JOURNALISM...

When they hear the word "Islam", many people say it 'blinks' in their heads. Closed minds open-up,
fading memories come to life and the 'receptive' ears and psyche either become 'proactive' or
'reactive'. The effect as much in gossip circles as on a lone reader in a corner. The Sunday Express
columnist Mrs Tavleen Singh reported a likely thing over a month back on hearing an online Urdu
speech of Kashmiri activist Masrat Alam Bhat. “He used the expression ‘Islam ka bolbala’ and a
light switched on in my head” she wrote, showing great unease not just about Islam but its ‘rise’ in
particular, (the ‘Fifth Column’, August 22). I shall try to critically evaluate the above piece in my
article here.
Islam today is ‘captive’ on the modern minds after decade long oil-war propaganda against
it. Islam! Terror! Moslem! — A spectre is haunting not just Europe and America but the whole
world — the spectre of Islamophobia. In this background, nothing strange if human rights
violations in Kashmir are clouded over by the religious identity of the victims, their Islamic faith.
Endless freedom struggle, including armed struggle, by Kashmiri Muslims is projected by
many TV men and newspapers like a ‘second coming of crusades’. They ignore that if a part of
state’s population is unfairly treated for decades and going on, then the rise in arms explains the
depth if suffering, not religious revival...
In Kashmir, as everywhere else, Justice demands that suffering people be given prime
importance — to make a choice. This is the First point to begin. They must not suffer in all
likelihood. Whether Kashmiri Muslims choose to become democratic or an Islamic republic matters
only next.
At present, democracy shouldn’t by itself be perceived perfect political model. Today
Democracies don’t mean the absence of exploitation, nor is any known republic champion of
human rights. And similarly we cannot either presume that an Islamic state will pose internal or
external danger. Has not the Islamic empire been the fertile most empire on earth for longest period
of time and secure most of its religious minorities?
Not to forget that worst Terrorist State of today’s world is masked in the garb of the most
advanced republic, or the oldest democracy. Can we not tell with confidence today that America
will be known in the years to come only as global security threat? Considering its military
ambitions, economic policies, diplomatic games, propaganda, cross border espionage and political
assassinations, market and trade policy, we are burdened by the truth of its blood-shed and plunder
in every corner of the world. Look inside yourself and ask how many aspects of your life carry
effects of the global American hegemony.
As long as Kashmir is an issue of war between India and Pakistan, both these nations will
continue arms purchase from the ‘big brother’, and the big brother wants its arms market to flourish
forever. America is more concerned of its military armaments market than Indo-Pak about Kashmir.
Between such international diplomatic games the misery of Kashmiri people peaks to new
heights every day. Nothing mocks the protesting victims more than silent spectators of their
bleeding.
Columnist Tavleen Singh very rightly wrote “In the eyes of the world, India looks very bad
on Kashmir because we have neither policy, nor direction”. That is a plain truth. If a national crisis
is not driven by policy and direction, it only breeds chaos, and that is what exists in present
Kashmir.
Take a stand: After decades of Muslim struggle shadows of ‘neutral position’ on the issue of
Islam and Kashmir are restlessly on the move. ‘Safe distances’ have become mean and tricky in the
atmosphere where the words of Islam and Kashmir equally affect the psychology of an individual
and much of politics across the globe and south Asia, respectively. When Islam and Muslims are
talked, ‘no-views’ option challenges a person’s knowledge, can depict his lack of empathy and
obvious indifference or even rudeness on issues like humanitarian crisis of Kashmir.
One might not know full history of the problem or be fully aware of what is just & unjust in
Kashmir, but he does recognize it as a concern—no less. Coldness or apathy against the oppressed
people makes oneself as worthless as the oppressor itself.
Now see India’s position on Kashmir, in the words of columnist Tavleen Singh: “All we
appear to do is shoot unarmed civilians and follow this up with confused conciliatory noises about
‘winning hearts and minds’. This makes India look pathetic”.
Thief inside the reporter: No doubt the above comment by Mrs. Singh is well put reality.
But the lady writer also has a glass ceiling to her own factual reporting style, her narrow nationalist
view. On the Kashmir issue, stubborn nationalism seeps out of her writings that only invoke embers
and fire in the nation that is always on the brink of riots.
Her extreme national sentiments are mental crutches that leave her handicapped to explore
the terrain of Kashmir issue by an easy, balanced walk. Her addiction to nationalist biases towards
India leaks out on paper, and the tone is that of communal fanatic (and not at all a fair journalist!)
spitting venom against the religion of others. See her statements on Islamic Identity of the
struggling Kashmiri activists: “he (Masrat Alam) has a mullah’s untended beard”, “is Kashmir’s
Bhindranwale”, “He is the male equivalent of Asiya Andrabi”, “who is so rabid an Islamist that she
conceals even her eyes and hands”. “Her disembodied voice emerges from behind a black veil”.
I shall not call her the female equivalent of Narendra Modi, but formally comment that her
nation and culture ‘worship’ is actually the cause of the religious hatred in her writings. What
upsets me more is how long we have tolerated publication of such extreme fervours in nationalist
dailies that keep widening of the hateful divide. Nothing else blows the unnerving chill of alienation
in the people.
Masrat Alam’s beard is compared by Tavleen Singh to that of mullahs, but even the yogis
or sadhus have beards no less in length. Then why is the objection only on a Muslim’s beard? And
what is wrong in being a mullah when there is nothing wrong in being a sadhu or yogi? Is beard not
a right? Or is it something against the national interest, a political blunder, or a security threat if
adopted in Kashmir?
About the comment the Asiya Andrabi that she is ‘rabid Islamist’, it can safely be said that
she is free to be so, as Mrs Singh is free to be a ‘rabid communalist’. Andrabi’s belief in Islam and
her dress code have only inspired, and not deterred her from being one of the bravest women in the
world. She conceals her eyes and hands in purdah—yes! But does that make her fear a powerful
empire like India? One may disagree with her views but a fair person has to acknowledge that she is
a respected figure among numerous people in Kashmir and beyond it. What has liberated and
escalated her status so much? It is the question that I leave up to Tavleen Singh to answer. Let me
remind Mrs Singh that as an unbiased columnist of a national daily she can take a position on
Andrabi’s views but she should neither be concerned nor afraid of Asiya Andrabi’s veil.
What objection did the lady columnist have against Asiya Andrabi’s ‘disembodied voice’
that ‘emerges from behind a black veil’ is unstated. It seems the columnist lady has the objection to
Asiya’s religion and ‘freedom of veil’ that has the revolutionised Andrabi so much that she is an
excellent rejection of the critics of Islam who cry foul over women’s rights in Islam. Let me assure
Mrs. Tavleen Singh that her ‘sympathy’ for Muslim women and ‘worry’ on Andrabi’s veil, is
going to detract Muslim women neither from Islam nor from veil. In conclusion it can be argued
that ‘Debates’ on ideas and ideology even harshly are welcome but ‘defamation’ is the worst
characteristics that a journalist should imbibe.

Courtesy: Adbul Baseer