This report by the Free Speech Collective (FSC) examines the current state of freedom of speech and expression in Jammu and Kashmir over the last six years. Drawing from a combination of news reports, government policies, police actions, and anonymous testimonies from journalists and citizens, it highlights the many challenges faced by the press in Kashmir since the 2019 reorganization. From censorship and intimidation to arrests under draconian laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Public Security Act (PSA), journalists have been systematically silenced. The shrinking space for independent media, the erasure of critical newspaper archives, and the heavy reliance on government advertising have further constrained the press.

The report also explores the growing use of self-censorship as a survival strategy among journalists, the repression of free movement through the cancellation of passports, and the chilling effect on investigative journalism. As the territory heads into elections, this report raises critical questions about the state of democracy in Jammu and Kashmir. It asks whether, in the midst of such suppression, the media will be able to function freely, and whether voters will be adequately informed as they go to the polls.

Following is the detailed overview provided in the report that explores how events in Jammu and Kashmir have unfolded since 2019 and how they may influence the upcoming elections:

Brief timeline:

Pre-Abrogation Crackdown on Media (2109): As provided in the report, in the lead-up to the abrogation of Article 370, restrictions on the press began tightening. On July 25, 2019, journalist Qazi Shibli was detained under the Public Safety Act (PSA) for tweeting about troop movements. By August 4, 2019, a total communication blackout was imposed, cutting off all internet and phone services. The very next day, Section 144 was enforced in parts of Srinagar, restricting journalists’ movement and their ability to report freely.

During this period, the report provides that newspapers like The Kashmir Times and Greater Kashmir suspended publication, and when they resumed, self-censorship became the norm. Journalists like Irfan Amin Malik and Peerzada Ashiq were detained and questioned for their reporting, while others such as Gowhar Geelani and Zahid Rafiq were barred from traveling abroad.

Escalating Restrictions from 2020 to 2021: According to the report, in January 2020, the Supreme Court had ruled that indefinite internet suspension was illegal. However, the actual restoration of 4G services in Jammu and Kashmir was delayed until February 2021, more than a year after the ruling. The report depicted how throughout 2020, journalists faced increased harassment. Reporters like Mushtaq Ahmed Ganai were arrested, and Masrat Zahra and Gowhar Geelani were charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for their work.

Notably, the reports also pointed to the introduction of a restrictive media policy in May 2020, which further tightened government control over news. In April 2021, the police banned live coverage of security encounters, further curbing journalistic freedom. High-profile arrests, like those of Manan Dar and Fahad Shah, and raids on journalists’ homes became increasingly common.

Shutdown of the Kashmir Press Club and the Suppression of Dissent (2022-2023): The crackdown reached a new level in January 2022, when the Jammu and Kashmir administration shut down the Kashmir Press Club, a key institution for journalists in the region. The press club was controversially reinstated in 2024, but many saw the move as a tactic to control dissent, especially since it was done with the backing of the administration and lacked transparency.

Meanwhile, the report showed how arrests continued during this period as well. Irfan Mehraj, editor of Wande Magazine, was arrested in March 2023 under the draconian UAPA, even as Khurram Parvez, a prominent human rights activist, remains jailed under terrorism charges.

Intensified Suppression and Legal Battles (Late 2023 and 2024): In the latter part of 2023, freedom of speech and civil liberties remained under threat. On November 19, 2023, seven students were arrested under the UAPA for allegedly celebrating Australia’s cricket victory over India with pro-Pakistan slogans. Although the charges were eventually dropped, it highlighted the severe consequences of dissent in the region. That same day, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh quashed the detention of journalist Sajjad Gul, criticizing the abuse of preventive detention laws by authorities.

The report further provided that in December 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation of Article 370, a decision that the government framed as a victory for peace and development. However, this was far away from the reality where civil rights advocates remained concerned about the broader implications for democracy and free speech in Jammu and Kashmir. These events provided in the report clearly shows that even as the region moves closer to the 2024 elections, journalists and media personnel continue to face harassment and arrests. On January 30, 2024, the Supreme Court ordered the publication of internet shutdown review orders, a move aimed at increasing transparency. Meanwhile, arrests like that of journalist Aasif Sultan in February 2024 and businessman Tarun Behl in July 2024 underscored the attempts of suppression by an unrelenting union government.

Can the Ballot Promise Press Freedom?

As evidenced by the report, the sustained erosion of media freedom, rampant use of draconian laws, and constant harassment of journalists since 2019 have deeply impacted the political and social landscape of Jammu and Kashmir. As the region approaches the 2024 elections, the suppression of free speech is likely to shape both voter sentiment and political discourse. How these developments will influence the elections remains to be seen, but the government’s continued efforts to control the narrative raise questions about the future of democracy in the region.

The report ends by stating that though political parties have promised to restore press freedom ahead of Jammu and Kashmir’s upcoming elections, real change seems unlikely. The report underscores that the J&K Reorganisation Act of 2019 and subsequent amendments have significantly limited the powers of any elected government. Furthermore, the report highlights how even the past administrations, including those led by the National Conference, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and the Indian National Congress, also had strained relations with the press, imposing censorship and curbing media freedoms during times of unrest.

Based on this, the report states that “In the face of these past examples and given the increasingly repressive atmosphere in which the media operates since the abrogation of Article 370, there is little hope that the new government will offer a space for the media to operate freely.”

The complete report may be read below:

Related:

Manipur plunges into deeper turmoil amid fresh violence and drone attacks since early September

Assembly Polls: SKM to Campaign for BJP’s Defeat in Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir

On Yaum-Al-Quds 2024, Massive Rallies Renew Call For Al-Aqsa Liberation In Kashmir, Kargil

Jammu & Kashmir HC: Being a critic of government no ground to detain a person, detaining authorities apply no mind

Unabated Conversion Of Agricultural Land In Kashmir Threatens Food Security

Meeras Mahal: A Journey Through Kashmir’s Timeless Heritage

The post Vanishing Media Freedom J & K, 2019-2024: Free Speech Collective appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As a consequence, all foreign journalists working in Assam have been asked to leave the state. For example, the Assam Tribune reports, that a female reporter of the wire agency, Associated Press (AP) was recently escorted by the Assam Police to the airport and put in the next available flight to Delhi, sources in the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of South Asia told this newspaper. “She was politely told by Assam government officials to leave the State and first procure the necessary permission from the Government of India,” sources added. Last weekend too correspondents of other foreign newspapers were not allowed entry.

Until this “order”, foreign media were barred from entering only Jammu and Kashmir and a few hills states of the Northeast on reporting assignments. But now, Assam has been added in the protected area list along with other north-eastern states, Indian Home Ministry sources said.

When contacted sources in the Ministry of External Affairs said that foreign journalists will now have to seek permission from the MEA and subject to final clearance by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the go ahead will be given. This recent development comes in the wake of the final publication of the NRC in Assam (August 31) and widespread news reports in foreign media, several of which were critical of the NRC exercise.

MEA spokesperson Raveesh Kumar on Sunday clarifed that the NRC was not an executive-driven process, but rather an exercise mandated and monitored by the Supreme Court. “There have been some commentaries in a section of foreign media about aspects of final NRC which are incorrect,” he added.

It is not insignificant that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) chief Filippo Grandi has also voiced concern at the publication of the NRC in Assam that could leave some 1.9 million people in danger of becoming stateless. “I appeal to India to ensure that no one is rendered stateless by this action, including by ensuring adequate access to information, legal aid, and legal recourse in accordance with the highest standards of due process,” he said in a statement in Geneva. Although the nationality status of the approximately 1.9 million people left off the NRC is not known, many are at risk of statelessness if they do not have another nationality, the UNHCR warned.

“Any process that could leave large numbers of people without a nationality would be an enormous blow to global efforts to eradicate statelessness,” Grandi warned in his reaction late last Sunday.The UNHCR also urged the government to take action over any similar processes that could occur in other Indian states and urged authorities not to deport anyone whose nationality had not been verified.

The UN agency also repeated its offer to help the Indian government determine people’s nationality and prevent statelessness “in accordance with its mandate and international standards”.

In July 2019, the Economist, a prestigious UK based weekly journal, was among the first to comment on the consequences of the on-going NRC exercise. In a leader titles, Madness in the hills–India is declaring millions of its citizens to be foreigners (The unlucky victims must then prove the opposite in special courts) the journal commented:
“Since 2016 this hilly tea-growing state in India’s north-eastern corner has been compiling a National Register of Citizens (NRC). Billed as a scientific method for sorting pukka Indians from a suspected mass of unwanted Bangladeshi intruders, the seemingly banal administrative procedure has instead encoiled millions of people in a cruelly absurdist game.

“Rather than find and prosecute illegal immigrants, Assam has instead tasked its 33m people, many of them poor and illiterate, with proving to bureaucrats that they deserve citizenship. Those who fail risk being locked up. Some 1,000 people currently moulder in Assam’s six existing detention centres for “foreigners”. The Indian public has lately been shocked by stories of people, such as a decorated war hero and a 59-year-old widow, who have found themselves jailed for failing to prove their Indian-ness. But the state of Assam is clearly expecting a lot more to come. Ten purpose-built camps are planned.”

The Guardian, also carried a significant report, ‘A nightmarish mess’: millions in Assam brace for loss of citizenship:
Campaigners describe a system of callous bureaucracy and political interference that has torn families apart and left the most vulnerable facing spells in detention centres and unaffordable legal fees.
The United Nations special rapporteur on minority issues, Fernand de Varennes, said the exercise “raises quite a few red flags” and “may be considered to be a discriminatory process and approach”. De Varennes said the number of people potentially affected could make this the biggest exercise in statelessness since the second world war.”
 
Clearly stung by this criticism, the government has decided to act! By curtailing access of the foreign media to Assam!

Related Articles:
1. “Rising tide of bigotry, stigmatization and scapegoating” in NRC process: UN demands GOI response

The post Foreign Journalists asked to “leave” Assam, post NRC, state declared “protected area” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The statement pertinently points out that “the present intervention by the Press Council of India is in sharp contrast to its report released  on 9 October, 2017 after its visit to J&K, where it states, “The committee is really concerned about the stoppage of internet and mobile services in the State. In this age, no media can work without these supports. The policy of curbs on internet and mobile services has to be reviewed urgently.” The Press Council had also recommended increase in DAVP and government advertisements to increase sustainability of newspapers, and stated, “Journalists, too, are doing public service during any coverage and, therefore, their accreditation or Press Cards should be duly honoured during curfew or restrictions.”

The Press Council of India is the statutory body comprising of journalists, formed to protect the freedom of press and moved this intervention application in the Supreme Court ostensibly opposing a petition by Kashmir Times executive editor Anuradha Bhasin, which seeks an end to the restrictions on media in Jammu and Kashmir in the light of the abrogation of Article 370. In the application it says that the restrictions were “in the interest of the integrity and sovereignty of the nation”.

The statement by journalists condemning this move that has raised eyebrows in media circles across the country, and globally states that the move by the Press Council, “ conflates the  issues raised by the Petition on the ‘rights of the media/journalists for free and fair reporting on the one hand and national interest of integrity and sovereignty on the other’ and seeks to assist the Court on the issue of the ‘freedom of the Press as well as in the national interest’.”

“The Press Council of India’s wording of the intervention petition in this manner is  deplorable, completely indefensible and strikes a severe blow against the struggle of journalists from Kashmir to be able to report freely on the effect of the abrogation of Art 370 on August 5, 2019. Since then, the entire region has been under the most extraordinary clampdown of communication, newspapers have not been printed or distributed freely and journalists have not been able to gather news, much less disseminate it. Their movements have been hampered and their mobility severely restricted.” Last week major Indian opposition parties demonstrated against the central government’s “undemocratic” abrogation of Article 370 on August 5.

In her writ petition, Anuradha Bhasin, the senior journalist and executive editor of Greater Kashmir has sought directions from the court (Supreme Court) to ensure an enabling environment for journalists, a relaxation of the debilitating restrictions imposed through Internet and Telecom services suspension; the petition highlights the inability to print and publish the Kashmir edition of Kashmir Times because of complete and absolute restrictions on all communication services and movement.

The Statement by concerned mediapersons on the Press Council’s intervention application in the petition filed by Ms Anuradha Bhasin may be read here:

We, the undersigned individual journalists and media organisations, express our grave concern at the decision of the Press Council of India to intervene in the petition filed by Kashmir Times Executive Editor Anuradha Bhasin. The Press Council of India’s petition has sought to be heard in the matter and does not unequivocally seek to protect press freedom.

Instead, it  conflates the  issues raised by the Petition on the ‘rights of the media/journalists for free and fair reporting on the one hand and national interest of integrity and sovereignty on the other’ and seeks to assist the Court on the issue of the ‘freedom of the Press as well as in the national interest’.

The Press Council of India’s wording of the intervention petition in this manner is  deplorable, completely indefensible and strikes a severe blow against the struggle of journalists from Kashmir to be able to report freely on the effect of the abrogation of Art 370 on August 5, 2019. Since then, the entire region has been under the most extraordinary clampdown of communication, newspapers have not been printed or distributed freely and journalists have not been able to gather news, much less disseminate it. Their movements have been hampered and their mobility severely restricted.

The Internet shutdown has been total and only select government officers have had recourse to landlines or private satellite phones. Ordinary citizens have not been able to get any information about the plight of their family members, even of the death of loved ones! Medical help for citizens have been severely hampered and students are unable to get information on course and job applications.

The government continues to claim that Kashmir is peaceful and calm.Yet, independent media organisations have recorded evidence of protests and expressions of anger by citizens but in the face of the ban on the Internet, the very dissemination of this news is threatened.
There has been a global outcry against this absolute clampdown. Journalists’ organisations in India, have demanded that communication be restored. The Editors Guild of India has termed the lockdown in communication as ‘draconian for the vibrant local media that are the first eyes and ears on the ground.’

In this situation, it is the responsibility of an august, statutory body like the Press Council of India to step forward and fulfill its duty to media freedom. In 1966, the Press Council was set up as a statutory body under an act of Parliament with ‘the purpose of preserving the freedom of the Press and of maintaining and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India’.  It is mandated with acting as a self-regulatory body set up as ‘a watchdog of the press, for the press and by the press’. It is expected to adjudicate on issues of ethics and on freedom of the press.

The current Chairperson of the Press Council of India, Justice C K Prasad, said in an address on the occasion of the Silver Jubilee Programme of the National Human Rights Commission of India held on September 5, 2018 at IIMC, Delhi, that the ‘media is the eyes and ears of any democratic society and its existence is vital to the smooth functioning of democracy. It guards the public interest and acts as voice of the voiceless’.

The present intervention by the Press Council of India is in sharp contrast to its report released  on 9 October, 2017 after its visit to J&K, where it states, “The committee is really concerned about the stoppage of internet and mobile services in the State. In this age, no media can work without these supports. The policy of curbs on internet and mobile services has to be reviewed urgently.” The Press Council had also recommended increase in DAVP and government advertisements to increase sustainability of newspapers, and stated, “Journalists, too, are doing public service during any coverage and, therefore, their accreditation or Press Cards should be duly honoured during curfew or restrictions.

By this intervention in the petition filed by Ms Bhasin, it appears that the Press Council of India is abrogating its Constitutional responsibility towards standing firmly and fearlessly for the freedom of the press and the right of the media to ‘act as the voice of the voiceless’. It flies in the face of the role of the Press Council of India as a statutory body to safeguard the rights of the media to fulfill its responsibility freely, without fear or favour.  That is in the true national interest, irrespective of the interests of the government of the day.
We urge the Press Council of India to immediately intervene in favour of the petition filed by Ms Bhasin to rescind the ban on communication forthwith. Anything short of this will be a travesty of media freedom. “
Signatories to the statement are:

Ajith Pillai, Journalist, Delhi
Akhileshwari Ramagoud
Ammu Joseph, Bangalore
Aniruddha Bahl
Anjali Mody, New Delhi
Anjuman Ara Begum, Guwahati
Anumeha Yadav, Delhi
Anuradha Sharma, Siliguri (Darjeeling)
Akshita Nagpal
Aunohita Mojumdar, Editor, Himal Southasian
Avantika Mehta, New Delhi
Binita Parikh Ahmedabad 
C.G. Manjula, Bangalore
Chitra Ahanthem, Imphal
Chitrangada Chaudhary, Delhi
Deepanjana Pal
Dhanya Rajendran, Bangalore
Free Speech Collective
Geeta Seshu, Mumbai
Geetartha Pathak. Vice President, Indian Journalists Union, Guwahati and former member,Press Council of India
Gita Aravamudan, Bangalore
Haima Deshpande, Thane
Iftikhar Gilani
Jairaj Singh
Jayaditya Gupta
Jyoti Punwani, Journalist, Mumbai
Kala Kanthan, Bangalore
Kalpana Sharma, Mumbai
Kamayani Mahabal, Mumbai
Laxmi Murthy, Bangalore
Linda Chhakchhuak, Independent Journalist, Shillong
M.D Riti, Bangalore
Mahesh Rajput, Journalist, Chandigarh
Malini Subramaniam, Hyderabad
Manisha Pande
Meena Menon, Journalist, Mumbai
Melanie P Kumar, Bangalore
MJ Pandey, Journalist, Mumbai
Natasha Badhwar
Neha Dixit, Delhi
Neeta Kolhatkar, Mumbai
Network of Women in Media, India (NWMI)
Neelam Jena, Delhi
Niloufer Venkatraman
Nilanjana Bhowmick Independent Journalist New Delhi 
Nupur Basu, Bengaluru
Padma Priya, Hyderabad
Padmaja Shaw, Hyderabad
Padmalatha Ravi, Bangalore
Padma Prakash, Mumbai
Pamela Philipose, Journalist, Delhi
Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, former member, Press Council of India
Parth MN, Mumbai
Paroma Mukherjee
Poornima Joshi, Political Editor, Hindu Businessline
Prachi Pinglay, Bangalore
Prema Viswanathan, Bangalore
Preethi Nagaraj, Mysuru
Preeti Mehra, Journalist, Delhi
Priya Ramani, Bangalore
Pushpa Achanta, Bangalore
Radhika Ramaseshan, New Delhi
Rajashree Dasgupta, Kolkata
Rehmat Merchant, Bangalore
Rema Nagarajan
Revathi Siva Kumar, Bangalore
Revati Laul, New Delhi
Rituparna Chatterjiee
Rohit Khanna, journalist
Rohini Mohan, Bangalore
Rosamma Thomas, Pune
Sevanti Ninan, New Delhi
S.N. Sinha, former member, Press Council and Convenor of PCI report on Media of J&K, 2017
S.Teresa, Chennai
Sabarinath, Jaipur
Sabita Lahkar, Independent Journalist, Guwahati
Samar Halarnkar
Sameera Khan, Mumbai
Samhita Barooah, Meghalaya
Samrat Chakrabarti
Samrat Choudhury
Sandhya Ravishankar, Chennai
Shahina KK, Thiruvananthapuram
Sharda Ugra, Bangalore
Shobha SV, Independent media professional, Bangalore
Sohini.C, Kolkata
Sonal Kellog
Thingnam Anjulika Samom, Imphal
Tongam Rina, Journalist, Itanagar
UNI Employees Union, Chandigarh
Usha Rai, Delhi
Valay Singh
Venu Arora, New Delhi
Vivek Mukherji, New Delhi

Related Articles
Government’s Decision on Jammu and Kashmir: A Long Leap into Unconstitutionality
Why do we protest? Mumbai citizens speak on the lockdown in Kashmir, Article 370
How the abrogation of Article 370 has unleashed the great Indian misogynistic troll
 

The post Journalists Condemn Press Council of India’s support to Media Gag in Kashmir appeared first on SabrangIndia.