaration of accession of J&K State with India by the Maharaja, the Indian forces had stated pushing out the Pak tribals from the soil of J&K, but at a time when they had liberated the Kashmir valley upto a point from where the non-Kashmiri Muslim culture was to start, the wise and foresighted Sheikh rose to the occasion and pleaded before Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the then Prime Minister of India for a ceasefire, with

the pretext that in the process of liberation, thousands of Muslims were being killed. The hidden but wise agenda of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, which best suited to Kashmiri Muslims, worked with the unilateral declaration of ceasefire by India. By this, he (Sheikh) meant that if the remaining part of J&K which is presently under the occupation of Pakistan and is predominantly inhabited by non-Kashmiri Muslims, was wrested back, the Kashmiri Muslims shall ever remain to be ruled by the majority non-Kashmiri Muslim and would never see the dawn of freedom. Thus halting the advancement of Indian forces at the behest of Sheikh Abdullah became the turning point which enabled the Kashmiri Muslims to be the masters of this part of J&K after about a century of Dogra rule. This foresightedness on the part of Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah proved to be a 'stitch in time' for the Kashmiri Muslims. His foresighted plan to rule this State, stands vindicated that they have been ruling the State for the past 53 years and shall ever remain so, till the present demographic character of this part of J&K is maintained. The heads of Kashmiri Muslims should therefore bow before him in reverence. He (Sheikh) in furtherance of maintaining this statusquo, got introduced article 370 in the Indian constitution which has proved to be a deterrent to temper with the demographic complexion of this part of J&K State. In other words as long as the area across LoC remains under the occupation of Pakistan and article 370 remains inforce, the "Kashmir-Muslim majority" shall always remain an authority. It is in the same spirit and ideology that the National Conference headed by the wise leader ship of Dr. Farooq Abdullah hs been toeing the stand by reiterating time and again the demand of converting the LoC into International Border.

In this context it looks very strange, when we find that the ongoing movement of "The so called Azadi" has been started by the same people of a region who are actually the rulers of the State. The present statusquo of J&K is a thron in the beds of Pak rulers which always makes their sleep uncomfortable. The ever power-hungry Punjabi-dominated Pak rulers have no love lost for the people of Kashmir but have their own axe to grind by grabbing "the paradise on earth" and for that matter they have been raising the bogey of the so called "Jehad" in the name of Islam.

Sheikh Mohd Abdullah who lived and died for the Independent identity of Kashmir and the Kashmiriat, has possibly neither been understood by the new generation of Kashmir, nor the Kashmiri leadership has been able to convey the agenda of Sher-e-Kashmir to their masses, specially to the Kashmiri youth in its proper perspective. It is so that they have been swayed away by the malicious propaganda of fanatic forces in the name of Islam and at the behest of their masters in Pakistan, who during the past 11 years of militancy have given them nothing but destruction and turned Kashmir "The Paradise on earth" into a hell. Sher-e-Kashmir's another decision of opting the destiny of Kashmir with India was in the same spirit and direction. He, by putting on it the legal seal, successfully got passed a resolution by the first democratically elected and constituted assembly of J&K, to tell the world that Kashmir is part of India and not of Pakistan. And this decision has proved to be a blessing for Kashmiris that their authority has never been eroded.

The past experience of five decades has proved that though voices of discrimination towards the minority population and the other two regions of the State at the hands of majority in Kashmir region, are being heard, is a natural and global phenomena, but the fact remains that the majority community of the State has tried to maintain, harmonious and brotherely relations with other minorities in the State. They have never allowed the secular character of the State to get vitiated on their own, which was so dear to Sheikh, unless the provocation has come from across the borders.

In the context of historical fact, let us hope that the youth of Kashmir shall deeply ponder over the wise agenda of Sher-e-Kashmir which was very timely, well conceived and nicely achieved by him for the Kashmiris and shall not fall prey to the designs of Pak rulers in the name of Jehad, which shall lead them to no where but to a Doomsday the day where slavery awaits them.

It is therefore hoped that those who really mean 'Azadi' they would:-

* Shun the violence and instead channelise their energy towards maintaining 'The Kashmiri Majority Status' intact for all times to come by way of guarding the LoC shoulder to shoulder with the Indian security forces.

* Thwart any nefarious design of the enemies of Kashmir to change the demographic map of Kashmir.

Larger looms the fourth estate, now!

By Dr R L Bhat

Whether the Agra Summit did clear the air between India
and Pakistan or not, it brought the role, reach and influence of the media into sharp focus. Today when the world is almost rid of the lords and realms, the estates of the press gallery have risen to greater heights. There is the inevitable consequence of ever-extending information brought to fore by the media. As the dispensers of news, views and reviews the media-men are demigods who have come to rule all they serve out. From celebrities to public-opinion guurs they are the toast of peoples' in senses more then one. They may not order executions, nor dictate policy statements but it cannot be denied that, today the media is having a much larger influence in shaping policies and perspectives. And, of course, the public opinions. What once opon was the forte of rhetoricians and then the privilege of demagogues, is now fully taken up by the media-men. They push, pummel and point the public at large with a centrality that can be frightening.

There are ample instances to illustrate this larger than life role of the media, both print and electronic, though it is the latter that is impinging more upon everything and everybody. You can think of many but take just two incidents, Qandhar hijack and the recent money-menace. It is debatable whether the Indian Government would have managed the hijack, which ultimately saw the forced release of the Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Moulana Azhar, any better but the TV channels did actually catch the GOI by the scruff to be handed over to the hijackers at Qandhar. One has to have seen the media coverage of the event, how it virtually organized the relatives of the passengers and herded them to the central secretariat and the PM's residence, to apreciate how pervasive the effect was. Kargil was still fresh and sacrifices the whole nation had made were still a palpable memory. Yet the appeals by the parents and children of the Kargil martyrs fell on fully shadowed ears as the nearly violent gatherings blocked all functioning of the Government. More than the threatening hijackers, it was the media that was holding India hostage. Of course, GOI capitulated. And you can always ask to whom: the hijackers of the menacing mobs at Delhi?

No body knows what the 'monkey' who terrorised Delhi just months ago was: a prank gone out of hand, a mischief played by some vested interest or a stray event that grew on the public credulity? The media hand in flaming it up is a good study in responsible journalism, or the lack of it. Even as expert after expert in the round the-clock coverage laughed at the possibility of an ape or a robot fitting the description, the live coverages, some in the throbbing darkness of the night to 'catch it live', came through as 'facts' giving the 'fiction' (of expert opinion) a broad lie. The 'sightings' grew, the 'attacks' increased and the media men collected more lively copies. As Government, caught by the scruff again, increased the power supply in the 'affected areas, more localities began to raise the bogey of 'attacks' just to escape the routine load shedding. News that is supposed to assure appeared to unsettle the public, playing upon fears, even fostering them. Role of the media during the recently concluded Agra Summit appeared to be a mix of the two.

Of course, media is the watchdog of the people. Its claim to freedom lies in that duty. There lies the importance of media; that is the role of ordained for it. And thus does the media serve as the guardian; it is supposed to be, of the rights, privileges and prerogatives of the people. Thus does it held in check the authority that tends to overstep, restrains the political caprice and secures the public at large a ring-side view of the unfolding events. And the media is also the guage of public opinion. It brings the perceptions and apprehensions to the general notice. It has a duty to inform, educate and help in formation of opinions. But which opinions, which facts, which education? Mature education or myopic sensationalism; responsible factfiles or premature conjectures; informed opinion or credulous surmises? As we analyse the Musharraf visit the role of media come in for a fair scrutiny.

In fact there is need for situating the media in the present day scenarios. The almost sacrosanct Freedom of Press where the media - men get the full benefit of doubt, even covering up their responsibilities, belongs to an era that had not seen the incessant glare of TV cameras. There the reporter was fighting a battle against draconian control; here the reporter is a privileged being who is feared not afraid of anything. That basic shift in the ground realities puts greater responsibility upon the reporter of the moment. Then, there is the question of the modalities. The progress of a summit meeting between two nearly -at-war neighbours is qualitatively different from that between two amicable neighbours. It certainly cannot be reported in the same manner as say, the progress of an election-count. There the mobile vans taking in every new round and reporting it out is good reportage, but here the blow by blow account of how one word was crossed out and changed, and then changed again may actually stand in the way of the sentence being completed.

Then there is the 'wisdom' of catching every nuance and building whole outcomes upon it. The way full-scale theories were built, in the afternoon of the first day itself, upon the words 'positive' and constructive' used in the Pak and Indian briefings, is a case in point. But more important is the spectacle of media getting taken for a good ride by astute manipulators or even by simply less circumspect people. During the Agra Summit while the Indian delegation kept a befitting silence, the Pakistanis from the general - president downwards took advantage of an eager media and pushed a PRO-stunt through. The willing media just lapped it up. Even as the Indian foreign office gave out a mere 84-word briefing on the first day and a single - line communique at the end of the second day the Pak - president's spokesman went to town with a full interview. Of course, he blamed India. But it was a partisan version. Though some media - men did observe restraint, others did not wait for the balancing report. And, often it looked that more then the interlocuting parties, more than the people of the countries negotiating, it was the media-men who wanted a breakthrough at whatever cost. So that they got a good copy to file?

Does that make a case for a restrained access for the media? A shackled press? No certainly not. The media can suffer no restraints for the people deserve, nay need a free media giving out full reportage. The press and electronic media need to operate in full freedom. That alone can guarantee that no restrictions are placed on the exercise of freedom by the people at large. Freedom is the rightful privilege of the media. And, it makes it incumbent upon the media-men that they be much circumspect, much cautious, much discerning in what they report and how. There is a thin line between full freedom and anarchy. There is a thinner one dividing the full reportage and sensationalism. That line must be seen and observed in words-of-mouth as well as the photoflashes. By the media - persons themselves.