Kashmir Human Rights and the Indian Press

By TERESA JOSEPH

ABSTRACT : The contemporary discourse on governance and social conflict 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 conflict is generally marked by its state-centric approach – with an inclination to stress the importance 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, reflecting 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 media2. 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 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 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 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 understanding 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 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- verification finds 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 juxtaposition 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 During the last ten years, thousands of ordinary people have lost their lives in Kashmir. Although official sources claim the number to be around 19,956 only (as of September 1998)5, reports by various non-governmental organisations put the number to be around 50,0006. 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), People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR), People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Asia Watch, and Amnesty International — have given first-hand accounts 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 specific period of focus of this study as depicted by alternate media sources is essential for an understanding of the issues concerned.

The two reports by the Committee for Initiative on Kashmir, India’s Kashmir War and Kashmir Imprisoned: A Report, give first-hand accounts of the situation in the Valley.7 They describe the innumerable cases of daily raids on houses, assaults on peaceful demonstrations, indiscriminate arrests and harassment of ordinary civilians by the security forces. There are numerous accounts of various forms of torture — both psychological and physical – and extra-judicial murders, including those resulting from firing on peaceful processions and funerals, encounters and killings during cordon and search operations, and crossfire. Various other reports, including the Amnesty International report, India: Torture, 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 numerous cases of extra-judicial executions in fake encounters and also details of political prisoners under detention without trial in the Valley. Similarly, reporting 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 filled with tension in all the major towns, where gun battles broke out regularly and 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 study9. 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-constitutional 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 office. The targets of the militants were not always security personnel or informers, but also included civilian officials, political leaders, journalists and common citizens. This was the dismal picture of the human rights situation in 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. Purportedly, 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 official speeches and press releases or straight news without any kind of analysis, having as their sources press releases, statements/speeches of government officials, 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 I).
Table-I A comparative quantitative analysis of the nature of reports on Kashmir (1 December 1991-29 February 1992)

		Dec			Jan			Feb			Total		Grand Total
	TTOI	IE	TH	TTOI	IE	TH	TTOI	IE	TH	TTOI	IE	TH
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

*TTOI – The Times of India (Bombay); IE-Indian Express (Kochi); TH – The Hindu (Coimbatore)
More significantly, a survey of the sources of these reports revealed that 230 of them were based on official statements/press releases. Of these, an overwhelming 78% had as their sources Indian Government officials and leaders of mainstream Indian political parties. Only 7% were based on Kashmiri sources, 8% on Pakistani sources and 7% on other sources, including that of officials from other countries. (See Table II). TABLE- II A comparative quantitative analysis of the official sources of news reports on Kashmir (1 December 1991-29 February 1992)

Official Sources		Dec			Jan			Feb			Total		Grand Total
	TTOI	IE	TH	TTOI	IE	TH	TTOI	IE	TH	TTOI	IE	TH
Indian	12	7	14	24	15	6	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

It is indeed thought provoking that reports on the actual situation in Kashmir quoting such sources as the ordinary people of the Valley, the militants or Pakistani officials 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 officials, 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 subconscious mind. The dominance of a particular image therefore, leaves a correspondingly 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 official 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’, or ‘militants’ or ‘security forces’. Only the discerning reader can glean some understanding 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 five jawans of the BSF (Border Security Force) and CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force), injured in continuous exchange of fire 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 significance 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 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 highlighting 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.

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 official 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 outfits 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 casualties 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 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 form 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 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 scrutinize governments while turning a blind eye to violations by non-official agencies. They do no not mention the killings of minorities and of brutalities against them by terrorists. Highlighting the numbers killed by terrorists, 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 propaganda 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 ‘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 opposition 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 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 findings of the Committee showed that the reports of excesses were ‘grossly exaggerated or invented’. These conclusions were highlighted and extensively quoted in both the print and electronic media. However, the report had 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 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 officers), the lack of a woman investigator 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-Poshpora during February 1991, the Forum for Women and Politics organised a debate on the report in Delhi during the first 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 highlighted 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 organisation, it gives a brief overview of the two main reservations against the report; that is, its methodology, and parameters for investigating 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 finding 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 fierce insurgency or be influenced by the rhetoric of azadi…20.
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 find 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 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 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 Offices’ on 27 December 1991, as is evident from the headline itself, the reason for the strike was glossed over. It only highlighted that work in the offices 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 five 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.

International 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 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 importantly, the communiqué adopted at the concluding session of the European Co-operation (ECO) summit at Tehran stressed the need for respecting the human rights of the Kashmiri people and called for settling the issue expeditiously 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 first-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 assassinating 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 information, besides seizing newspapers and confiscating copies. Various other factors have contributed to the pressure on the press including the fact that the governent was its major advertiser, and had the power to confer or withhold accredition facilities. These have been used as coercive instruments, besides other extra-legal methods such as the impounding of vehicles distributing 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 (Prevention) Act (TADA) on the grounds that they had published provocative news items highlighting 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 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 violations 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 consistently projected the government’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 justified 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 find 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 recommendations 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 understanding of the issues.23 In the context of Kashmir, the Committee appointed by the PCI to examine the role of the press in Kashmir 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 compensation in case of death, injury, hospitalization 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 recommendations 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 press which was deliberately mis-interpreting facts and events, making it possible for governments to get away with any short-sighted policy.25 It cannot be denied that a basic responsibility 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 official 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.