On Friday, Ishfaq Reshi, a trainee reporter with the banned newspaper, Kashmir Reader, was detained by the Jammu and Kashmir Police. His alleged offence – filing a report from Kashmir’s Budgam district which quoted villagers who said that “government forces” had burnt their crops.
The police registered a case against him under Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises the publication or circulation of “statements conducing public mischief”. Reshi, who is a student at the Central University of Kashmir and reported from Budgam district, was produced before a munsif court that evening and directed to apply for bail at the Budgam sessions court. He was then released.
The report about the alleged crop burning was filed on September 28, when protests were still raging in the Valley, which has been in a ferment since Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani was killed in an encounter with security forces on July 8. Two days later, the J&K Police Media Centre issued a statement saying “the incident has been maliciously linked with forces”. According to recent reports, police officers in Magam, a town in Budgam district, reiterated that Reshi had circulated “fake news”.
On October 2, four days after the report appeared, Kashmir Reader was banned from publication. The government order said the paper “contains such material and content which tends to incite acts of violence and disturb public peace and tranquility”. Scroll.in spoke to Hilal Mir, editor of the Kashmir Reader.
What did you think of the report when it was filed?
The report had the voices a report must have, which is the people in question who were complaining the forces had burnt the crops. The reporter had visited the village and spoken to many people there. What was missing was the police version. The reporter had tried to contact the police at a time when prepaid phones were banned (he had a prepaid phone). A lot was happening in those days. The police had their own preoccupations. There were 50-60 incidents [of clashes between protestors and security forces] in a day.
After that, there were many more reports of crop burning in other papers. The police issued a general rebuttal to these but it was not sent to our newspaper or official email. Other papers also carried reports of transformers being destroyed and crops being burnt but nothing happened to them. Those reports were also rebutted by the police.
What is the usual protocol followed by Kashmir Reader when reporting on alleged violations by security forces?
In almost all cases, we try to get the other side [from security forces]. But ask any reporter here about the official firewall. Many papers carry reports without the other side because officials are inaccessible.
How accessible are the police and the army when it comes to commenting on cases like this?
The army is, by and large, accessible. But in two or three cases they did not call back our reporters. We usually send an SMS or an email from office so that there is a record that we tried to get in touch. It is especially difficult when reporting on cases of such a nature.
In an emergency situation, isn’t it incumbent upon the government to widen its PR outreach? Was there ever an attempt to hold daily police briefings about the day’s events where police could address reporters and reporters would have their queries answered? The problems were especially acute for the local newspapers.
How reliable are local accounts in such cases?
The reporter went to the spot and people told him their crops had been burnt. How does one proceed? Does he ask whether they are speaking the truth or try to get both sides of the story? How do you report incidents that you have been witness to? Even if I witness my own house being ransacked, I have to ask security forces whether they did it or not.
There was a case where fruit boxes ready for the trucks were thrown on the road. The owner said it was done by the police. The police issued a denial, which we also carried. That is how objective you have to be.
This is how reports are done everywhere. In the recent cases of school burning, show me one incident where local papers have said they were burnt by security forces. If there were witnesses, only then would they say so.
For example, there was an encounter in Gurez. The army said it had killed four infiltrators. But what is the source? Only the army. This was on the Line of Control, where journalists are not allowed to go. In Kashmir Reader, we said it could not be independently verified.
When there are encounters, you only have police and army sources, unless you have civilians coming out to defend militants. But there have been cases when the police and the army have lied. Take the Machil case, for instance, when the army said they had killed Pakistani militants. Later it was found to be untrue.
How do reporters on the ground distinguish between rumours and valid local accounts?
There has to be substance. If it is a report of crop burning, there is evidence in the fields. Then you investigate. All our reporters have university degrees in journalism. They know their job well.
Before this uprising, transformers were not being destroyed, crops were not being burnt. There was something going on here, there was a context – the government was trying to put down a mass uprising. A reporter must take recourse to his own instincts to distinguish between rumours and actual accounts. It is not just about the reporter but also about the desk in a newspaper.
The government does not want the truth to come out. This time there was a theory that all the protestors who were killed were trying to attack army camps. Has anybody tried to investigate this? Some were killed by bullets, some were killed by pellets and some by tear gas shells. It was a war-like situation.
Government outreach was shockingly inadequate during this uprising. For the first 20 days, there was hardly any communication from the government. The government also needs to create an environment that enables the media to report freely during such times. If there is an incident and the police refuse to talk then how does one report?
Was there any difference between the other papers’ reportage on crop burning and the Kashmir Reader’s report?
I don’t think there was any difference.
Have there been previous instances of reporters in Kashmir being booked for reporting alleged violations by security forces?
I think this is the first time a reporter has been booked, detained, charged with a non-bailable offence and produced before the court in the same day. But there was a case against me when I was with Greater Kashmir.
It was around 2004-’05. A boy from Hanjiweera village had been killed by the army outside their camp in Pattan area. The army had lost a sniffer dog, so they rounded up all the men in the village, divided them into groups of four each and told them to search for the dog. Their identity cards were withheld and kept at the camp.
By evening, everyone returned to the village, without having found the dog. One of the men sent his younger brother – his name was Riyaz – to collect his ID. When Riyaz went there, he was shot dead. The army said it was a case of mistaken identity; they had taken him for a militant.
I went to the village, spoke to people and filed a report. We also carried the army version. Later, a colonel and a major from the camp visited the Greater Kashmir office. They said the report was fine but there was no connection between the dog and the killing.
A month later, my boss called me and showed me a summons from the district magistrate in Srinagar. A man from Chadoora village in Budgam district had filed a case against me for creating hatred between two communities. The case was dismissed in the first hearing.
Has the government given any more specific reasons for banning Kashmir Reader? Do you feel it has anything to do with this case?
I don’t think so. So many papers carried similar reports. We have not been provided the dossier. I don’t think this particular report is the sole reason behind the ban.
What course of action does the Kashmir Reader now plan to take?
The organisation will provide legal aid as required to the reporter. As far as the ban is concerned, we have to negotiate with the government. We hope it will be lifted soon.