This blog is intended to express my opinion on the narrative presented by the newspaper.
Date: 25.04.2025
The editorial section of The Hindu newspaper published an article titled “Sent Messages.”
It’s hard for me to overlook the tone adopted by The Hindu, and the separatist undertones it frequently employs- often with troubling carelessness. In the very first paragraph of the article, The Hindu, cloaked in its so-called intellectual sophistication—or, as it might defend, its right to free speech—asserts that “India must hear the message sent by the incident.”
Well, I say this: India has heard the message, and is more than ready to respond.
The real question is—has The Hindu? Or is it simply choosing to hide behind its right to free speech? while shirking the responsibility that comes with shaping public opinion?
I raise this point because The Hindu never hesitates to label or specify identities when it suits its narrative. For instance, in the article, the newspaper makes it a point to highlight that a Kashmiri local helped the tourists and tragically lost his life. Why not simply write, “a local from the area fearlessly helped the tourists but unfortunately lost his life”? Why the emphasis on “Kashmiri”?
Why is such regional identification selectively used? Does The Hindu specify regional identity in similar incidents occurring in other parts of the country? Or is this particularity reserved only when it fits a certain ideological framework?
The newspaper goes on to state that incidents like this have affected the Kashmiri economy. But as far as I understand, in a democratic form of governance—especially in a unified nation like ours—there is no concept of a separate economic system for a specific region. The economy is national, interconnected, and inclusive. So why does the newspaper frame it as though Kashmir operates independently in this regard?
Why this choice of words that subtly, yet deliberately, reinforce separatist thinking? Is The Hindu unaware of the implications of such language, or is it knowingly echoing a narrative that aligns with separatist ideology?
Moreover, the paper attempts to link the unrest in the region to the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood by the central government. This is not only misleading—it is factually and socially disconnected. The ground reality is that many residents of Jammu and Kashmir have welcomed the move. They have seen it as an opportunity for progress, integration, and access to the same rights and benefits available to all Indian citizens.
Yet, The Hindu appears unwilling to accept this shift. Instead of reflecting the nuanced sentiments on the ground, the newspaper seems to be engaged in an intellectual exercise aimed at undermining the legitimacy of the decision. One cannot help but question whether The Hindu is trying to reframe the narrative to align with its ideological leanings, rather than present a balanced and ground-based view of the current situation.
Is the objective to inform—or to influence? Because from the tone and content of the editorial, it appears the paper is more interested in resisting the change than reporting on its actual reception.
The newspaper further states—and I quote—“The tragic by-product of the killings is now fear of the possibility that such attacks on tourists may recur, and of the economic pain that this would cause ordinary Kashmiris. New Delhi’s and Srinagar’s responses must keep these in mind and work towards the mitigation of fear and send a clear message—the people of India, including Kashmiris, are united against terror.”
This phrasing—“including Kashmiris”—raises an important question. Why the need to distinguish Kashmiris from “the people of India”? Is Kashmir not an inseparable part of the nation? Why is the newspaper subtly implying otherwise, as if Kashmiris are somehow separate from the Indian mainstream? In a time when national unity is critical, such language only serves to plant seeds of division, consciously or unconsciously.
Now, to clarify the constitutional and political change in question: On August 5, 2019, the Government of India revoked the special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Constitution. Along with this, Article 35A was also rendered inoperative. These provisions had previously allowed the state a certain degree of autonomy—including its own constitution, flag, and decision-making rights in areas other than foreign affairs, defence, and communications.
As part of this revocation, the state was bifurcated into two Union Territories—Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh—to bring it administratively and legally in line with the rest of the country. The move was aimed at fostering greater integration, ensuring equal rights and opportunities for all citizens, and encouraging development and national cohesion in the region.
Since then, many locals have expressed support for this change, citing improvements in governance, investment, and infrastructure. Yet, publications like The Hindu continue to frame the change as something forced or harmful—ignoring ground realities and seemingly clinging to a dated narrative that no longer reflects the aspirations of the region.
Conclusion
Newspapers have the power to inform, influence, and inspire. But with that power comes the responsibility to be precise, balanced, and national in perspective—especially in matters that shape public discourse. The Hindu, in this editorial, seems more focused on crafting a narrative than conveying reality. Its language, tone, and framing choices reflect a reluctance to accept democratic transitions and constitutional decisions.
In the end, journalism must be grounded in truth—not tinted by ideology. And while freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy, so is the duty to uphold national integrity and unity. It’s time for media institutions to reflect on the message they send—clearly, responsibly, and in the interest of one India.
Leave a Reply