In 1997, four years before the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., journalists from CNN interviewed Osama bin Laden in a cave in a remote mountain in Afghanistan. When they asked the al-Qaeda chief, once an ally of the U.S.- and Pakistan-trained mujahideen in Afghanistan who fought against Soviet troops, about his future plans, bin Laden replied, “You’ll see them and hear about them in the media, God willing.” Back then, he was wanted for terror attacks in Africa and Saudi Arabia. When the 9/11 attacks took place in 2001, the journalists, Peter Bergen and Peter Arnett, were in great demand for their insights into the man who could have masterminded attacks that left thousands dead. Both men went on to write bestsellers on that encounter.
At the time, interviewing terrorists, guerrilla fighters, and revolutionaries was seen as a part of any credible journalist’s repertoire. At the beginning of the LTTE’s violent attacks in Sri Lanka in 1983, TIME magazine’s Anita Pratap interviewed Velupillai Prabhakaran. In 2002, more than 10 years after he masterminded the assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, and several other Sri Lankan leaders, Prabhakaran decided to hold a press conference in the deep forests of Kilinochchi. Three hundred journalists from around the world flew to Sri Lanka to attend it.
I remember travelling to remote parts of Jammu and Kashmir in 1995, where Pakistan-backed separatist groups were being trained in camps. These local groups were responsible for killing hundreds of people, including Kashmiri Pandits, forcing the Pandit community to flee the Valley. It was imperative to contextualise their words and fact-check their claims, speak to officials from the government and the military who countered their narrative, as well as bring in the victims’ stories; no one suggested that we should not speak to the militants. On the other hand, journalists were seen as adding an extra perspective to these conflicts through such interviews. In some cases, they even played the role of intermediaries.
