The poverty of comment

IN Opinion | 17/04/2005

You don`t say!

Darius Nakhoonwala

Ordinarily, opinion on public policy falls under two broad rubrics: pro-government or anti-government. But when it comes to foreign policy, newspapers never take an anti-government stand. Instead, it becomes a pro-MEA vs. anti-MEA (or pro-PMO) stand. Last week`s visit by prime minister Wen Ji-bao of China was not very different. The MEA`s views were completely ignored.

The Hindu, which can see no wrong with anything the UPA government does (it was very kind to it even over the Jharkhand governor episode) was its usual gushing self. "There can be no doubt that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Premier Wen Jiabao have taken relations between India and China to a qualitatively new plane, in the process emerging as taller leaders in the eyes of the world." Ouch!

The edit was generously strewn with words like new and visionary. "Premier Wen`s meetings mark a paradigm shift in how these Asian partners perceive each other." It then went on breathlessly about this and that positive aspect of the border-related agreement before finally coming to the clever Chinese bit. "the commitment to give due consideration to the ‘historical evidence, national sentiments, practical difficulties, and reasonable concerns and sensitivities’ of both sides."

The paper failed to see the real significance of this sentence, namely the historical evidence bit. These two words give China the right to be as intransigent as ever. Real meaning: progress only on their terms. The rest of the edit was an exercise in space-filling. For it, the Pakistan-China nexus did not exist, nor did China`s attempts to fuel trouble for India with its other neighbours. It also failed to make the point that China recognition of Sikkim as a part of India comes only after India went nuclear.

The Telegraph was more down-to-earth. After calling the visit an "outstanding success" the edit warned that "it would be naïve to assume that China will not present a strategic challenge to India, and New Delhi must, therefore, continue to prepare for this possibility." Thus "Beijing has clearly regarded a nuclear-armed Pakistan as a crucial regional ally and as a vital counterweight to India`s growing capabilities. While the movement on Sikkim is encouraging, Beijing`s refusal to recognize Arunachal Pradesh as a part of India, Chinese inroads into Myanmar, including the reported construction of a Chinese naval facility on the Coco islands, and Beijing`s recent overtures to the monarchy in Nepal should be of deep strategic concern to India."

But it too fell for the piece of disinformation that came out of the PMO that "China has formally supported India`s candidature for a permanent seat in the United Nations security council." No such thing happened.

The Indian Express, which sees itself as the third pillar of the foreign policy-making apparatus, was its usual patronising self. It called the `guiding principles` that were announced for resolving the boundary dispute "a big breakthrough".  It then made a huge leap on the basis of Article III which "underlines the importance of "meaningful and mutually acceptable adjustments to their respective positions." Translation: both sides have to make territorial concessions.

With this one sentence it gave away how little knows about China or, if that be the case, how much it wants to please the government. According to it, the deal in making is that China will give in on Arunchal and India on Aksai Chin. A worse interpretation I have yet to see.

The Hindi newspaper Hiindustan took similar positions, that is, laudatory but cautious. The Navbharat Times also took a nuanced view, which leads me to the conclusion that perhaps the leader writers in the English dailies should wait for the Hindi papers before sounding off. 

The Business Standard likened diplomacy with China to a Chinese banquet. "You know when it has started but you don`t know when it will end because there are so many little dishes that keep coming along. The recently concluded visit of the Chinese prime minister, Wen Ji-bao, is best viewed as just one more of those dishes, and the agreements signed (12, no less) as the little sauces that accompany them. The process started 17 years ago in 1988, it has been going along since then in small increments, and no one knows what it will lead to and when."

It warned India not to be taken in by China which, even at the best of times, is a difficult country to deal with. "The truth is that China does not want India to emerge to challenge it."

Send feedback to editor@thehoot.org