Pak-India stand-off

And media’s responsibilities

THOUGH Uri is not going to mark the start of a war between India and Pakistan, such an occurrence down the road has all the potential to trigger a nuclear holocaust. This is what Uri has taught us.

Uri has shown us four cruel realties; 1) you can’t maintain a status quo in Kashmir forever, 2) India has changed and is changing for good, inching towards a religion based ultra-nationalist posturing, 3) attacks such like this may not necessarily end up like the brinkmanship which we saw in the aftermath of Mumbai, Pathankot and Uri occurrences – though Indian reaction to Uri may encourage those who plan and execute such violent acts to continue the pattern, and 4) the media, as a reflection of society and instead of being helpful to their respective governments in conflict resolution, has become capable of throwing the two counties into a nuclear inferno.

So, first things first, India has to revisit its stance on Kashmir; which until Modi is there, is not likely. However, no one needs to remind it that three out of four wars between the two countries were fought on Kashmir, that many of the violent movements and subversive activities and the unwanted interference in each other’s countries were caused by it and that Kashmir is at the core of the antagonistic relationship which is responsible for stunting the growth and economic prosperity of not only around 1500 million people inhibiting India and Pakistan but also of other South Asian countries neighbouring them. So, unless India accepts that Kashmir is not a dispute between India and Pakistan but the problem is now about the right of self-determination of a people, nothing of this sort happening again can be ruled out at any point in future.

A policy revision for a just and durable solution of the problem is as much necessary for Pakistan as it is for India. Pakistan cannot continue with its current ambiguous and somewhat ad hoc Kashmir policy. Kashmir is a dispute that is historical. So, two things should be clear to policy makers here; 1) it can’t have quick fix solution, and 2) it can’t be solved purely on its terms.

Historically, Kashmir problem was something else. But much water has passed under the bridges which has changed its nature and shape overtime. From the simple question of which country it should be part of, Kashmir has moved to the realm of basic human rights and a people’s right to self-determination. This means Pakistan has to move from the superficial rhetoric of moral support to the Kashmiri people in its struggle for self-determination to a real change of heart and start working to let them – the Kashmiri people - help determine their destiny.

The onus, however, is on India as it has occupied the area forcefully without the wishes of the people who want to break free. In order to continue its immoral and unjustifiable occupation, it has forgotten what the international community, through UNSC resolutions, had had prescribed long ago for the solution of this issue and its own pledges in this regard. It has deployed more than half a million troops in the Valley to maintain its control. It doesn’t shy away to trample basic human rights and resort to brutal, violent suppression periodically whenever the public is outraged and the uprising enters active mode. And now, it is using pallet guns; so much for the world’ biggest democracy and its conduct.

On the other hand Pakistan, in order to pressurise India to lay its hands off Kashmir quickly and on the terms to its liking, has blundered many a time in the past to resort to violent means; be it the 1948 tribal infiltration in the Valley, the 1965 Operation Gibraltar or the 1999 Kargil misadventure. The post-Zia Mujahideen/militancy factor injected into the popular Kashmiri struggle also didn’t help. Rather, it damaged the cause in the sense that Kashmir issue was since then painted internationally in a different colour. Pakistan also lost much of the world support on the diplomatic front.

This is known to everyone that Kashmir remains unresolved because one party claims it is its ‘integral part’; while the other says it is its ‘jugular vein’. But while basing its respective policies on these premises the two countries publicly claim that they want to find a solution to it according to the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. They also claim that this is a human issue. India and Pakistan have given special ‘autonomous’ status to the respective parts of Kashmir under their control. But the fact of the matter is that they run these like satellites, with the governments formed and staying in power at the pleasure of the central governments.

So, if a peaceful and long-lasting solution is to be found it will require, first and foremost, a revision of policies on both sides. Second, dialogue has to be started once it is decided that Kashmir dispute will be solved without resorting to violence. Third, efforts have to be made to prepare a helpful public opinion and to tame jingoistic sentiments that have been shaped by a long history of animosity between Indian and Pakistani states over this issue.

And herein comes the role of the media.

At the moment, there are jingoistic media beating the war drum on both sides of the border. But in any conflict situation, whether it is between individuals, groups or countries the need for responsible journalism can’t be underestimated or overemphasised. Going by the textbook prescriptions, its help is needed everywhere.

Though good journalism or media just can’t enter the scene to dictate and bring an end to the current, or any other conflict, it can help in easing out the tension by starting to report facts in an impassioned manner not compromising on accuracy and not presenting views as news. It can provide an informal channel of communication between the two countries by asking difficult, yet matter-of-fact, questions from experts and their respective government officials. Questions like what can be the practical steps to resolve Kashmir issue, what flexibility the government can show, what can be discussed with the opposite side on the negotiations table, etc can help a lot.

This type of effort will inject an element of realism into the ongoing narratives on both sides. For example asking from experts whether going to war is really an option for India and Pakistan, and what can be the actual physical, political and economic cost if that war – that the media and people on both sides currently seem too long for so dearly – turned nuclear, can bring in sanity not only into both the governments’ current belligerent posturing but also help educate the people. Confidence-building among both the parties will be the next step once the point is brought home about the consequences and suffering of a nuclear war to the relevant circles and the people at large. Needless to say that media is traditionally, and in the current situation, the best and most vital player to lessen the trust deficit.

There is no doubt that media can play its effective role provided professional journalist is allowed to run the show. But it is easier said than done. Where can you find sufficient professional journalists in a non-professional ocean? And who can wrest editorial powers from the owners who are hell-bent to prove their loyalty to the powers that be in their respective countries? Then who will sideline the ones currently occupying higher editorial positions in media houses with their patriotic credentials attested by the ‘right quarters’; most of whom just don’t practice journalism as a profession but who are simply using it as means to reach greener pastures, i.e., to remain in the good books of those who matter, to secure some lucrative government position or, better still, to land in the seat of foreign minister at some later stage.