Many strands of Shujaat Bukhari’s murder in Srinagar on Thursday resemble those of the assassination of People’s Conference leader Abdul Ghani Lone 16 years ago.
It is so despite the fact that Bukhari was a journalist and Lone a politician, both high-profile. Both were perceived to be seeking to bridge the mutually clashing political ideologies comprising the complex Kashmir matrix.
Retrospectively, it would seem that first Lone and then Bukhari made a fatal miscalculation. Any attempt at crossing the red lines, even with pious intention, amounts to walking into a minefield because elements in Pakistan view it as a hostile act.
Extremist factions of Kashmir-oriented armed insurgent groups based in Pakistan are overly suspicious of individuals as well as groups, on both sides of the Line of Control, which are perceived to be propelling any proposition seeking freezing of status quo on Kashmir between India and Pakistan as a way out of the impasse. They would settle for nothing short of whole of Jammu and Kashmir.
As it is, almost each and every peace move crashes right at that ideological barrier.
Bukhari’s profile did not take long to emerge on the Kashmir scene after he opted for journalism in the 1990s when he joined Ved Bhasin’s Kashmir Times in the thick of insurgency (then spearheaded by pro-Independence Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front). Bukhari’s shifting to The Hindu a few years later substantially elevated his public profile. He was an instinctive journalist and his wider interests buttressed his public image. Bukhari widened his sphere of influence with the help of his talent and aptitude for Kashmir’s cultural and literal life. He soon became a popular face in the Kashmir media and in the rest of India and Pakistan as he engaged in Track Two activities.
His visits to Pakistan, the U.S. and European countries got wide publicity in his own English daily, Rising Kashmir, which he floated after leaving The Hindu. In less than 10 years, his stable expanded with the addition of an Urdu daily, Buland Kashmir, a Kashmiri daily and an Urdu weekly. Bukhari took time off to promote literary and cultural fora floated by his group of publications.
There was nothing he or his products — newspapers and literary and cultural fora — did or say that could place him in the hazardous course of confrontation with any of the local militant or secessionist groups.
To his credit, he gave sufficient coverage to every thought and idea afloat in the over-crowded Kashmir politics.
Bukhari soon became a familiar and popular face in debates on Kashmir on national TV channels. He held his ground against vocal opposition from ultra nationalists, just as he sought to deal with hardcore local armed groups without yielding any ground to them or risking their annoyance.
His publications appeared with a distinct anti-establishment edge, but stopped short of crossing the red line of accession.
Somehow, Bukhari was not able to maintain harmonious relationship with the local press corps. He recently fell out with the main body and floated a parallel one, though hardly with any big name.
Reports from across the LoC published here lately indicated that Bukhari’s venturing into Track Two activities was causing resentment in the pro-establishment militants in Pakistan. They questioned his bona fides in the context of his recent meetings held in the U.S., Turkey and Dubai.
Nobody could have guessed the impending tragedy. Bukhari had come to be seen as one of the few effective, reasonable voices of Kashmir. Ironically, its ugly side became the perceived cause of his tragic end.
(The writer is a veteran Srinagar-based journalist)
