Case Study Global Media Journal 2020 Vol.18 No. ISSN 1550-7521 34:199 The Media and Conflict: Case Study Overview Reporting on the Kashmir Conflict between India and Pakistan Rafael Hernández* Political Science and Journalism & Mass Communication, George Washington University, Washington D.C., USA *Corresponding author: Rafael Hernández, Political Science and Journalism & Mass Communication, George Washington University, Washington D.C., USA, Tel: +34618802326; E-mail: [email protected] Received date: Jan 02, 2020; Accepted date: Jan 24, 2020; Published date: Jan 30, 2020 Copyright: © 2020 Hernández R. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Citation: Hernández R. The Media and Conflict: Case Study Overview Reporting on the Kashmir Conflict between India and Pakistan. Global Media Journal 2020, 18:34. between them, especially since the last war ended in 1999 [1]. In the global historical consciousness of conflicts in the Middle Abstract East and South Asia, the Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan has a place right alongside the Arab-Israeli Conflict as If one believes in the power and relative importance of the two longest-running violent conflicts in an already conflict- journalism in our modern world, then one would be ridden region. Both emerged out of the growing pains of inclined to believe mainstream media’s coverage of a decolonization, both have existed – explicitly – since the particular issue to be fair and accurate. Being fair, 1940s, both have come at an intolerable cost of civilian lives, however, is not just about getting your facts straight. It is and both have revolved around disputed histories of legality also about what you leave out, about the informal (in the case of the Kashmir conflict, legality of Kashmir’s narrative that is painted in the coverage of an issue. This accession to India in 1947) [1,2]. Thus, a brief overview of its distinction is especially relevant when covering conflict most important historical “timemarks” is critical. outside of your own borders, especially longstanding conflicts with entrenched opposite narratives, a severe Upon the dissolution of the British Empire and the dent on emotional engagement, and virtually the highest independence of its colonies, India and Pakistan fought a war stakes possible, as is the India-Pakistan conflict over the in 1947, the year of their independence, over what was then disputed territories of Jammu and Kashmir. What can end called the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu. The new state up happening in decades-long reporting of such conflicts of India was set to become the home of Hindus of the former is that the very coverage itself becomes, inadvertently, a empire, while the new state of Pakistan, the home of Muslims battleground. This paper will, thus, focus on two related [3]. Colonial India was ruled as a collection of small kingdoms, aspects of media involvement in the Kashmir conflict: 1) each with its own ruler, the Maharajas, and, in 1947, each of The international battleground of media coverage of the the former colony’s princely states was given the option – fully conflict (with India on one side pursuing a narrative of in the hands of the Maharajas – to freely choose between legitimacy through media control, and the international media on the other leaning too heavily into a narrative of India and Pakistan, with the majority-Muslim states a violent oppressor –India), and 2) what is, consequently, encouraged to join Pakistan [4]. The princely state of Kashmir ignored from the coverage and, thus, missing for a fair and Jammu, a majority-Muslim state under Maharaja Hari understanding of what the situation is on the ground. Singh, bordering both the new states of India and Pakistan effectively had three options: to become a part of the new Muslim-majority state of Pakistan, to accede to India, or to Keywords: Media and conflict; Journalism; Kashmir; become Independent. As Anand [3] described it, “Maharaja India; Pakistan Singh disliked the idea of becoming part of India, which was democratizing, or of Pakistan, which was a Muslim state [and he was not]. Thus, he thought of independence” [3]. However, Introducing the Conflict: An soon after seeking independence the Maharaja encountered Interminable Struggle an internal tribal Islamic revolt against his rule that threatened his position and his life, and that was revealed to have been India and Pakistan have fought four wars with each other encouraged and aided by the newly-created Army of Pakistan. since their independence in 1947, all of them were, in one way In response, and under counsel of Sheikh Abdullah, a Kashmiri or another, over the issue of the disputed territories of Jammu separatist the Maharaja had appointed as administrator of his and Kashmir. And, beyond the four open military conflicts, state, Singh agreed to accede to the new state of India, signing there have been countless skirmishes, airstrikes, riots, one of the critical documents India has held up as legitimating insurgencies, cross-border actions, threats and escalations its rule over the years: the Instrument of Accession of 1947 [3]. This article is available from: globalmediajournal.com 1 Global Media Journal 2020 ISSN 1550-7521 Vol.18 No. 34:199 This document, as Anand [3] explains it, “bound the State of one hand, emphasizing the legitimacy of the Indian Kashmir and Jammu and India together legally and government’s presence and actions in the region, and the constitutionally” – at least as much as the other states that international media on the other, perpetuating a narrative of would and continue to form a part of India today. Critics would enduring Indian occupation and the struggles of an oppressed subsequently point out that the accession of Kashmir and people, often ignoring equally important angles and omitting Jammu to India was not unconditional since the document had relevant factors not related to the Indian-based oppression been signed by an absolute ruler, with no consultation of the narrative. [Here a disclaimer is necessary: In this paper I do not people, under threat of an overthrow by the tribal rebellion, mean to argue that international mainstream media is in any and under pressure by, not only Indian authorities, but also way not accurate, not fact-based, or outwardly politicized British Viceroy Lord Mountbatten, to do so, not to mention the when it comes to the Kashmir conflict. The arguments and fact that in the actual wording of the document it states that evidence laid out in the following pages should not be seen as “as soon as law and order is restored…the State’s accession an indictment on the legitimacy of international media should be settled by a reference to the people” [3,4]. Much of organizations like CNN, the BBC, Al Jazeera, the New York the evidence, in fact, points to a concentrated effort by the Times or the Washington Post, among others. They have been British to ensure Kashmir’s eventual accession to India, despite and remain an accurate source of daily information. The the former being a majority Muslim state [4]. argument put forth here, however, does indicate that, as it relates to this particular conflict, the international coverage Nevertheless, the debate endures. It is a critical controversy and the Indian media have positioned themselves on opposite that remains unsettled and that can be weaponized by either sides of what I called this “strange duality” of reporting, side of the debate, as the readings of both Anand [3] and creating a media battleground that often lets important Sherwani [4] demonstrate. It is a loose end, if you will, in the perspectives fall through the void created by this polarity. The conflict, similar to the ambiguity of United Nations Resolution arguments I give are as follows.] 181 that partitioned Mandate Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state and that continues to be a source of conflict and Let’s look first at the Indian narrative, and the pressure debate today. Regardless of “who is right,” the point, as it campaign by the Indian government to have the conflict relates to media coverage, is that the controversy is there, it reported on in a specific way. With care to avoid generalizing should be acknowledged for what it is, an unresolved issue, to all media in India, it is fair to say that much of the Indian and that any narrative that purposefully or inadvertently press is, as Nazakat [5] described it, “welded to the idea of passes judgment to favor either side of the debate on the basis ‘national interest,’ with omissions of blatant human rights of inherent and natural righteousness is unwarranted without abuses by Indian security forces, or the impact of Indian due reference to the fact that, legally speaking, the issue policies like curfews, etc.…Indian media coverage of Kashmir remained unresolved. What followed the signing of the generally tends to solely blame Pakistan for the unrest in the Instrument of Accession in 1947 was India providing support state” [5]. Much of the coverage omits telling the audience for the defense of Kashmir against the Pakistani-backed tribal about the general feeling of unrest against the Indian rebellion that culminated in a cease fire, dividing the territory authorities and relies heavily on simply reporting on state along what is known today as the Line of Control (LoC), the sources and press releases by the armed forces on the events current border separating the territories: with Jammu and the that unfold in Kashmir. One famous case, for example, Kashmir Valley (including Ladakh) in India’s control, and Azad exemplifies these arguments.