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