A lot of things are being alleged by ‘sources’ regarding a raid on a newspaper called Kashmir Times, and its editor, Anuradha Bhasin.
Some background is in order so readers can place things in perspective. On 2 June 2020, the Modi government announced ‘New Media Policy 2020’, a policy specific to Kashmir. Note that the pretence behind the government’s actions in Kashmir was the ostensible integration of the state and the abolition of laws that distinguished it from the rest of India.
Also Read
Yet, here was another Kashmir-only policy. Over 50 pages long, it gave the government unbridled powers to determine what was ‘fake’, ‘unethical’ or ‘anti-national’ news. On the basis of this, it could take legal and other punitive action against journalists and media organisations. Media watchdogs abroad noted the use of ambiguous and undefined terms such as ‘fake’, ‘unethical’, ‘anti-national’ and ‘anti-social’, which opened the doors for misuse because they offered the bureaucrat judging the news no guiding standards or principles. It was entirely at the discretion of the government. The press in Jammu remained silent on the matter, while the media in Kashmir voiced their strong opposition to the policy. Bhasin was one of those brave voices.
On 10 January 2020, hearing a case related to the restoration of internet in Kashmir, the Supreme Court determined that access to the internet was a fundamental right of Indians. This was the way several papers reported the story even the following day: ‘Access to internet is a fundamental right, says Supreme Court’ and ‘SC recognises internet users’ right, also formalises their accountability’.
Unfortunately, justice was not actually done and the total blockade of Kashmiris from using the internet continued. The government said: ‘The right to access the internet is not a fundamental right and thus the type and breadth of access for exercising the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and/or to carry on any trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India through the medium of internet can be curtailed.’
The justification given for this collective punishment of Kashmiris was that ‘post August 2019 constitutional developments, Pakistan handlers, either directly or indirectly, have increased activity on social media intending to and aiming at disturbance of peace in the region, inciting violence and abetting terror activities’. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued in court: ‘Unfortunately, internet jihad is a successful one. It is a global phenomenon. The jihadi leaders can engage through the internet to spread hatred and illegal activities.’ The bench asked if internet access could be permitted with some restrictions. ‘Increase in internet speed,’ the Union submitted, ‘will lead to swift uploading and posting of provocative videos and other heavy data files.’ ‘The only solution is that either you have internet or you don’t have the internet,’ Mehta said.
It should be noted here that the peak of violence in Kashmir, with over 4,000 killed in 2001, happened when there was no internet and not even any mobile telephony in Kashmir.
There is no linkage between the levels of violence and access to the internet, according to the data. But this was not the way that the government or the court saw it. Since the 2019 constitutional change, internet access has been disrupted in Jammu and Kashmir by at least 90 government-imposed internet shutdowns—the highest in the world. The world noticed.
It was reported that the shutdown (17 months in all, including seven months when even 2G mobile telephony was suspended) was the longest ever imposed in a democracy, according to Access Now, the international advocacy group that tracks internet suspensions.
Amnesty India documented a total of 67 government-enforced internet shutdowns between 14 January 2020 and 4 August 2020. Despite the ‘restoration’ of the internet in Kashmir, arbitrary suspension of internet services remains the norm. Any incident, and any whim from the administration, results in the sending back of Kashmiris to a pre-modern era.
To come to the point, the petitioner in the case that was heard on 10 January 2020 was Anuradha Bhasin, editor and publisher of the newspaper Kashmir Times. She had told the court she could not publish the newspaper due to communications restrictions imposed by the Government of India. She petitioned the Supreme Court for the removal of restrictions imposed on the access of internet, mobile and landline phones, and for other appropriate relief (the inability of media to publish without communications is another reason why the court had to judge the matter from the free speech angle). The court did not respond as it should have and the restrictions continued.
Kashmir Times could not publish and was forced to stop its work. The world noticed and called out the reason: ‘Vendetta’: Kashmir newspaper’s office sealed by India officials’, is one headline from 20 October 2020.
After the current round of allegations, has come another headline from this week: ‘Kashmir Times: A Jammu newspaper that stood up for the Valley’. The report says that ‘established in 1954, it is considered to be an influential and credible voice in Kashmir’s media landscape.’
That is absolutely true and it is shameful that it has been attacked in the way it has and that Bhasin has not found more voices, especially from India’s craven media, to speak in support of her and her paper.
By Aakar Patel
