The communications revolution of the last century has far reaching implications for conflict prevention and resolution. Remarkable breakthroughs in information technology and communication systems have led to the emergence of an information-based society worldwide. People are being bombarded by information about happenings and developments in other parts of the world. This information comprising both good and bad news has motivated people, governments, non-governmental organisations and international organisations to act or intervene in resolving conflicts in other countries. This paper seeks to explore the extent of these influences on the development of the peace processes in various regions and its aftermath, using the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan as a case study.

The Conceptual Framework

The theoretical perspective underlying this study is that information and knowledge are ‘the mother of action’, as elaborated by the following observation:

Execution of a plan, it is supposed, is initiated on the receipt of certain information guided, and ultimately terminated, by the continuous reception of further sets of information that have their origins in the results of the action taken...In the determination of the plans themselves and of the signals that control their execution, both learned and unlearned components are assumed to enter..[1]

The globalisation of the world economy makes national developments globally important.[2] This involves globalisation of regional and ethnic conflicts and issues of human rights. With more and more people getting access to more information, ideas and concerns about what is going on in the world are also becoming widespread. Yet information can be ‘manufactured’ and manipulated by politicians and by those who control the media for specific purposes, and thus control the way people respond to issues of concern. The success or failure of conflict resolution can be influenced to some extent by both the quality and quantity of information made available to stake holders. At times the orchestration of facts leads to unintended political developments other than lead to a just settlement of an issue.

Globalisation and the media

On the basis of the theoretical foundations of the manipulative role of media and its effect in bringing information to the world on account of its wide outreach, the long-standing Kashmir issue should have been picked up as major threat to security in South Asia.  It merits attention for two reasons - its long duration due to the nature of dispute, which has led to the ongoing tense relations between India and Pakistan, and, not the least, the manner of the sustained suffering of the Kashmiri people in the face of unabated brutalities they continue to face. An additional cause for concern is that the two major protagonists – India and Pakistan – have demonstrated their nuclear capabilities. Yet this issue with a long history of UN resolutions, there is a willful undermining of the importance of the issue to South Asian security and to the world. The Kashmir dispute has the capacity to unleash a wave of uncertainty in the political and the economic climate of the South Asia, Asia as a whole and the world at large.

 

Actors often ‘shape’ information to project and protect their own vital interests and thus present an issue in a special light. Thus an international media coverage that could necessitate international actions or condemnation is itself first shaped by national interests of the home countries of the media.  In short, media tends to register truth in various formats and often in changed contexts, that further complicates the nature of the dispute and the way in which it is projected. Hence the colouring given to conflicts is largely a derivative of factors such as power politics, national interests and the saliency of the issue to the parties controlling international access to information. Thus, the Kashmir dispute can be said to have been subjected to three kinds of media projections: the working of the powerful international media, mostly that of the western-based news agencies and the local media of both India and Pakistan.

  

Mass media, television, cinema, magazines and newspapers are, therefore, power factors due to their role in influencing and moulding public opinion. This study seeks to identify the inter-linkages within the media, the process of globalisation, and international action in conflict resolution. This involves an examination of how media operations (newspapers, radio, television, and the internet) facilitate international intervention in conflict resolution in the target countries. The study also assesses the potential of the media as to how it inflames political conflicts towards greater violence, or warfare.  The study also looks at the detailed media projection of violence in places like Bosnia and Somalia, which has led to international interventions, and questions why, despite gross human rights violations in Kashmir, it has failed to draw international mediation or the attention it merits?  It is all the more strange as the Kashmir issue is an internationally recognized issue since 1947 and the subject of numerous UN resolutions.

The Kashmir dispute as a case study

The purpose is to examine the impact of the communications revolution, in particular that of the media in all its forms especially with respect to conflict resolution given the fact that increasing globalisation is making the world smaller in terms of the access to information. In this milieu questions are raised. What role does the media have in conflict resolution? Why and how do some conflicts receive positive media coverage, and hence international attention, while others are ignored or negatively portrayed? And finally, how can victims of violence get into the picture and earn international sympathy and support? This study cannot provide definitive answers to these difficult, but important questions. Instead it seeks to invite further discussion by highlighting their significance to the conflict resolution processes.

The Historical background of the Kashmir Conflict

The Kashmir dispute has been the major cause of discontent between India and Pakistan since their inception as sovereign States in 1947. The genesis of the states of India and Pakistan lay in the recognition of the two nation theory (i.e., Hindus and Muslims are two different nations), accepted both by the outgoing British Raj and the political parties of the subcontinent, as under the Partition Plan of June 3,1947.[3] The partition principle dictated that Princely States which had a Muslim majority, were geographically contiguous to India or Pakistan, and in democratic elections expressed a will to accede to either country, would be enabled to do so, or they could opt for independence either individually or as a confederate of Princely states.

The State of Jammu and Kashmir was one of the 600 princely States in the British Empire, with a Hindu Maharaja and an overwhelming majority of Muslims. In the states of Junagadh and Hyderabad, the case was in reverse. The British rule lapsed on 14 August 1947.[4] In line with the Partition Principle, Lord Mountbatten advised accession to either India or Pakistan.[5] Since the option existed that the states could maintain their independent status, Pakistan observed by signing a Stand still Agreement in the case of Kashmir and Hyderabad.

India did not reciprocate the validity of the in the case of Kashmir though it did so in the case of Hyderabad. Subsequently India invaded Hyderabad and Junagadh and incorporated them in the Indian polity. However in the case of Hyderabad and Junagadh, India did not respect the wishes of the ruler of Hyderabad and Junagadh and forced an invasion on account of the large number of Hindu population in that State.

 The Standstill Agreement allegedly signed by the Maharaja of Kashmir led to several weeks of indecisiveness concerning the status of Kashmir which in effect remained independent during that time. The Kashmir Muslim Conference, a significant political voice in Jammu and Kashmir, passed a resolution calling for accession to Pakistan. The Maharaja paid no importance to the resolution.[6] During this time other actors like the fragment of National Conference lead by Sheik Abdullah and the Congress having an understanding between the two were also actively leading the political movement in the valley under the leadership of Sheik Abdullah for an independent Kashmir. The people of Poonch had started a revolt against the Maharaja of Kashmir and Jammu well before the June 3^rd 1947 plan. The resistance had spread to beyond Poonch, to Mirpur and some parts in Jammu, leading to the emergence of Azad Kashmir. This latter factor becomes intrinsically linked with the future status of the entire state. The resistance soon turned into a full-scale rebellion. The Maharaja tried to crush the movement and alleged that it was Pakistan inspired, whereas the genesis of the rebellion lay much earlier, almost as early as the suppressed rebellion of 1830s.[7] The Maharaja tried to enlist Indian military help. India refused to help till he signed the accession to India, but as research has established, Indian troops were sent before the document of conditional accession was signed. It still remains a controversial issue in the Public perceptions. The Maharaja’s indecisiveness had given way to panic, for he signed a rather strange accession document, which led to a full-scale invasion by Indian forces and to his subsequent forced exile and abdication, never to return again. Fearing the worsening situation going out of control, India took the case to the United Nations Security Council.¹³ On 1 January 1948 in the Indian letter to the to the Security Council, New Delhi reiterated that the State had appealed to India for help and had acceded to the Indian Union, which thereupon had prompted a military action by India. New Delhi affirmed that once the State was clear of the “foreign invaders” and normal conditions were restored, the Government of India would allow the people of the State to decide their future through a “plebiscite” or a referendum. Further it requested that to ensure complete impartiality, the plebiscite be held under international auspices. This claim was incorporated in the Security council resolutions of 1948.

Noting with satisfaction that both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan would be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite.[8]

The Security Council in 1948 took up the conflict and lead to a series of positive developments. The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) was established to investigate the facts, work in mediating capacity, and report on the developments in the situation.

In addition, Resolution 726 of 21 April 1948 called for progressive retreat of force from the State, leading to an atmosphere necessary for a free Plebiscite.[9] In July 1948 the UNCIP (United Nation Commission for India and Pakistan) arrived and the cease-fire agreement came into effect between India and Pakistan, which resulted in the delineated cease-fire line.[10] Though the cease-fire agreement resulted in the cessation of war between India and Pakistan, ever since the level of tension between the two states has remained high over the unresolved status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. After the war of 1948, Pakistan formally controlled Azad Kashmir, one third of the State,  whereas two thirds have been controlled by India, known as the Jammu and Kashmir state.[11] Both sides have their own constitution and parliament. Pakistan refers to Indian controlled part as Indian-held Kashmir (IHK) and India refers to the Pakistan-controlled part as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK).Up until now Pakistan and India have fought several wars over the issue. Firing over the cease-fire line has been an ever-present phenomenon leading to a high state of tension in the border areas of the state and in general between India and Pakistan. The Kashmiri groups have always referred to this boundary as an unnatural demarcation and as a cease-fire line, though the Simla agreement of 1972 had changed the terminology of the cease-fire line to ‘line of control’ with slight modifications. The view had been to refer to it as an international border between the two countries. However the line of control, or the argument that this line be converted into an international boundary between the two states, is not accepted by the Kashmiris either now or when it was projected in 1972.

Conflict dynamics

The Kashmir Dispute has been one of the oldest and most debated unresolved problems on the Security Council’s agenda. What is the impact of globalisation on the Kashmir dispute? What role has the media played in portraying the conflict? How far has the explanation in the international media been reflective of the ground realities? Is there a link between media coverage of the conflict and the international climate to intervene? If so, then to what extent does the international media act as an independent actor? The wars over this dispute in 1948, 1965, and 1971,  the 1984 Indian adventure in Siachin, the Kargil conflict of 1999 and the continued exchange of fire on the line of control ever since partition all show the centrality of the dispute to peace and security situation in the region. Since the 1990s the high level of tension due to armed struggle has increased the potency of the issue.

 

The reason for the continued tensions in Kashmir result from the fact that two major protagonists in the dispute have their own prerequisites for peace, their own views of an acceptable solution to the Kashmir dispute and their own perceptions as to the root causes of the conflict. According to Pakistan, the root cause of tensions has been India’s persistent refusal to conduct a plebiscite in the State. Pakistan has always reiterated that Kashmir is a disputed area and the right of the people of Kashmir to decide their own political future is paramount and necessary for peace. Therefore peace can only be established if the people of Kashmir are given the right of self-determination. Islamabad’s official stance is that Pakistan has supported and will continue to support the Kashmiris in their struggle for freedom and that the resolution to the Kashmir dispute lies in the implementation of the UN resolutions, that is, holding a free and fair plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir.

In contrast, India sees the efforts made by Pakistan to internationalise the issue as a direct interference in India’s internal affairs despite the fact that the accession document has a direct reference to holding a plebiscite in the State. The Indian Constituent Assembly had adopted article 370 after the alleged accession of the State. Article 370  includes power to conduct foreign affairs, defense and communication, this article of the Indian Constituent Assembly has given special status to Kashmir in the Indian constitution and union.[12] Over the time the article has been amended so as to give more power to the Indian central government in the internal affairs of the State. New Delhi has been arguing that Kashmir is an integral part of India and that the liberation of Kashmir would result in the disintegration of India. In view of the sixteen ongoing separatist movements in various parts of India, New Delhi claims that if Kashmir is allowed to break away, this would act as precedent to other freedom struggles in the union.

 India has claimed that the establishment of the Indian Constituent Assembly of Kashmir has ascertained the legal requirement of the will of the people. Islamabad maintains that the right exercised by India in the valley to conduct elections springs from the amendments in the article 370. This act of India to hold elections is illegal in view of the various UN resolutions. The legality of the argument is challenged by the resolution passed by the United Nations Security Council on 24 January 1957 that has referred to the Indian act of having Elections in the State as illegal. The resolution reagents the affirmation of UN resolutions of 30 March 1951 (S/2017), 14 March 1950 (S/1469), 21 April 1948 (S/726) which declare the Indian act as unacceptable for the de jure settlement of the dispute; and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan’s resolution of 13 august 1948 (S/1100) that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance to the will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. This resolution also declared that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference would not constitute or determine the future affiliation of the Entire State or any part of the State to a party.

 

The rise of the Kashmiri resistance (1989) and the role of the media

Since 1989 the Kashmiri resistance movement has taken all together a new impetus, thereby inciting ever more Kashmiri support to the freedom struggle. The change in the attitude of the Kashmiri has since then posed the question of resurgent Islam from an Indian perspective on the law and order situation. The self-conception of the Kashmiri Muslim lay in the basis of a changed long historical process with both external and internal determinants, at multiple levels. The earlier stages of Kashmiri resistance movement had achieved a new dimension after the 1987 sham elections as well as the massive rigging of the elections in the Indian held Kashmir state led to a spontaneous uprising and a call for ‘Azadi’. The rigging in the elections had acted as a catalyst to the undercurrent of the freedom movement in the valley to come out overtly and attempt a break away from the tyranny of the long protracted Indian rule in the Indian held Kashmir since 1947-8. In the earlier years of the dispute a certain fragment of the Kashmiri society had remained loyal to Sheikh Abdullahs view of Kashmiri sovereignty. However repeated infringements as well as human rights violations by the Indian forces in the valley gave rise to this new phenomenon of transnational resurgence, based on the conceptual foundations of Islamic existence against the narrow definitions of state sovereignty under Indian administered rule. The eruption of the armed struggle in Indian-held Kashmir, since 1989, introducing a new factor in the Dispute[13] The account of this new aspect, i.e. the armed struggle generally dates back to the formal, onset to a series of anti-Indian demonstrations, strikes and sporadic attacks on Indian governmental targets since July 1989. The starting point according to the media has been the kidnapping of the daughter of the Indian home minister in 1989 in exchange for setting free five freedom fighters from Indian jails.[14] The number of Indian troops estimated are about 700,000 to 800,000 personnel, these also include paramilitary forces.[15] Whereas India claims the forces equal to half a million to 300,000 to 400,000, eluding their presence on the belief that they are “fighting terrorism and fundamentalism, as Kashmir is an integral part of India.”[16] After the 1999 Kargil crisis, a new 14th corps was raised at Leh to facilitate 15^th corps GOC in addition to the Kilo force equivalent to an army division. The resistance has seen a new hype after the Kargil crisis. One of the reasons for this hype is also the media coverage of the event and the increased activities by the freedom fighters and the consequent increased operations by the Indian forces in the valley against the freedom fighters.

Media has played a significant role in rationalization of the existence as well as legality of each side’s claim or position in the dispute. The media reports of a singular event by both sides is depicted in different light according to the national interest of the state in question. Facts are hidden to give the desired picture of the conflict. Concepts such as national unity, national security, threat of terrorism, freedom struggle, human rights are used to validate the role of media in the dispute. In short, themes which highlight the various aspects of the conflict are picked up by the media to project the conflict in the desired light. Following are some of the themes picked up by the various facets of media.

The Kashmiri resistance movement

The Kashmir dispute since 1989 is intrinsically linked to the Kashmiri resistance movement. The struggle since 1989 has attained an independent indigenous flavour. One of the leading factors has been the direct result of the Indian atrocities and the re-awakening of transnational Islam in the Kashmiri resistance movement . This metamorphosis lies in the changing internal and external determinants of the Kashmir dispute and the increased sense of alienation from India in the Kashmiri youth, where the intensity and the Islamic flavour of the resistance movement cannot be denied. The way the resistance movement is projected by the various actors in the dispute shows their inherent position towards the dispute. According to the Indian media the initial phase of the uprising  is seen as indigenous, however the intensity in the freedom struggle is seen as result of a proxy war launched by Pakistan to initiate a low level insurgency to prepare the ground for military option in Kashmir by using the Islamic concept of jihad. Statements such as the following show the Indian media’s approach towards the conflict. “Pakistan continues to train, equip and support Kashmiri militants and is actively abet at the infiltration from the line of control.” It terms the resistance movement in the State to be totally (allegedly) masterminded by Pakistan and sponsored by crossborder terrorism. The glaring example of the Indian media’s approach to the conflict and events is visible from the Kargil conflict where the media went overboard to justify the excessive Indian use of power on a Pakistan-instigated crisis. An attempt was made to de-link the issue from the history of the conflict and to link it to Pakistan, in a way that it justified Indian use of force. In this frame of mind an event like the massacre of Chtiipur and Hazart Bal were termed by the Indian media as grave violations by the Pakistan supported freedom fighters. On the basis of this approach, Indian media depicts each of the military operations of the freedom fighters as case of cross-border terrorism. The terms ‘terrorist outfits’ and ‘militancy’ are used while reporting on the Resistance movement in Kashmir. Whereas the Pakistani media uses words such as freedom struggle to show the nature of the resistance movement in the valley, so is the case in the media coverage of a singular incidents or the resistance movement by the Kashmiri media. Similarly to show the indigenous factor of the struggle and the continued existence of this phenomenon in the dispute is covered in the following light in the Kashmiri as well as the Pakistani media: The firm resolve of the Kashmiri people to fight the Indian repression cannot be underscored by the acts of aggression against the Kashmiri people. A Punjab-like solution is not likely to resolve the Kashmir dispute as the Kashmiri struggle has to be seen as an indigenous struggle.

The divergence on depicting the nature of the struggle is also evident from the way the various political parties of the Kashmiri resistance movement are projected by the Indian media. At present the all-parties Hurriyat Conference is the umbrella organization of the freedom fighters. Where it is underscored that to hold talks with the freedom fighters is necessary for peace in the region, Indian media terms the talks to be a non-starter on the rationale that it cannot hold talks with the militant organization such as Hizbul Mujahedin as they are Pakistan-sponsored militant organizations not interested in peace. This conception had suffered a major blow in the fall of 2000 when the Hizbul Mujahedin offered a unilateral cease-fire and offered peace talks. While the Pakistani media praised these overtures as a bold step towards peace, the Indian media referred to the event as a Pakistan-inspired move.

While the indigenous factor of the struggle cannot be denied even by the international observers, international media nevertheless by and large seems to have continuity of the theme ‘terrorist’ and ‘militancy’ while reporting on the conflict. This continuity of theme highlights the fact that the international media works in the over all framework of power politics and stakes in the outcome of the conflict.

The issue of terrorism

Since 1989 until the present, the emergence of the armed struggle in the Kashmir movement cannot be denied. However the current phase in the movement is linked to overall question and the issue of ‘terrorism’. All the actors under one context or the other pick up the theme of terrorism. Indian media and the official stance links the causation of the intensity in the freedom movement to the rationale that the Kashmir struggle movement is a terrorist movement inspired by Pakistan. Therefore the international community should see and refer to Pakistan as a militant state.  Statements like “it is high time that the European community should declare Pakistan a Terrorist State”[17] indicate that India attempts to join the international league on the common pledge to combat terrorism in the area. “India must be firm on Kashmir and there can be no mercy to the mercenaries”. Hence India must project the Kashmir issue as one of international fundamentalism with widespread ramifications for the western world, for Osama bin Laden’s terrorist training bases are also used to train terrorists for operation in Jammu and Kashmir.  It would be in India’s interest to highlight this aspect through diplomatic channels and through campaigns of public awareness, as Indian forces in the valley were and are not fighting Kashmiris but (allegedly) guerrillas/terrorists and infiltrators sent by Pakistan:[18] ‘The militancy would not have acquired the present scale but for outside help’.[19]

There is no doubt in the Indian mindset that Pakistan is involved in supporting aggression and violence in the valley and that the All Hurriyat Conference and parties like Hizbul Mujjahaddin are not united in their approach without Pakistan presence.[20]

Pakistan claims that there are no military or terrorists camps in Pakistan and that the proficiency of the separatists has increased due to the long drawn conflict.[21] The continued Indian military presence in the valley, in addition to the other counter-insurgency campaigns depict a different reality, that the Indian military forces are clearly involved in the persecution of the Kashmiri population, in order to curtail the intensity of the movement. Attempts such as changing the demographic pattern of the valley with ex-service men is but one reflection of the sense of total alienation felt by the population. In addition to the rampant human rights violations and tales of wide spread horror, the claim is made by Pakistan that India should stop the ‘acts of state terrorism’ against the people of Kashmir. In this case also international media themes reflect more the dangers of cross border terrorism and threat of Islamic fundamentalism than the brute realities due to the excessive Indian military presence in the valley.

 

Human rights violations

In every conflict, human rights violations play an important role for this clearly delineates the responsibility on the aggressor and the victim. In the case of the Kashmir dispute the onus of the human rights violations  clearly lies on the Indian side. In this regard the reports given by international human rights organizations are of significance. . In all about 60-70,000 people have been killed since 1989 in the conflict and several thousands maimed.[22] Similarly the killings and disappearances of civilians by the Indian forces in the Indian held Kashmir have been cited by international human rights organisations to high light the living conditions in the valley. The reports emphasize the deaths of children, women and civilians, and extra-judicial killings conducted by Indian forces.[23] Similarly, ‘up to 800 people have disappeared in the Indian held Kashmir’.[24] International human rights organizations state a claim that the ‘Indian declaration that there is complete peace and amenity in the Kashmir is a big lie’ and the increasing human right violations in IHK merit international attention and help.[25] In short the responsibility of human rights violations is laid on the Indian authorities.

 Human rights violations are important arbiters in justifying increased military presence in the region for all parties concerned. The Indian media registers the fact that human rights violations are carried out by Indian forces in the valley. It Considers it be partially the result of failed state-center relations and the use of force by the center. Nevertheless the rationalization is laid on the logic that India is combating terrorism inspired by outside actors and secondly the onus of the violations is primarily on Pakistan-sponsored mercenaries who are involved in these violations. Human rights violations are portrayed as dividends of Pakistan’s alleged involvement in the state. Linked to this is the rationalization in the Indian media that the responsibility of the political unrest in the valley lies on Pakistan. In short human rights violations are used to justify Indian presence in the Valley.

The extent and nature of state violence in the Indian administered Jammu and Kashmir has been seen in the Pakistani media as gross violations of human rights and as an act of ‘state terrorism’. In order to substantiate its view with facts the Pakistani media, while covering the theme of human rights violations in the valley, picks up reports of the actual happenings in the valley reported by international organizations. In this coverage emphasis is laid on highlighting the forms of violence carried out by Indian authorities like recurrent massacres of civilians, widespread torture, involving cruel and sadistic methods like mass rape, summary executions of hundreds or perhaps thousands of Kashmiri youth suspected of being militants.[26]

Reports of events like random killings of bystanders and defenseless people in their homes by the Indian military, border security forces and paramilitary forces are also picked up to highlight the nature of torture experienced by the people in the valley.[27] In the case of  the Pakistani and the Kashmiri media , human rights violations make up for a significant portion of the reporting, whereas Indian press gives it miniscule coverage depending on whom the violations are carried out against. If the Hindu population is the victim then the coverage is more extensive and linked to the concept of cross border terrorism and if the Muslim population is the victim than the coverage is limited and justified on the Pakistan angle. The occurrence of the human rights violations cannot be contested. However the international media, while covering the resistance movement, apparently gives miniscule coverage to this aspect, despite an international judgement against these violations. In the case of the Kashmir dispute this seems to be the less highlighted issue by international media. In most cases the causation is picked more in line with the Indian media’s approach than the one which would support the resistance fighters or put pressure on India to reduce the use of this policy option in the valley. The Human Rights violations are either down played or cited as dividends of a militant movement or a terrorist movement in the northern part of India. The international media tends to see it either as a domestic problem of India or as an intractable dispute between India and Pakistan. The focus on the issue and human rights violations is not looked upon in the perspective to arouse international attention, or UN intervention. The hypothesis that has come to the forefront is that human rights violation and state of refugee influx is usually used as pretext for international morality to justify intervention. It is evident in the case of Kosovo,. Mozambique, Tajikistan, East Timor, Haiti, etc. In all these cases the human rights violations were picked up by international media to justify intervention. The bases for the authenticity of these reports is usually work done by international human rights organizations, which are reflected as reports by international media on the human angle of the conflict, but in the case of the Kashmir dispute this seems to be the missing element.

Official stances

The stakes for each party and actor in the dispute is highlighted by the official stance of these actors in the dispute. The causation of each side’s stakes springs from these official potions on the conflict. According to the Indian side the state of Kashmir since its accession to India is an integral part of the union of India. The only component of the Kashmir issue legally admissible in talks between India and Pakistan over the future of the state pertains to the need for Pakistan to back away from ‘state-sponsored terrorism’ in India and to ‘vacate the territories occupied illegally by Pakistan’. The future status of the state otherwise is a domestic problem, which will entail a Punjab like solution, within the framework of the Indian constitution and that the talks between India and Pakistan should occur in a strictly bilateral frame work. The Pakistani media, while giving the causation of involvement in the issue subscribes to the view that Kashmir is the core issue between India and Pakistan and without meaningful negotiations on the issue the situation between India and Pakistan is not likely to improve. The Kashmir dispute should be resolved in the light of the UN resolutions. The talks between India and Pakistan in the future should center on securing the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir. And an international mediator’s role in the talks cannot be ruled out. Lastly, a plebiscite is the only way through which the Kashmir dispute can be resolved.

In short, emphasis is on a fair settlement of the dispute to bring peace to the region. For it is projected that unless India adopts a more flexible stance on the issue,  the sterile environment of the India-Pakistan talks is likely to be repeated.[28] The conflict in the overall framework is seen as a dispute left over by the partition and as a bilateral dispute between India and Pakistan. In addition to Islamabad’s irrevocable commitment to the People of Kashmir in pursuance of the right of self-determination the media also states that, the struggle on its own merit warrants international attention and justice.

The majority of international media’s reporting depicts a dim possibility of the peace process, and treats the issue as an intractable dispute left over by history, intensified by the Indo–Pakistani rivalry and the terrorist movement in the IHK. In short the possibility for peace is given more in the reference of cessation of the freedom struggle.

 

The Status of UN resolutions

The history of the dispute is intrinsically linked to the various UN resolutions on the Kashmir dispute. The UN resolutions passed in early 1948 and 1949, which have emphasized the holding of a plebiscite to resolve the conflict; the UN security council resolution 1172of 14 May 1998 which urges India and Pakistan to ‘resume dialogue between them on all issues…. and find mutually acceptable solutions to address the root causes if tensions, including Kashmir’ signify that the Kashmir issue is the core issue between India and Pakistan and a threat to regional security. However the Indian media’s position to the resolution is in line with the official stance that nothing agreed by India in the UN resolutions alters this status or in any way modifies Indian sovereignty over the State. Hence the approach is that of non-compliance to the various resolutions 

Pakistan maintains that the final solution will come about if the UN resolutions are implemented in letter and sprit. The international media’s approach to the resolution of the conflict does lies in the full support of the UN resolutions, rather the dispute is termed as cases of domestic militancy, where India is unlikely to yield to these international resolutions. In short the international media does not pick up the reference to these resolutions as solution to the problem. Similarly their existence is not linked to register a case of international non-compliance or use to exert international pressure by way of moulding the international public opinion in favour of the resistance fighters.

 

Third party mediation

On the issue of third party mediation, Pakistan seems eager to experiment with the idea of a third party mediation or the role of the international community in the dispute. Examples of the Pakistani media coverage entail that Kashmir is a long-standing dispute and must be settled through peaceful means and that US could play a predominant role in removing the differences between India and Pakistan. Pakistan welcomes the role of international organizations and third parities in the dispute. On the other side, all efforts by Pakistan to raise the Kashmir issue in the international arena are seen as attempts to discredit India in the Islamic world due to her Kashmir policy. Islamabad’s emphasis on the demand that Kashmir should be resolved through international resolutions is not well received in New Delhi. References are made in the Indian media by leading political leaders as well as people from the armed forces and Indian think tanks that Kashmir is a domestic problem of India and no third party mediation or facilitation will be accepted by India, for they are merely ploys used by Pakistan to exert diplomatic pressure on India through the Islamic States, the UN or through the reports of international human rights organisations.[29] The international media reports fail to cover this aspect of the dispute and reiterate that the existence of Kashmir in the Indian polity is necessary for the existence of the Indian Union, something being in close conformity with Indian logic on the importance of the dispute to India.

 

The nuclear dimension.

The south Asian nuclear tests after May 1998 have introduced a new factor in the Kashmir equation. Kashmir is termed as possible nuclear flash point. The linkage of the Kashmir issue to the nuclear standoff between the two states has increased the security dimension of the conflict. In the interim period as well as the recent takeover by the new Indian army chief reflects upon the reality that India believes that preponderance in the nuclear capability will allow India to pursue its policy options in the valley without the fear or threat of response from Pakistan. The argument for deterrence is used both to stress the increased ability of Pakistan to instigate trouble in the valley and India’s ability to use Kashmir as an onset for the use of tactical nuclear weapons. In this regard the example quoted is the Kargil conflict and the lack of policy options for India to have hot pursuits in Azad Kashmir. In the interim period between India’s nuclear tests and Pakistan’s tests the Indian defense minister as well as the interior Minster made categorical statements that due to the nuclear capability of India, New Delhi was in position to carry out ‘hot pursuit missions’ in Pakistan-held Kashmir and therefore Pakistan must reverse its stance on Kashmir. The statement of the  new army chief General Padmanabhan that ‘there was space for conventional conflict between a low-intensity conflict and an all-out nuclear war’ is of particular importance to show this thinking in the Indian elite. This thinking is not only picked up Indian media but also projected at international forums to the question of ‘cross-border terrorism’ and the alleged Pakistani role in the freedom struggle.  In contrast Pakistani media tends to view the nuclearisation of Pakistan as a quid pro quo and as a possible nuclear flashpoint due to the various levels of escalation in a conflict spiral. Hence linkage is made to show that the dispute has the potential to become a possible nuclear flash point if not taken seriously by the international community. International attention is merited to address this particular security paradox of the dispute. In the international media in the aftermath of the nuclearisation of South Asia the dispute is often cited as a potential flashpoint of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. It is projected that the dispute would have spillover effects and would envision a full-scale war between the two states, leading to a nuclear holocaust. The international media has started focusing on the saliency of the Kashmir dispute to regional security, nevertheless the focus of the international coverage of the issue has not changed to the human rights aspect of the dispute, which would warrant international mediation.

Conclusion

Information is power. Its production, processing, and dissemination carry implications for power relations. The control of information and information technology is vital in the reconfiguration of power and politics, locally and globally. Dominant social groups can, and invariably do, use the ‘media as ideological weapons to secure advantages for themselves’.[30] Acquisition of information has created another social dimension of ‘information haves and have-nots’. The have-nots thinking is that the international media aids in transposing Western values on the rest of the world.[31] This, with the dependency of the developing world on the Western media sources, has led to a call for New International Information and Communication Order (1980). It aims at giving developing countries a better chance to put across their case in the international arena. This has fundamental implications for the success or failure of conflict resolution. As a UNESCO report (1985: 7) notes, since the news media are important arbiters of reality, not only at the mass level but also amongst decision-makers, distorted images of the international scene could be a major obstacle for those trying to solve problems and issues. This bottom-line concern over the way in which the North and South portray each other through their own media, as well as the way in which development issues were covered by the media prompted UNESCO (1985) to commission research on the subject in the mid 1980s.[32]

As the case study of the Kashmir dispute suggests, the mass media remain a powerful ideological informational tool. The dominant social groups use it to backup their economic and political hegemony. In this dispute, the Western media has chosen to portray India in a positive light despite its inhumane policies in Kashmir and elsewhere in India, which the Indian media itself has criticized. The Kashmiris are fighting against a powerful regional protagonist likely to fit in the national interests of the West. Hence the conflict is seen more in terms of a colonial legacy, a dispute left over by history. The legality of the issue, despite early UN Security Council resolutions on the dispute and the latter day condemnation of the human rights violations by the Indian troops against the Kashmiri population is often portrayed to the international body politic and Kashmiris themselves as either India’s domestic problem, an instance of Islamic fundamentalism, or an intractable dispute between parties.

The liberation movement is often depicted as a ‘terrorist’ militancy instigated primarily by Pakistan. Consequently, their attempts to get a positive international image are constantly thwarted by India. India uses these western media bias to show the conflict in various ways and thus wants efforts towards a bilateral dialogue, as well as makes meaningless concessions to the people of Kashmir so that the pressure of the international public opinion is not exerted on New Delhi, because of factors such as the geopolitical significance of India to the West and the potential economic worth due to rapid liberalization and the increased role of media. The international media often lays emphasis on bilateral resolution of the conflict by India and Pakistan, and human rights violations are ignored. Second and related, one of the major reasons as to why the issue remains a cause of potential instability in the region despite an Indo-western convergence of interests is the fact that none of the major protagonists in the Kashmir conflict seem prepared to compromise. Third, and also related, the reluctance to compromise seems inevitable given the balance of power in the battlefield.

In short, media coverage of this conflict was primarily based on a given set of cultural attributes, to the exclusion of a broader reference to other facts of differing social structures and solution oriented processes. As the case of Kashmir dispute suggests the media also has the potential of precipitating the degeneration of political conflict into violence and warfare, within and between states.

Human rights violations and their media coverage is often used by the interventionist forces to justify the their presence in an area as is the case of the continued Indian military presence in the Valley. Media can repress or liberate, unite or fragment a society, as well as promote or hold back social progress. This makes media an extremely powerful tool, a catalyst of social, structural and cultural changes. Given the power and transformative potential of the mass media, the question of whose reality is presented, who owns it and whose interests it serves, become central to a critical discussion of the impact of the media in conflict dynamics and resolution. The case study of the Kashmir dispute suggests that the international media uses selective reporting, and uses human rights violations only to justify international intervention and not put an end to atrocities. In the case of Kashmir human rights violations have not led to international intervention because the conflict has been constantly depicted as an intra-state dispute. The legal and moral responsibility of the international community was stronger in other cases such as Mozambique, Haiti, and Tajikistan where the dispute was clearly an internal affair, therefore outside the framework of the regular norms of UN intervention yet international intervention did take place. The coverage of the happenings in these areas created the necessary conditions for the possibility of International intervention without the costs of acting outside the framework of UN or the norms of international affairs.

UN intervention is only justified where an internal conflict is a threat to international security. In the case of the Kashmir dispute, the growing escalation in the conflict is a serious threat to regional security, hence it merits international attention. International resolutions exist to support the people of Kashmir in their fight for self-determination, yet the issue has remained on the back burner of the international media. Bias of the international media often plays to the tune of the dominant groups in their respective countries. The media itself works within the established framework of international security and power politics and time and again has bent principles of objectivity to the biases of the environment. Conflicts are picked or not picked up by the international media in the nationalised context of international values and domestic audiences of the countries of origin of the respective media.

The globalisation of economics, as well as particularly of information, has had a tremendous impact on the way a dispute is projected by the protagonist and accessed by the user of the information. In the case of the Kashmir dispute the globalisation of the economy, and the West’s search for big markets has accentuated the conflict in the region. It is necessary that the dispute be addressed with the motive to bring political stability in the region, even if economic reasons are the overarching motivations. In this context the role played by the media is not only important but also fundamental to the process of Conflict resolution. It is the accurate reporting of the media, which brings pressure on the parties involved in a conflict to realize that the time is ripe for conflict resolution and any delay is likely to increase the costs of the conflict.

There are no simple answers to the role of the media in conflict resolution but it is time to re-examine the prevailing ideas on the use of media, to ponder how it can be remoulded to preserve peace and security of people. A truly independent international media can be an effective trustee of future generations, hence efforts should be made to empower media to become responsible and handle this difficult but important task, for the benefit of the future generations.

 

 

 

Author Bio:

Maria Sultan is a senior associate and Pakistan representative of Cornell Caspian Consulting, and a research fellow at the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad, Pakistan. This article was published in Strategic Studies, Islamabad, in 2000.