[Reader-list] Elections in Kashmir?

[M Yousuf]

http://www.thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=3819&mod=1&pg=1&sectionId=19&valid=true

Manufacturing Consent

*If the participation of the people in the J&K assembly elections was a vote
for India why is the non-participation this time being attributed to broken
promises as reported by Greater Kashmir, poll fatigue as reported by the
Himalayan Mail, lack of zeal as the Times of India wants us to believe. * Why?
asks NASEER A GANAI.
 Posted Saturday, May 02 18:14:22, 2009

A large number of people participated in the Jammu and Kashmir assembly
elections in the closing months of 2008. In the first phase, when despite
the Mumbai carnage large queues were seen outside the polling booths in
Bandipora and Sumbal Sonawari irrespective of the boycott call by the
pro-freedom groups, the media described it as defiance of separatists. It
was one of the big events of the year. It was reported widely and debated
for over a month.  The target of the debate was pro-freedom groups that had
given the boycott call.



On one TV programme Barkha Dutt of NDTV asked a separatist leader whether
the time had come for them to read the writing on the wall. Some New
Delhibased news channels described the voting as a "vote for
India." Prannoy Roy of NDTV in a TV discussion on the Kashmir voting sought
a reaction from the Pakistani senator Mushahid Hussain from Islamabad.
Prannoy argued that now Kashmiris have come out to vote it is clear message
to all on what they are for. Secular India!



Mushahid retorted "if you are so confident about it, let us have plebiscite
in Kashmir tomorrow." The comment annoyed Roy and he responded while saying
you are harping about the same thing. Mushahid just laughed.



Other news channels adopted the same line that participation of people in
elections was the writing on the wall for the pro-freedom groups.  However
the correspondents based in Kashmir for various news channels described the
voting in Kashmir as a vote for development and local issues. But the line
was not accepted by the New Delhi-based media and they continued propagate
the theory that people defied the separatists. Fine. Everyone has right to
have his viewpoint even if the ground realities contradict it.



In the Parliamentary elections that are currently on the situation was not
different. The South Kashmir Islamabad constituency was first to go for
polls. In the Assembly election there was a large participation of people
from the South.  As in in the  Assembly elections the incorrigible
pro-freedom groups and the High Court Bar Association (HCBA) had given a
boycott call. But they were not given any level playing field. They were
not.  If in a democracy one has right to campaign and ask people to vote and
elect him another has equal right to ask people not to participate. But
Kashmir is always different. Those who call for voting enjoy the full
protection of the State and those who call for non-participation are under
house arrest or in jails. It happened under Governor's rule and it happening
now as well.



Now back to the polls. Surprisingly, there was less participation of people
in the poll process. The Tral constituency remained in news in the Assembly
election due to 48.78 percent polling. This time the Election Commission
says there was 2.8 percent polling in Tral. In other constituencies the long
queues were not seen anywhere except in Noorabad.



In Pampore this time it was three percent poling in contrast to 43.42
percent in the Assembly elections. But the media whether local or New
Delhibased didn't describe less voting this time as a result of the
boycott call.
Instead it argued why people didn't come to vote and cited several reasons
except the boycott call. *Greater Kashmir* carried a front page three column
story by Javid Malik (May 1, 2009) with the headline "Not Boycott Call,
Broken Promises Keep Voters Away." *The Himalayan Mail* (May 1, 2009) had
lead news story "Poll Fatigue Keeps Voters Away." The *Times of
India*carried story about the elections in
Kashmir on page I, on May 1, 2009 with headline "Voters Lacked Zeal in
Anantnag." *The Daily Excelsior* carried the lead on May 1, 2009, 'Voters
Lukewarm Response to Elections." The Delhi-based media adopted the same line
and said the response to the elections was lukewarm.



Now here are some questions. If the participation of the people in the
Assembly elections was vote for India why is the non-participation this time
being attributed to broken promises as reported by *Greater Kashmir*, poll
fatigue as reported by the *Himalayan Mail*, lack of zeal as the *Times of
India* wants  us to believe. Why? Why it is not other way round? There is no
doubt that there was large number of participation in the Assembly elections
and the response to the huge participation was projected in manner first by
the media and later by the State as "peoples' final verdict about the
Kashmir dispute." The State and the political parties were not quick to
react to the participation of people in the elections and didn't come up
with inferences within hours after the polling started in the Assembly
elections in the State.



But the media was ecstatic, particularly Delhi-based news channels. They
were first to describe the elections as "vote for India." And then the State
reacted welcoming the participation of the people in the poll process and
the Congress Chief Sonia Gandhi while inaugurating the first international
flight from Sheikh-ul-Alam Airport (Srinagar Airport was to be renamed as
Sheik-ul Alam Airport, but it was not) said that neighbors (Pakistan) should
learn a lesson from participation of people in the elections. In fact the
Congress in its manifesto describes the participation of people in the
Assembly elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as one of its major
achievements. But the State and the politicians should be given credit fort
not going overboard soon after the 66 percent participation of the people in
rural belts during the Assembly elections. The Srinagar city, towns
including Islamabad, Varmul, Sopur saw far less participation in the
Assembly election.



If objectivity and fairness is the criterion in reporting events then it
seems we media persons are selectively objective and selectively fair in
reporting. If the poll participation was news during the Assembly elections
and the media was quick describe it as the failure of the boycott call of
the pr-freedom groups, why the non-participation this time failed to make
any news and if it made why it was it attributed to the luke warm response
and the broken promises. Why?  Are there different standards of objectivity?



If during the Assembly elections the media presumed that it was the vote
against the pro-freedom groups and in favour of secular democratic India,
why has the media stopped presuming anything this time? Instead it has
started looking for hardcore facts that could be responsible for the low
percentage of the voting. Why were these facts were not sought during the
Assembly elections? The participation or non-participation in the
Parliamentary elections should make bigger news and should be debated
because the here the vote means a vote for Indian parliament, that means a
vote for India. And the general perception is that the Assembly is all about
the local issues and development. Moreover, the Assembly elections were
debate over a month on New Delhi-based TV channels despite the Mumbai
carnage and a war like situation between India and Pakistan. Why are the
parliamentary elections not being debated? Is media manufacturing consent by
giving two different reasons for the same process? The answer is big yes.







*( The author is senior correspondent with Greater Kashmir*)