Opinion: How Long Will BBC Get Away with Being Sympathetic to Pakistani Terror in India?
Photo: Collected
The BBC’s article on “speech martyrs” in Kashmir wasn’t just your usual clueless Western rubbish. It was far more sinister — a carefully coordinated attempt to pervert the course of justice. That it was shockingly amateurish in its lack of research may therefore have been its redeeming feature, but that still doesn’t excuse the fact that the reporter in question crossed an unwritten line.
One person mentioned in the article that it will be focused on Fahad Shah. Leave aside the unverifiable sexual peccadilloes ascribed to Fahad because that’s not what he’s on trial for. He’s on trial for inciting terror. It is unimaginable that the reporter in question, a certain Yogita Limaye, did not know that his hearings were being held at the same time her article was being published.
What’s inexcusable though is how she chose not to delve into the details of the charges against Fahad or the relevant laws at all. He is charged with publishing an article by someone called Abdul Aala Fazili. Here are some gems from this piece, clubbed thematically.
“We may not have succeeded in chasing India out yet, but certainly we have succeeded in shaking their hold over Kashmir. The mass uprisings in the recent past have pushed the discourse out of ambiguities and made our political discourse clear and direct. An informed commitment has transferred to the younger generation and they feel confident in continuing the struggle more creatively, courageously and effectively towards liberation.”
I hear you ask, but where’s the terrorism here? Ask yourself when was the last time you saw passive resistance in Kashmir? It’s been a violent struggle and what’s mentioned here is an endorsement of outright murder and genocide.
Speaking of martyrs, he says, “We have to refrain from the disease of forgetfulness. We have to refrain from being inconsistent. We have to refrain from being indifferent and callous… The most important contribution of the movement would be taking care of these families who need our moral, financial and political support…Let us institutionalize their memories in our daily lives. These memorials will become an instrument of our strength, solidarity, remembrance, and motivation for future.”
What exact “motivation for the future” did you think he was talking about? He means support by way of street protests, pelting stones even on security forces actively engaged in live combat operations, providing finances, communication facilities, transport, medical attention, hideout and shelter, advance information to escape security cordons and information about who they consider as pro-India and anti-terrorist/secessionist movement for targeted killing.
Don’t believe me, the examples are legion. This article appeared in 2011. 2010 was the inflexion point when Pakistan deployed a new strategy for dealing with Indian counter-terrorism operations. Whenever an operation was underway, a stone-pelting crowd would gather and attack security forces. What articles like this did was justify and encourage stone pelters to come out in defraying anti-terror operations. Both Fahad and Fazili knew this very well. Indeed, they did their jobs so well that by 2016, with the killing of Burhan Wani, this trend had become an established phenomenon. Crowds of 2,000 to 5,000 and sometimes up to 10,000 would gather from neighbouring villages at the encounter site and attack the police and security forces viciously. The situation became so desperate that the government issued informal instructions to call off all anti-terror operations that were conveyed in a video conference meeting by the then DGP in late 2017.
But it wasn’t just this that Fahad and Fazili did. Their insidiousness was such that they published the article in 2011 during Eid al-Adha — a festival that recalls Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son. Para 11 of the article reads, “On the occasion of Eid-ul-Azha, let us all pledge in the name of the blood of our martyrs…” What these two were doing was urging their readers to emulate Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son for a holy cause.
Now while one can argue that Limaye, (like most correspondents of foreign outlets in India) is uninformed about these, what excuses her laziness and outright unprofessionalism in not bothering to investigate? Her “research” was so lazy that she neither reached out to the Special Investigation Agency (SIA) nor the Prosecutor. A more responsible media house, on the other hand, had no issues reaching out to both the prosecutor and SIA in March 2023, when the trial started. Both have confirmed to me on record that they received no communication from either BBC or Limaye. There is a further indictment here of both Limaye and the BBC.
The provisions under which Fahad is being tried mirrors the UK’s own 2006 Terrorism Act — sections 1 and 2. Examples from this act. The definition of a terror publication is one that “i) intends members of the public to be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism or Convention offences; or (ii) is reckless as to whether members of the public will be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate such acts or offences.”
And defines an incitement as one who “a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and (b) in a statement from which members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances.”
Both offences are made out not just under Indian law but also under relevant British law.
So, are we to assume the editors of the BBC and Limaye, in addition to being clueless about Indian law, were also clueless about British law? Cumulatively they’ve not just been clueless about the law, but they’ve also been lazy and thoroughly unprofessional about investigating the story, by not reaching out to either the prosecutor or investigating agency. Finally, she published this simultaneously with hearings in Fahad’S trial. Individually, this would be a string of unusual coincidences, but cumulatively, this is a deliberate and institutional attempt by the BBC to influence and pervert the course of justice. The question is how long will the BBC and its minions get away with being the B team of Pakistani terror in India? Ultimately what Limaye was trying to do was no different than what the stone pelters did in 2017 achieving a suspension of anti-terror operations.
It is also worth noting that while all other governments have stopped sponsoring India-Pakistan track 2 events and have ended equivocating the two, the British High Commission is the only one that lavishes funds on these business class five-star hotel junkets for deep state elements of the ISI and their Indian collaborators despite knowing that they yield no results.
Stand-alone, independent journalism? I think not. More like cooperative institutional collusion with Pakistan, aided, abetted and funded by the British state.
Source: News18
