The Jammu and Kashmir Police have issued a robust rebuttal to a recent BBC article titled “Any story could be your last – India’s crackdown on Kashmir Press” authored by Yogita Limaye. The police assert that it unfairly portrayed their efforts in maintaining law and order and security in the region as biased against journalists. The J&K Police maintain that they adhere to the highest standards of professionalism and operate strictly within the bounds of the law.
The focal point of the dispute revolves around the case of Fahad Shah, a Srinagar-based journalist, who faced incarceration for publishing a “seditious” article on his online media platform, The Kashmir Walla (TKW), written by a University of Kashmir scholar. Shah’s arrest, which took place in February 2022, was carried out under anti-terror laws, with accusations of “propagating terror” against him. The BBC report referenced Shah’s case, which is currently sub judice, as one of the instances that it scrutinized.
In response, the J&K Police argue that their actions in the Fahad Shah case have been scrutinized by the judiciary and have led to charges being framed against Shah under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). They insist that these actions have substantially transformed the security environment in the Union Territory.
However, the BBC article, published on September 1, 2023, has stirred controversy by quoting several journalists and one editor anonymously, all of whom conveyed feeling “choked and suffocated” due to an atmosphere of “fear and intimidation” created by authorities in Kashmir, particularly when reporting events that do not align with the official narrative. The article also highlighted the shutdown of Kashmir’s only press club in 2022 by authorities and the assassination of Shujaat Bukhari, a senior journalist and editor, in 2018 as examples of the alleged deterioration of press freedom in the region.
The BBC’s account of the situation in Jammu and Kashmir refers to the region as “Indian administered Kashmir,” not “India Occupied Kashmir” as claimed by the J&K Police. As for the possibility of report editing, it should be noted that when The Chenab Times used the Archive Wayback Machine to check the BBC’s article archives from the time of its publication, we found 12 captures. The very first capture by Wayback Machine was when the article was originally published on BBC, and it remains consistent in its use of “Indian administered Kashmir” during its initial publication.
The terminology surrounding the Kashmir region has long been a point of contention and diplomatic sensitivity. The use of “Indian administered Kashmir” and “Indian occupied Kashmir” represents a stark divergence in perspectives. The region of Jammu and Kashmir is administered by India, while Azad Kashmir, located across the Line of Control, is administered by Pakistan. India employs the term “occupied” when referring to Pakistan-administered Kashmir, while Pakistan authorities reciprocate with the term “occupied” when discussing India-administered Kashmir. In contrast, the term “administered” is considered a neutral and uncontroversial choice, avoiding the implicit political connotations and offering a balanced perspective on the region’s complex geopolitical status. This nuanced use of language underscores the ongoing complexities and sensitivities surrounding the Kashmir issue.
The response from the J&K Police has added a legal dimension to the unfolding situation. They have officially announced that the Special Investigation Agency (SIA) of the J&K Police is overseeing the Fahad Shah case. Additionally, the police have indicated their intention to pursue further legal action against the BBC, alleging that the network has inaccurately reported facts related to a case that is currently undergoing judicial review. In response, a spokesperson for the BBC conveyed to The Wire, “We would like to assert that the BBC remains steadfast in its commitment to its journalism.”
This dispute has triggered a debate among political leaders and experts, highlighting the intricate interplay between journalism, national security, and freedom of expression. Opinions on the matter have varied.
Janata Dal (United) (JDU) leader GM Shaheen has applauded the decision by the Jammu and Kashmir Police to scrutinize the BBC’s reporting, as per Times Now report. Shaheen firmly asserted that no individual or organization should be considered above the law and that those who pose a threat to national sovereignty must be held accountable for their actions. Furthermore, Shaheen accused the BBC of exhibiting bias in its reporting and alleged that the organization was operating in favor of the Hurriyat in Kashmir.
On the other side of the spectrum, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Sajid Yousuf adopted a highly critical stance towards the BBC’s journalistic practices, as per Times Now report. Yousuf even went so far as to coin the acronym ‘Boring Broadcast Channel’ to describe the BBC. The BJP leader raised concerns regarding the BBC’s alleged one-sided reporting and questioned its impartiality. Notably, representatives of the BJP pointed out what they perceive as a disparity in the BBC’s coverage, highlighting that the organization had not reported on similar issues in Pakistan, where journalists have faced violence.
In stark contrast to the JDU and BJP leaders, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Hakeem Rizwan extended support to the BBC’s reporting and voiced concerns about any potential suppression of journalistic voices, as per Times Now report. Rizwan underscored the paramount importance of a free press in a democratic society and urged for a decentralization of power, both within the democratic system and among journalists.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
