After journalist's murder, is peace journalism dead in Kashmir?

In peace starved Indian-controlled Kashmir, it’s disheartening beyond words when the region’s leading voice for peace, dialogue, and responsible journalism is silenced.

On June 14, the editor-in-chief of the Rising Kashmir newspaper, Syed Shujaat Bukhari, was shot and killed along with his two bodyguards outside the newspaper’s offices in Srinigar in Indian-controlled Kashmir. One young man was arrested in the killing, and police are seeking three other gunmen. (Rising Kashmir, June 15).

Syed Bukhari (in white, right) and I discuss PJ with his newspaper's staff in 2015

I had the honor of meeting Bukhari a few years ago during a peace journalism project in Kashmir. We chatted in his office and then discussed peace journalism with the staff of Rising Kashmir. It took seconds to see that Bukhari had a keen mind—quick to ferret out the key issues and to probe for insights. Though I’ve had dozens of such meetings with journalists through the years, the discussion with Bukhari and his staff still stands out as one of the most candid and valuable. (For details, see the blog below I wrote in 2015 about the experience).

Though Bukhari was dubious about the label peace journalism, there’s no doubt that he and his staff practiced the concept. In 2016, I wrote, “Rising Kashmir is a fine newspaper that if anything is the opposite of inflammatory or sensationalizing. I was so impressed with their work that I used Rising Kashmir as an example of peace journalism in action in my textbook Peace Journalism Principles and Practices.”

During our chat in his office, Bukhari and I discussed Rising Kashmir’s necessary balancing act. In volatile Kashmir, favoring either the Indian authorities or Kashmiri protesters or militants could result in the paper being raided by authorities (as it was in 2016) or the paper’s staff being the target of violence. Sadly, even Bukhari’s cautious professionalism couldn’t shield him from an assassin’s bullet.

Bukhari was noted for favoring a peaceful resolution to the Kashmir conflict—a position that was the opposite of easy, convenient, or safe. He even helped to organize several peace conferences in the region. 

After his murder, the tributes poured in. The Jammu and Kashmir lecturer’s form issued a statement which said in part, “The services which this great son of the soil rendered especially for those unvoiced sections of the society through his incredible writings are immortal.” (Rising Kashmir, June 18) Twitter comments included, “Well he was a sane voice of Kashmiri people, we condemn the killing,” and “So finally we have the answer to ‘who could have gained by killing a balanced voice like him!!’” Today, three Kashmiri newspapers ran blank columns on their editorial pages to protest the killing.

Even an optimist can’t help but be demoralized by Bukhari’s murder. If a peacemaking moderate can’t speak up in Kashmir, who can? Who can adopt Bukhari’s cause, and further, who would want to? Under circumstances like these, how much can we reasonably ask journalists to do to foster peaceful dialogues or promote reconciliation? Is peace journalism possible in conflict areas, and more specifically, is peace journalism dead in Kashmir? I am struggling with these questions more than ever.

In speaking with journalists in conflict areas, I almost always make it a point to remind journalists that they should ensure their safety first before thinking about their professional responsibilities. 

 Because of Rising Kashmir’s balanced approach and rejection of sensationalism, I didn’t think I needed to reiterate this point to Bukhari and his staff. Sadly, and tragically, I was wrong.

Peace Journalism Insights blog
August 6, 2015

Kashmir journalists debate PJ label, approaches

SRINIGAR, INDIAN-ADMINISTERED KASHMIR--Whenever journalists get together, a spirited discussion usually follows. This was certainly the case as I met the news team yesterday at Rising Kashmir newspaper.

The meeting was organized for me to very briefly introduce the principles of peace journalism. As it turned out, it was much less presentation and much more me answering thought-provoking questions about PJ and journalism in general. 

Editor Shujaat Bukhari opened the discussion with a question about the label peace journalism. While he encourages his reporters to take a facts-based, unbiased approach, he asked if the term peace journalism was itself inflammatory and unnecessary. Bukhari said PJ principles could be simply taught as good journalism, or, just journalism.

Bukhari’s point is well taken. As practitioners and teachers of PJ have observed and written, the word peace itself is  ironically inflammatory, stirring strong emotions and conjuring distorted images of 1960’s style long haired, pot-smoking, tree hugging hippies. In the groundbreaking 2005 book Peace Journalism, Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick admit that the term peace journalism doesn’t appeal to everyone, and indeed will be misunderstood as open advocacy for peace and an abandonment of the cherished journalistic notion of objectivity. Lynch and McGoldrick wrote that the strength of the term peace journalism lies in its ability to “galvanize, shake up, and send a seismic energy through sedimented layers of (journalistic) tradition, assumption, and definition.” 

Agreeing with the notion that the label peace journalism “shakes things up,” I asked Bukhari if I would have been invited to speak to his reporters if all I was peddling was plain vanilla “journalism?”
Setting aside the label discussion, Bukhari and I seemed to agree on the principles of balance and objectivity offered by the peace journalism approach. The reporters asked pointed questions about subjective terms like massacre and martyr. I suggested that if reporters use these words, they lose their objectivity.  

One reporter asked, what if her cousin was murdered by the authorities—how should that be reported? I said that peace journalism, and indeed good journalism, asks that news reporters set aside their biases. Understandably, in this example, and indeed in everyday life in Kashmir, remaining unbiased is an especially tall order. Nonetheless, I suggested that she report her cousin’s death factually, without finger pointing, and in a way that gives balance to both accuser and accused. I acknowledged, however, that this is easy for me to say. I hope I would stick to my principles under such circumstances.

The discussion concluded with a more general discussion about the business of journalism and the transition from traditional to digital media. At Rising Kashmir, their website is becoming increasingly popular, and like their counterparts everywhere, they are seeking sustainable economic models that maximize their online revenues. 

Overall, I admire the work done by Rising Kashmir in not sensationalizing or irresponsibly reporting the news here under extremely difficult circumstances. They can certainly teach their colleagues in New Delhi a thing or two about responsible journalism.