The Kashmir Dialogues
Media coverage of sensitive issues in Kashmir often reflects underlying biases, consciously or unconsciously serving narratives that align with specific agendas. A recent article published on Indian Express concerning the allowing/disallowing of Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, the chairman of the Hurriyat Conference and a religious leader in the Valley for Friday sermons, exemplifies this phenomenon. Although presented as neutral reporting, a closer analysis reveals how the narrative subtly leans toward adversarial undertones, camouflaging bias while selectively omitting or exaggerating details.
This article seeks to examine the subtle manipulations, factual inaccuracies, and editorial choices that contribute to a skewed portrayal of the Mirwaiz issue, fueling a narrative that undermines the government’s efforts to restore stability in Kashmir while glossing over critical aspects of the Mirwaiz’s political and historical context.
The article begins by highlighting the Centre’s continued confusion over how to deal with the religious head (Mirwaiz) of the Valley. The author described him as the religious head of the Valley in the begining, and concludes it by noting that he was the first chairman of the separatist conglomerate, the Hurriyat Conference in the end. This duality raises a critical question: Is Mirwaiz solely a religious leader focused on sermons about Islam and spirituality, making his detention potentially unjustified? Or is he a political figure associated with a separatist organization, making his activities inherently political?
Interestingly, the article focuses more on portraying him as a religious leader, likely because readers’ emotions and spiritual connections are strongly attached to religious figures. This angle amplifies the narrative that voices of religious leaders are being silenced by the Indian government, with terms like “authoritarian” given full-scale weightage. In contrast, his role as the chairman of the Hurriyat Conference, a separatist organization synonymous with three decades of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, is only briefly mentioned. The selective emphasis avoids addressing the pain and brutality suffered by Kashmiris during this dark period, thereby softening the perception of his separatist affiliations. However, the people of Jammu and Kashmir know the reality behind these write-ups and are well thinkers of what is and what should be.
In the subsequent paragraph, the author discusses the detention period of Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, his release, and his first sermon following his house arrest. The author narrates the emotional words of the Mirwaiz, who reportedly broke down during his sermon and said, “It is not easy for you (the people)… there have been assaults on our identity. There was the abrogation of special status, the downgrading of Jammu and Kashmir to a union territory. The new laws and diktats were harsh.” While this statement is faithfully reported, it raises an important question: If Mirwaiz is being portrayed as a religious leader, is this statement religious or political in nature? If it is political, why are religious platforms being utilized to voice political grievances?
In another paragraph, the author raises an issue that appears irrelevant and baseless, claiming that the position of the former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Omar Abdullah, is equivalent to that of an advisor to the Lieutenant Governor. Such a comparison is not only misleading but seems designed to provoke animosity among the people against the Union Territory administration and the central government. By attempting to draw this parallel, the author subtly seeks to create a rift between the current UT administration and the concept of an elected government, fostering unnecessary skepticism.
What the author fails to explain is that the division of powers in a Union Territory is in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Constitution. The administrative framework of a UT inherently differs from that of a full-fledged state. However, it is explicitly outlined that once statehood is restored, the powers of governance will also be reinstated, as per constitutional provisions. This is a well-known reality that the people of Jammu and Kashmir are aware of, making the author’s insinuations not only unnecessary but also unconstructive. By ignoring these constitutional nuances, the author risks misleading readers and promoting a narrative that undermines efforts to build trust and stability in the region.
In the following section, the author portrays Mirwaiz Umar Farooq as a victim of violence, recounting the tragic killings of both his father and uncle, as well as the attack on his close associate Fazal-ul-Haq. This depiction aims to present Mirwaiz as a moderate separatist leader, emphasizing his personal losses and hardships. The author highlights that Mirwaiz has consistently advocated for dialogue and diplomacy in his speeches and sermons, positioning himself as a proponent of peaceful resolution.
However, despite these claims of moderation, a critical gap remains in Mirwaiz’s stance on certain issues. Having faced violence at the young age of seventeen, he has yet to unequivocally address the ambiguity surrounding the identity of the “unknown gunmen” responsible for such acts. While he has condemned violence and terrorism in general and called for New Delhi and Islamabad to engage in meaningful dialogue over the Kashmir issue, he has noticeably refrained from urging those who have taken up arms to abandon violence.
The absence of such a direct appeal to militants raises questions about the extent of his commitment to fostering peace. A true leader, particularly one who commands influence as both a religious figure and a political voice, should strive to guide individuals away from destructive paths. Encouraging militants to reintegrate into society as respectable and productive citizens could serve as a powerful testament to his advocacy for peace and dialogue. By remaining silent on this front, Mirwaiz inadvertently leaves room for skepticism regarding his role in Kashmir’s turbulent narrative.
In another paragraph, the author labels Srinagar’s grand mosque as a key hub for separatist politics. Here’s is the excerpt from the article, “The Grand Mosque or Jamia Masjid with the Mirwaiz at the head of it- a hereditary post – has been at the heart of religion and politics in the valley for decades. Whem militancy erupted in Kashmir at the end of 1980s, it became the centre of Kashmir’s separatist politics”. By doing so, the author seems to imply that the mosque has primarily served as a venue where separatist leaders issued diktats and orchestrated their future plans. In the subsequent line, the author discusses raids conducted by paramilitary forces on the mosque, which led to arrests and subsequent protests. This juxtaposition appears to reinforce the notion that the grand mosque, a site of religious significance, was allegedly being utilized for political purposes under the leadership of Mirwaiz.
Such a portrayal raises critical questions about the sanctity of religious spaces. According to Islamic scholars, mosques hold a sacred status and should remain centers of worship, spiritual guidance, and community welfare. Using a mosque to advance political or separatist agendas not only undermines its sanctity but also contradicts its intended role in society.
If the allegations of political activities within the mosque are true, it highlights the need for introspection and corrective measures to preserve the purity of such revered spaces. Religious leaders, who wield significant influence, bear the responsibility of ensuring that mosques are used to foster harmony, moral guidance, and social welfare, rather than as platforms for divisive political activities. Misusing such spaces can erode public trust and tarnish their spiritual essence. It is imperative to respect the sanctity of religious institutions and prevent their exploitation for any purpose that deviates from their spiritual mission.
The media plays a pivotal role in shaping public opinion, especially on sensitive issues like Kashmir. While impartial reporting is essential, the subtle biases and manipulations evident in this article undermine its credibility. By focusing disproportionately on Mirwaiz’s religious identity and downplaying his political affiliations, the article attempts to evoke sympathy while glossing over critical realities.
The people of Kashmir deserve narratives that reflect their aspirations for peace, prosperity, and unity, not those that perpetuate division and mistrust. As the Valley moves toward a brighter future, it is imperative for the media to uphold its responsibility to report with integrity, free from bias and hidden agendas.
Rameez Makdoomi
