Earlier this week, I had the privilege of being a panellist on what is arguably India’s most watched TV news programme, frequently dubbed the Noise Hour.
The basic premise of the show was that Pakistani involvement alone is responsible for fuelling anger against the Indian State in parts of Kashmir, that there are no legitimate grievances that resident Kashmiris can have with the Indian Army, and that anyone who says otherwise is a traitor. This is just so outrageous and illogical that it merits serious reflection as to where we have gone wrong.
To start with, let’s review the tagline: ProPakDovesSilent. Pro-Pak here is shorthand for the broad spectrum of people that the anchor and his loyal viewers love to disparage, regardless of their actual views on the Pakistani State. This can range from the liberal media to human rights advocates, public intellectuals, anti-war activists, secessionists and sometimes actual pro-Pakistan people.
I have lost count of the times I denounced on air Pakistani involvement in Kashmir and its role in fomenting terror. I stated many times that I am not in favour of secession either. All that I support is curbing military oppression, progressive demilitarisation (at least experimentally in urban areas to start with), removal of legal immunity against prosecution for rapes and unlawful killings, better development and job opportunities – all of which will go a long way in creating openings for dialogue and understanding, and reducing the scope for Pakistan to fuel existing anger in the Valley.
But there is no room for moderate views in that arena. If you are not a radical, you will be painted as one, and if you protest loud enough, some other straw man who is not even on the show will be propped up as a target for all the outrage.
Doves by definition are those who seek peace. In this context, doves are those who aim for friendly relations with Pakistan instead of war. Does this make them pro-Pakistan? Anti-India? Was Atal Bihari Vajpayee being anti-national when he extended a hand of friendship to Pakistan? Are Narendra Modi’s outreach efforts anti-national? In what universe is peace against the interests of the nation or the army? Or is it being argued that war is in the interests of the army?
Most amusingly, the outrage for the evening was based on the idea that these doves are now silent. What is the problem if they are silent? It’s a problem when people speak out and it’s a problem when they don’t. These people must be very important indeed to occupy such public concern.
Blatant lies
The petition that I signed a few weeks ago that became a subject of discussion is available online. It talked about the long history of military high-handedness, fake encounters and army excesses (noted by the Supreme Court, no less), that has fuelled resentment and anger in the Valley, the anger that caused Burhan Wani to turn to terrorism, and the anger that brought many Kashmiris out in the streets to mourn his death. Burhan Wani’s killing was mentioned in this context, as a means to draw attention to larger issues, and to how oppression can fuel terrorism. This is not a threat, it is the sad reality. Do I pity people who take up violence? Yes. Does that pity translate into a defence? Most certainly not. And further, at no place does the petition describe him as “poor Burhan Wani” – that was just one of the many lies bandied about on the show.
I was repeatedly asked where I was on April 6, 2010, and mocked for not being able to answer that 70 policemen had been killed by Maoists in Chhattisgarh on that day. I realise that there is a strong atmosphere of anti-intellectualism in this country that the show caters to, but this low level of debate still surprised me. I was repeatedly asked why I did not sign a petition or participate in a candlelight vigil on various occasions when security forces were killed.
The idea that someone of a broadly liberal persuasion does not do candlelight vigils must have shaken every stereotype there is, but it’s a fact. And I sign petitions in the belief that my government is accountable to me. With no such expectation of accountability or decency from the Pakistani government or terrorist organisations, nor any direct hotline to them to express my views, I prefer not to waste my time. Terrorists are what they are, but I don’t expect my country’s government to emulate them. Does this make me anti-national?
This kind of whataboutery has reached epic proportions – surely one is allowed to focus on a cause which they care about without having to give equally to every other cause? And if they do focus on multiple causes, they are anyway rubbished and told to stick to what they know. There’s no winning this debate. In this context I must note that when I flipped the question back to the anchor and asked when he last covered the issue of army rapes on his show, he promptly said “last night”. That again is a lie. Yes, the show covered issues relating to rape, but it most certainly did not cover the issue I asked about – instances where members of the army have raped local women in areas where they are posted and how they are shielded from prosecution.
Dumbing down journalism
Most striking about the show was the idea that the media must be restrained from questioning anything that is done in the name of national interest, especially pertaining to Kashmir or Pakistan. It is breathtakingly ironic that every time the issue of media censorship has been raised in the recent past, it has been due to concerns about the lies and sensationalism spread by this particular channel and its copycats. And every time, it is the liberal journalists who stand up for media freedom, no matter how much they despise such dangerous dumbing down of journalism. If this was pseudo-liberalism, it would advocate selective censorship. But this is the real stuff, consistent and principled, even when it hurts.
I always believed that the idea of India that the army fights to defend is a liberal, secular one. It includes free speech and human rights for its people. Now we are told that those ideals are expendable, the people are expendable. The only thing that is not expendable is land. Forgive me for not being enthusiastic for a war over real estate. I’m tired of being told to go to Pakistan. I am a real nationalist, not the pseudo kind who wants censorship, media gags, State-sponsored violence and an all-powerful army. Those of you who do are the ones who should move there. Assuming they’ll have you.
Limited-time offer: Big stories, small price. Keep independent media alive. Become a Scroll member today!
Our journalism is for everyone. But you can get special privileges by buying an annual Scroll Membership. Sign up today!