news details |
|
|
| Journalism that do not conform to high moral standards | | | Surinder Koul
Barkha Dutt, flamboyant an
chor of NDTV plays down
Kashmiri Pandits' causes whenever she conducts Kashmir-centric programme on NDTV. There had hardly been any TV programme on Kashmir conducted in the location of Kashmir or in Delhi, anchored by her. Feeble, marginalised and cursory slots are allotted to human problems of a community which constituted microscopic minority in Muslim dominated majority in Kashmir. In a similar fashion, many anchors of other electronic channels, though, knowledgeable and well recognised too had sidelined KPs' pain and sufferings and have rather given peripheral touch to their displacement, their refugee status in own country and to their deprivation of being stateless in democratic liberal India. For these anchors, KPs do not constitute microscopic minority in the valley as they usually had laid out precedence of giving clarion call for Indian minorities on slightest ground. Instances like Dadri episode, Hyderabad University student suicide and anti-India, pro Azadi and pro-Afzal Guru sloganeering in JNU were projected as big bombshells by these TV channels. Kanahiya Kumar of JNU and Hyderabad University protests were telecast with minute to minute details and bias interpretation of these happenings and Kanahiya became overnight a hero of impoverished class of the sub-continent. The content and text of the telecast news on such incidents were scripted in doctored vocabulary which aggravates the tendencies of segregation among the divided communities, castes and sub castes of Indian society.
In light of this trend of Indian electronic media and more or less of print media in reference to KPs' plight, let us take the study case of Barkha Dutt's recent NDTV programme telecast on 28th Feb 2016 about Kashmiri Pandit and their return to the valley after 26 years of exile. The composition of panelista was totally imbalanced. And, the audience of selective persons who echoed their voices were more alike than any trace of contradiction to the pre ordinate purpose of the telecast slot. Among the panelists were NC's Farooq Abdullah, former Union Cabinet Minister and three time CM of J&K, Shashi Tharoor, MP Congress and Lt Gen (retd) Syed Ata Hasnain.
This was the heavily punched side of the panel which represented a broader consensus of the central government policy about the settlement of displaced Kashmiri Pandits back in the valley among those very elements who hounded them out.
For representing KPs in the panel were the youth who had hardly not been in teenage when their families were forced to flee the valley under the fear of gun. For having KPs' view point in the panel discussion, Barkha Dutt chose three KP representatives -- Siddhartha Gigoo, Author of The Garden Of Solitude, Vard Sharma, Mechanical Engineer, Columnist, Neeru Kaul, Biotechnologist, Associated with Roots in Kashmir movement.
Obviously the structure of panelists was enough to show the unsatisfactory balance preferred by Barkha Dutt for discussion on the topic -- When Home is Dream for Kashmir Pandit". In the opening address, Barkha did acknowledge that KPs were harbouring grouse that their tragedy was not well articulated by different people from time to time on electronic and print media. In this programme, she had made half hearted attempt to give space to the narration about 26 years of KPs displacement from their native land, through its community members in their own expressions. Her claim of giving convincing chance to KPs by head count was all right but by political experience, understanding and background, all the three KP representatives were not well crafted for full throttle discussion with a banyan tree figure of Kashmir politics. She had pitched them against heavy political weights like Dr Farooq and Shashi Tharoor, both fully seasoned, matured politicians having long political experience and grasp of political matters. Their long indulgence in politic affairs of the country had honed them as tough negotiators while striking various deals for sharing of power both at state level as well as central level. Their presence at the panel discussion on ticklish issue like return of KPs to the valley must had been overawing for three young KP professionals to confront Abdullah. Because Abdullah had temerity of being brazen and arrogant in replying when KPs' genuine concerns and question about their rehabilitation was raised in Parliament. His statements on KP's return and security were ludicrous, which no statesman would utter despite knowing that KPs were vanishing breed in the Valley. His deliberations in discussion were more absurd in content lacking genuineness for the return of KPs, which added more injury to the psyche of this minority community. His pungent and caustic remarks likes Pandits can't wait for last gun to fall silent or no one will go with begging bowl for Kashmiri Pandits and the onus of return to the valley falls on Kashmiri Pandits. Since KPs do not form any vote bank for him or for that matter to any class of Indian politician, Abdullah feels himself at liberty to give vent to his preconceived notions about KPs without getting checkmating with facts and figures on ground realities by another national leader. He exactly outbursts like MLA Rashid Engineer who asked KPs to apologise to KM, so both Abdullah and Rashid were at par when the issue of return of KPs came in debate. He could have been countered by some politically matured KPs with facts and figures on politics of Kashmir, who could call spade a spade were not invited at all. When asked by Barkha Dutt, why there was wedge between KP and KM. Varda Sharma contented that if the killer of their community was roaming freely, how he could presume that he would be safe under that situation. Siddharth said if and when KPs return to our original homes, what guarantee they have that the same mayhem might not reoccur. In reply to Barkha Dutt's question, Abdullah gave a long reply holding Indian government responsible for creating communal divide in the valley by giving all jobs to KPs as KMs were not qualified. When KMs got educated and came up in service class of the state government, KPs started feeling the pinch of getting elbow out. He did not disclose that NC government in the state had enacted laws, like Land to Tenant act followed by abolishing of private money lending system. Both these two enactments were implemented in letter and spirit in the state. Why so, because these enacted laws had communal overtone. Within a short time, lands went to tenants who were mostly KMs and the owners of the land became landless. Leftist and communists in India endorsed these acts as progressive and egalitarian laws which were to help the poor in the state. The same land to tenant act did not get implemented in rest of India extensively as it was promulgated in the Jammu and Kashmir. KPs were not given any compensation by the ruling dispensation at that period of time, though KPs and other KM land holders filed a case in law court but of no avail . Their economy got shattered and they were reduced to paupers. Simultaneously, in state appointments in government jobs a formula of 70:30 ratio introduced in order to create more opportunities for KMs in government services. Selection on merit was thrown to winds. That sowed the seed of mistrust among KPs against late Shiekh Mohammad Abdullah and his policies. But none in the panel countered the argument with these facts against blame game let loose by Abdullah. KP representative were either not given enough opportunity to contradict Abdullah or they were not assertive in rebutting his half truth. In his monologue of accusation against central government, he in an ironic manner asked Barkha, why his elected government was dislodged? Thereby meaning to say that central government was not fair towards the people of Kashmir, when his dismissal at that point of time was more due to his incapability to run the government. Abdullah proved failure on many fronts after he was elected as J&K CM in 1983. The alleged disgraceful political gimmicks played by Abdullah had invited the wrath of Indira Gandhi who was bent upon cutting him to size. Erosion within rank and file of National Conference led by GM Shah, son- in- law of late Shiekh Abdullah gathered the storm, which further reduced the credibility of Abdullah among the masses. In totality, Dr Farooq's political woes got increased day by day which culminated into fall of his government in J&K in 1984. And a coalition government headed by G.M.Shah, leader of Awami National Conference was installed with outside support of Congress party led by Mufti Mohammad Syed, then PCC-I chief. These ground facts about the political developments in the state and Abdullah's total failure to run the administration were not taken up either by the panelists or by the selected audience for the NDTV programme. Barkha did not counter Abdullah's version.
Yet another laughable tirade made by Abdullah was that KPs sold away their properties in the valley including houses but did not acknowledge that sizeable houses of KP were burnt and occupied by locals during peak militancy. At that period of time, both state and central agencies were groping in the dark to lay their siege on administration for many years to hand over the state apparatus to elected government. For the vacation of the houses, KPs had to approach state administration and judiciary for retrieving their lost landed properties but no action was taken, and their requests were mostly dumped in cold storage. KPs had no other alternative for their living in hot plains of India but to sell away their properties at throw away prices to the occupants of their landed properties.
If Abdullah was really sincere in KPs' return to the valley, did he take any concrete step to ensure their return? Did he ever try to build up consensus among the KM social groups for their return? Did he ever raised voice of their return through civil society and other 'powerful' voices of the valley. Did he ever persuade Kashmir chamber of commerce or traders and shopkeepers associations to galvanise public support and opinion in favour of KPs for their return to the valley.
These measures with human determination would have definitely created confidence among KPs who would have appreciated it as a positive work for coexistence of all Kashmiris. On the reverse of it, Abdullah's statements had hurt the KPs more.
The most astounding and bizarre was the interpretation given by Shashi Tharoor about the return of KPs to the valley. He is supposed to be having better political understanding of Kashmir turmoil and the causes of exodus of KPs from the valley, but he too hurt their sentiments. Here KPs never took up guns against their KM brethren or against the state yet they were pushed out of the valley. On the contrary, KPs were on receiving end and guns and anti-KP slogans were raised by the majority population in the valley under Indian nation state. There was no similarity between KPs' return to home state with the Palestinian issue and their fight with Israel to reclaim their occupied land. Both Israel and Palestinian had been fighting with modern sophisticated weaponry from the day Israel state was established. Hamas and Hezbollah are the militant outfits which confront Israel army and tanks. Palestinian knifers sneak in Israel territory to kill pedestrian Jews as many as possible and Israel army shots them at the spur of moment. In what way, Palestinian resettlement had any kind of consonance with return of KPs to the valley? What an immature and simpleton contention was produced by Shashi Tharoor.
Among the august gathering, Vijay Dhar, a Kashmiri business tycoon who is more a business man counting his own shillings like shylock, than a KP with some spine. His analogy for his argument that India did not accept a Kashmiri was that Indian Home Minister visited his D.P.Public School and a school student who showed his identity card of the school was not permitted to enter the school. It meant that Kashmiris were not trusted by India. Due to security factors, school student might not have been allowed to enter school by the security man on duty as the HM was in the school premises. But that does not amount to making of a sweeping remark that India does not accept Kashmiris. Kashmiris have numerous trading outlets throughout India and own beyond proposition landed properties and assets in various states of India. Why such derogatory comments were made by Vijay Dhar? In what way, he presumed that Kashmiris were unacceptable.
Siddharth Gigoo, one of the panellist stated that he wanted in live in Kashmir in his home at his original place among the people around. He would not like to live in separate enclaves to be constructed for KPs on their return. What about those KPs whose houses were set ablaze or forcefully occupied by some villagers? Where this class of KP would live in Kashmir? Have they to file complaints with the state government first and wait till their occupied houses are vacated by illegal intruders or wait for the release of money from the treasury for the reconstruction of their gutted houses? There are many ifs and buts in getting that support and cooperation from the state bureaucracy for the restoration of ancestral houses to KPs in the valley. Return to valley, live there with honour and dignity is a big question mark for KPs. It is not only one family looking for home in Kashmir.
Ms Neeru Kaul said KPs do not want home only or a palatial houses but safety, economic security and a guarantee of not getting targeted again in the valley.
Gen Syed Atta Hasnain, outrightly suggested Abdullah to take some initiative at personal level for the return of KP to the valley. He affirmed that Abdullah had the political strength and capacity compounded with his past family legacy sufficient enough to get KPs resettled in the valley. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
