The Cheerleaders of Kashmir: When Pseudo-Journalists Become Jingoistic Cheerleaders
Dr. Fiaz Maqbool Fazili
In the complex and often painful tapestry of Kashmir’s contemporary narrative, a peculiar and pervasive phenomenon has taken root—one that substitutes critical thought with cacophonous applause. This is the culture of the cheerleader, a metaphor not for a specific group but for a prevailing attitude that has infected public discourse, particularly within the realms of media and public life.
It is a culture where the slightest gesture from a person of power, position, or prosperity is met not with measured assessment, but with an unseemly race to cheer, to laud, to celebrate the mundane as if it were the miraculous. In this frantic scramble for validation, we Kashmiris have seemingly abandoned the very tools that could guide us toward genuine progress: rational thinking, viewpoint analysis, and the discernment to know when to cheer and, more importantly, when not to.
The digital age has become the grand stadium for this performance. No sooner does a senior bureaucrat upload a photograph of a newly paved road, a politician or cleric inaugurate a departmental store, or a business magnate announce a modest investment, than a chorus of acclaim erupts across social media and news platforms. The achievement, often small and squarely within the scope of their designated responsibilities, is inflated into an act of revolutionary benevolence.
This is not organic public satisfaction; it is a performative ritual, a jingoism of development that brooks no critique. The complex, multifaceted challenges that define life in Kashmir—political uncertainty, economic fragility, psychological trauma, unfulfilled promises of election manifestos—are reduced to a binary. One is either a cheerleader for these sanctioned “successes” or is branded a pessimist, a “cheerleader of grief,” an enemy of a nebulous “new Kashmir.”
This latter term, “cheerleaders of grief,” emerged in a critical piece in the KO media outlet, rightly questioning a passive and unhelpful engagement with tragedy. Yet, the danger lies in how such labels are weaponized to create a false dichotomy. The choice is presented as one between perpetual mourning and relentless, uncritical celebration. This binary strangles the middle ground where sane societies reside—the space for sober analysis, constructive criticism, and accountable governance.
By framing any questioning of the official or popular narrative as an indulgence in grief, the cheerleaders effectively silence the essential voices of dissent and inquiry. They create an environment where the only permissible emotion is a forced, jingoistic optimism.
The consequence of this is a profound and collective self-deception. We cheer the opening of a shopping mall as a sign of “normalcy,” while sidestepping conversations about the economic precarity that makes such luxury inaccessible to the majority. We celebrate the influx of tourists as a return to peace, even as the underlying political tensions remain unaddressed and simmer beneath the surface.
In this race to prove to the world—and perhaps to ourselves—that we are moving on, we have forgotten to ask: moving on to what? And at what cost? The izzat and abroo—the honor and dignity—we as a civil society were aspiring for, the profound resolution we sought, have never been accomplished through these superficial celebrations. Instead, these cheers often feel like a desperate attempt to drown out the echoes of that unresolved past.
This cheerleading culture is particularly damaging when it emanates from those whose primary duty is to question, not to applaud—so-called journalists. When journalism sheds its skin as the fourth estate and dons the pom-poms of a jingoistic cheerleader, it commits a profound betrayal of its mandate. Its role is to interrogate power, to deconstruct narratives, and to give voice to the voiceless.
Yet, a growing segment has become a public relations arm for the powerful, transforming news reports into press releases and analysis into advertisements. They report the announcement of a development project with breathless excitement but fail to follow up on its implementation, its cost overruns, or its actual impact on the community it was meant to serve.
This is not journalism; it is a form of intellectual surrender. It replaces the hard work of investigation with the easy gratification of promotion. In doing so, it robs the public of the information necessary for informed citizenship. How can a society make rational choices about its future if its primary sources of information are dedicated to selling a sanitized version of the present?
This cheerleading creates a hall of mirrors where every reflection is distorted to appear positive, where failures are repackaged as “learning experiences,” and modest, routine administrative actions are heralded as historic breakthroughs. The public is left navigating a landscape without a reliable map, guided only by the misleading cheers of those who have abandoned their posts as guides.
The motivation for this cheerleading is a tangled web. For some in positions of influence, it is a transactional relationship—a way to curry favor with the powerful in exchange for access or privilege. For the burgeoning business class, it is a strategy to build brand value by aligning themselves with a narrative of progress and positivity. For many ordinary citizens, it is a psychological coping mechanism—a way to assert agency in a situation where they often feel powerless.
By embracing and amplifying every positive signal, no matter how small, they attempt to construct a reality that is more palatable than the complex, often grim, one they inhabit.
But this coping mechanism is ultimately a Faustian bargain. By refusing to engage with our reality in all its messy complexity, we mortgage our long-term future for short-term emotional relief. The problems swept under the rug of celebratory tweets do not disappear; they fester. The infrastructure built without robust oversight will crumble. The economic policies crafted without critical input will fail. Ecological disasters and political grievances left unaddressed will continue to breed resentment.
The cheers of today will do little to stem the crises of tomorrow.
What Kashmir needs, desperately, is not more cheerleaders. It needs critics. It needs analysts. It needs journalists who are unafraid to ask the uncomfortable question, to publish the inconvenient fact, to hold the powerful to account rather than holding their coats while they take a victory lap for simply doing their job.
It needs a public discourse that values truth over triumph, substance over spectacle. We must reclaim the courage to be silent when silence is warranted, to question when questioning is necessary, and to withhold our cheers for achievements that are truly worthy of them.
The path to genuine izzat and abroo is paved not with the hollow sound of applause, but with the quiet, determined pursuit of truth, justice, and rational thought. Until we learn that discernment, we remain a society cheering in the stands, oblivious to the fact that the game we are celebrating is one we are steadily losing.
Note:Dr. Fiaz Maqbool Fazili
MBBS; MS (SKIMS); FICS; FICA (USA); MAMS; DTQM; CQPH; FISQua; CTQM (Q&A)
Senior Consultant Surgeon (Surgical Gastroenterology, Onco-Surgery, Breast, GIT, Hernia, Diabetic Foot, Wound Care, Minimal Access, and General Surgery)
