Tabrez Ansari. (Video grab)Siasat, in its June 28 editorial, takes up the lynching of Tabrez Ansari in Jharkhand. The paper believes that “the prime minister spoke in Parliament using Tabrez Ansari as an excuse. While he appeared to be wanting to condemn the murder, he ended up defending the Jharkhand government”. The editorial asserts that “this is a kind of a political statement and the PM has tried to evade responsibility. He did not make it clear that as the leader of the BJP, will he put pressure on the Jharkhand government and force them to act?”
Aag on June 27 has an editorial titled, ‘Phir kisi Shaista ka suhaag na ujade’, referring again to Tabrez Ansari’s wife. The editorial records that 24-year-old Ansari was killed by a mob. It says: “It is sad that the cowards decided to proclaim the act of violence loudly and put out a video where along with him, women are visible too and all are watching the events unfold fearlessly.” The paper is of the opinion that as “women the world over are expected to be loving, but in Tabrez’s case how did they become so harsh and hard? This merits concern.” The editorial goes onto invoke the anti-Muslim killings in New Zealand and how the “Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern took charge and empathised” with the community.
Munsif on June 26 has an editorial titled ‘Hujoomi Tashaddud?’(mob violence). The newspaper expresses says that minorities believed that things “would improve after the polls, and the fear in the hearts of minorities would ebb. PM Modi had said before he took his oath a second time that his government would work towards the progress of 130 crore people. He had also taken the name of minorities and Muslims and said that we don’t treat them like a vote bank as others do. He had acknowledged that they have the right to better their lives… The PM also said the government would pierce the veil of deception the Muslim had been kept under.” But within days, says the editorial, circumstances again “disappointed Minorities.”
On July 2, Munsif returns to the theme of lynching. It says: “We need the government to make a serious note of all this and prohibit terror-inducing situations and dehshat-pasand log (terror-friendly people) by enacting a law where it is prohibited to force people to chant slogans. Such people who force others to do this must get life imprisonment and even death may be considered. Non-baliable warrants must be issued against them and one of the victims’ children must get a government job and proper compensation.”
Diluting Article 370
The force with which statements to remove Article 370 are being made by Union ministers and those in the ruling party has received much comment.
Inquilab on July 3 speaks of how “a section of our politicians has always stood against the grain of our Constitution”. The paper is alluding to an accommodative and far-sighted drawing up of Article 370, under which Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India. It says: “Amit Shah termed Article 370 as temporary, but he was rebutted point by point by former chief minister of the state, Farooq Abdullah, who said that if the Article is temporary, then the accession of the state is also temporary”. The paper elaborates that “there is no doubt that Narendra Modi and Shah aim to be like other strong leaders of the country. In this quest, they think of Sardar Patel as their ideal… they are perhaps forgetting that even Sardar Patel could not swing Jammu and Kashmir”.
Awadhnama on June 29 states that Amit Shah should look ahead and not backwards. The paper writes: “Shah at one level blames the founder of modern India, Jawaharlal Nehru, as being responsible for Kashmir, but he himself cannot handle today’s Kashmir” The paper links Kashmir and the situation faced by Indian Muslims, since both are exclusionary. It opines that: “The need of the hour is to take Kashmiri youths into confidence and ensure a river of progress flows there. India’s Muslims, too, need to be guaranteed they will be free from mob lynching. Mob lynching is a blot of the face of India.”
Cutting Both Ways
In a thoughtful editorial on July 3, Roznama Rashtriya Sahara discusses social media. It ends by drawing a line, between social media, where non-journalists want to put everything out, as opposed to journalists who must decide what must be put out and how, social concern must be weighed and awareness created without just stoking negativity.
Compiled by Seema Chishti
