media freedom

#Mediagag in Kashmir: Journalists unite to protest the ban on Kashmir Reader

'This time, the gag order comes with legal armour apparently to frighten the rest of the local media into submission,' wrote the paper's editor.

It had been just another day at Srinagar’s daily newspaper Kashmir Reader’s office on Sunday. But then policemen arrived late in the evening, with an order from the Srinagar District Magistrate, directing the printer, publisher, and the owner of the newspaper to discontinue publishing till further orders.

“On the basis of credible inputs it has been observed that the daily newspaper namely Kashmir Reader published within the jurisdiction of district Srinagar contains such material and content which tends to incite acts of violence and disturb public peace and tranquility,” read the order, a copy of which was provided by the newspaper.

The outrage was spontaneous.

On Monday, editors of valley based newspapers held a meeting and condemned the government’s order, which they said was “vague and unclear about the charges for which such a harsh step has been taken.”

Meanwhile, dozens of journalists came on the road in solidarity with the newspaper. The journalists, holding placards, marched along with the staff of the newspaper towards the office of the Director of Information.

But they were not allowed in, following which they held a brief sit-in outside the office, Hilal Mir, editor of the Kashmir Reader said.

“The police tried to stop us at Regal Chowk itself," Mir said. "Then we told them we only have to go till [the office], then they allowed us. A police vehicle was escorting us till the gate,” he added.

The ban on Kashmir Reader comes as the unrest continues into its third month.

Earlier, in July, the police had seized copies of several newspapers in a late night raid at printing presses, and prevented newspapers from publishing for three days.

"It would have been helpful if the gag order had made a mention of a specific report so that we could answer it," Mir wrote in a column in the valley's largest circulated newspaper, Greater Kashmir.

But in the absence of such communication, we assume that it is a generalised accusation. Newspapers were not published for three days but the ‘violence’ persisted. Who incited the violence during those three days? The government’s mishandling of the media springs from its wilful refusal to accept the reality on the ground. The state should take a hard look within to seek answers to who incites violence.

 It should ask itself whether the street is not further enraged when the chief minister makes a casual remark on the killing of children, rather than blaming the media which only reports her remark.

Back then in July, the Jammu and Kashmir government spokesperson, Naeem Akhtar, had played the incident down, saying it was not a ban but an “enforcement of curfew.” Distribution of newspapers, he had said, was not possible since there were apprehensions of trouble. Following a backlash the government pinned the blame on police, and removed a police official who had carried out the raids.

The government couldn't handle the embarrassment triggered by international outrage, Mir wrote in his column about the three-day ban in July. "[T]he chief minister’s advisor first denied that a ban had been imposed and requested the newspapers to resume the publication."

In July, the government had also banned Pakistani news channels on cable television, along with the newspapers. News agency Reuters had quoted a government minister to say that cable television had been blocked because Pakistani channels had “launched a campaign aimed at fomenting trouble here” and “some newspapers were also sensationalising the violence”. However some channels, particularly Geo TV, after a brief blackout were made available on some cable networks under a different name.

"A media gag at the peak of a mass uprising has far reaching consequences," Mir wrote in his column. "The perfunctory manner in which the ban was announced should have spurred some introspection in the government," he added.

Instead, the 'administration' put the muzzle on Kashmir Reader. Only this time the gag order comes with legal armour, apparently to frighten the rest of the local media into submission.

Mir also stressed on the need for "the state functionaries and its PR system" to be responsive and professional, particularly in a situation of strife where almost any version of a report is hotly contested. "A reporter’s job becomes easy when officials are available to answer to their queries. It becomes more important in emergency situations. Will a police officer’s belligerence help a young reporter grow professionally? Will it not colour his perception of the entire police force?" he wrote, pointing out that "no professional organisation would want to publish reports that do not carry as many sides of the story as possible."

Mir also provided a bit of background to the ban orders on Sunday.

A day before the ban was imposed, one of our reporters called a senior police officer for information about a story. The officer told him that he should start looking for a job as Kashmir Reader would be shut down sooner or later. The officer labelled the newspaper as “Lashkar-e-Toiba’s own organ”. The conversation, which the officer would probably dismiss as a joke, is frightening. If a senior police officer perceives a newspaper as the property of a militant outfit, we naturally become the legitimate targets of a ‘surgical strike’.

On Tuesday, journalists were back on the streets, carrying placards in protest against the ban on the newspaper.

Amnesty International too reacted on Tuesday in a statement, pointing out:

"Under international human rights law, any restrictions on the right to freedom of expression on the ground of public order must be demonstrably necessary and proportionate."

“The District Magistrate’s order does not specifically mention any news items in the Kashmir Reader that incited violence,” said Aakar Patel, Executive Director, Amnesty International India. “This vaguely-worded shutdown order suggests that the newspaper is being targeted for its reporting.”

The government and the local press have had confrontations in the past as well, said Bashir Manzar, editor and owner of a newspaper and printing press that was raided earlier in July. “Even this year you see in the beginning of [the unrest] they raided printing presses, they seized whatever printed copies were there," Manzar said. "So it was not an official ban anywhere, but they didn’t allow us to print – it is tantamount to a ban.”

In 2013, copies of the Kashmir Reader featuring a full page picture of Afzal Guru along with the headline “Afzal Hanged. India’s ‘collective conscience’ satisfied” had been seized by the police.

Reporters Without Borders had then said:

 “Use of such generalised censorship has increased in recent years and shows that the authorities have no qualms about isolating an entire segment of the population in an attempt to prevent protests. In so doing, they are guilty of grave discrimination against the Kashmiri population’s right of access to news and information.”

Another aspect of how the government tends to control the press is by using advertising as leverage. Most of the valley’s newspapers are dependent on the revenue generated through government advertisements.

Historically too, the press in Kashmir has seen difficult situations. Independent newspapers were disallowed over much of the Dogra rule in the state. Newspapers had to be smuggled into the valley via Lahore, then the centre of the Urdu press. Post-1947, press in the Kashmir valley has functioned under pressure from state and non-state actors.

Many newspapers had been patronised by political parties and survived. It was during the tenure of Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq, first as the state’s prime minister during 1964-1965 and then the chief minister till 1971, that the press in the valley got relative breathing space and functioned independently to an extent. “Not that he was democratic but compared to previous regime there was more breathing space – for both press and political opponents,” said senior journalist Mohammad Syed Malik.

In Kashmir valley, the "quantum of freedom 'allowed' to the press," Malik said, "is directly related to the quantum of freedom that is available in the political arena.”

Section 3 of The Jammu and Kashmir Newspaper (Incitement to offences) Act 1971 (Samvat era, corresponding to AD 1914) has often been used for imposing arbitrary bans.

By the time militancy erupted in the valley in the late 1980s and early '90s, the press found itself caught between state forces, including the dreaded Ikhwanis (pro-government militia), and separatist militants. Both sides intimidated the press to have their versions dominate the news.

Several journalists were kidnapped, illegally detained by state forces, and killed in the initial days of the militancy. Lassa Koul, the then Director of Doordarshan Srinagar became the first victim in February 1990. A year later, the editor of Al-Safa newspaper, Mohammed Shaban Vakil, was shot dead in his office by militants in April 1991.

Yusuf Jameel, former correspondent of the BBC, survived an attempt on his life as a parcel bomb was sent to him. Photojournalist Mushtaq Ali, who opened the parcel, was wounded in the blast and succumbed to his injuries days later on 10 September 1995. Bashir Manzar was abducted by the Ikhwans.

“There was no question of sending you to jail," Malik said. "It was sending you to the next world. Looking back, those people who functioned at that time and maintained whatever semblance of press freedom, were really heroes,” he added.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content  BY 

As India turns 70, London School of Economics asks some provocative questions

Is India ready to become a global superpower?

Meaningful changes have always been driven by the right, but inconvenient questions. As India completes 70 years of its sovereign journey, we could do two things – celebrate, pay our token tributes and move on, or take the time to reflect and assess if our course needs correction. The ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, the annual flagship summit of the LSE (London School of Economics) South Asia Centre, is posing some fundamental but complex questions that define our future direction as a nation. Through an honest debate – built on new research, applied knowledge and ground realities – with an eclectic mix of thought leaders and industry stalwarts, this summit hopes to create a thought-provoking discourse.

From how relevant (or irrelevant) is our constitutional framework, to how we can beat the global one-upmanship games, from how sincere are business houses in their social responsibility endeavours to why water is so crucial to our very existence as a strong nation, these are some crucial questions that the event will throw up and face head-on, even as it commemorates the 70th anniversary of India’s independence.

Is it time to re-look at constitution and citizenship in India?

The Constitution of India is fundamental to the country’s identity as a democratic power. But notwithstanding its historical authority, is it perhaps time to examine its relevance? The Constitution was drafted at a time when independent India was still a young entity. So granting overwhelming powers to the government may have helped during the early years. But in the current times, they may prove to be more discriminatory than egalitarian. Our constitution borrowed laws from other countries and continues to retain them, while the origin countries have updated them since then. So, do we need a complete overhaul of the constitution? An expert panel led by Dr Mukulika Banerjee of LSE, including political and economic commentator S Gurumurthy, Madhav Khosla of Columbia University, Niraja Gopal Jayal of JNU, Chintan Chandrachud the author of the book Balanced Constitutionalism and sociologist, legal researcher and Director of Council for Social Development Kalpana Kannabiran will seek answers to this.

Is CSR simply forced philanthropy?

While India pioneered the mandatory minimum CSR spend, has it succeeded in driving impact? Corporate social responsibility has many dynamics at play. Are CSR initiatives mere tokenism for compliance? Despite government guidelines and directives, are CSR activities well-thought out initiatives, which are monitored and measured for impact? The CSR stipulations have also spawned the proliferation of ambiguous NGOs. The session, ‘Does forced philanthropy work – CSR in India?” will raise these questions of intent, ethics and integrity. It will be moderated by Professor Harry Barkema and have industry veterans such as Mukund Rajan (Chairman, Tata Council for Community Initiatives), Onkar S Kanwar (Chairman and CEO, Apollo Tyres), Anu Aga (former Chairman, Thermax) and Rahul Bajaj (Chairman, Bajaj Group) on the panel.

Can India punch above its weight to be considered on par with other super-powers?

At 70, can India mobilize its strengths and galvanize into the role of a serious power player on the global stage? The question is related to the whole new perception of India as a dominant power in South Asia rather than as a Third World country, enabled by our foreign policies, defense strategies and a buoyant economy. The country’s status abroad is key in its emergence as a heavyweight but the foreign service officers’ cadre no longer draws top talent. Is India equipped right for its aspirations? The ‘India Abroad: From Third World to Regional Power’ panel will explore India’s foreign policy with Ashley Tellis, Meera Shankar (Former Foreign Secretary), Kanwal Sibal (Former Foreign Secretary), Jayant Prasad and Rakesh Sood.

Are we under-estimating how critical water is in India’s race ahead?

At no other time has water as a natural resource assumed such a big significance. Studies estimate that by 2025 the country will become ‘water–stressed’. While water has been the bone of contention between states and controlling access to water, a source for political power, has water security received the due attention in economic policies and development plans? Relevant to the central issue of water security is also the issue of ‘virtual water’. Virtual water corresponds to the water content (used) in goods and services, bulk of which is in food grains. Through food grain exports, India is a large virtual net exporter of water. In 2014-15, just through export of rice, India exported 10 trillion litres of virtual water. With India’s water security looking grim, are we making the right economic choices? Acclaimed author and academic from the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, Amita Bavisar will moderate the session ‘Does India need virtual water?’

Delve into this rich confluence of ideas and more at the ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, presented by Apollo Tyres in association with the British Council and organized by Teamworks Arts during March 29-31, 2017 at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. To catch ‘India @ 70’ live online, register here.

At the venue, you could also visit the Partition Museum. Dedicated to the memory of one of the most conflict-ridden chapters in our country’s history, the museum will exhibit a unique archive of rare photographs, letters, press reports and audio recordings from The Partition Museum, Amritsar.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Teamwork Arts and not by the Scroll editorial team.