You don`t say!
Darius Nakoonwala
Some events are greeted by such massive approval and applause that even the most cynical and battle-hardened leader writers are obliged to go along with the tide, perhaps out of sheer politeness.
So instead of serving their readers well by presenting a balanced analysis of the event and both its purported and likely outcomes, leader writers are happy to join the chorus.
The visit by George W Bush is a classic example of this. Everyone got carried away, with or without resistance. The reader was left wondering if he was dreaming about heaven.
On such occasions, the cliché also come into its own. Going "down to the wire" is a favourite, as of course, is "historic".
Even the Hindu, not known for using easily comprehensible language said "negotiations may have gone down to the wire but in the end, New Delhi and Washington did manage to reach agreement on the crucial second stage of their ambitious agreement on nuclear cooperation: the plan by which India is to effect a separation between the military and civilian components of its nuclear programme." That sentence has 53 words, and three qualifiers.
The rest of what the Hindu was routine stuff, with one important difference: it congratulated "public debate" (meaning itself) for the fact that the US had given up some of its demands.
The Telegraph also used a cliché. It called the deal "a major diplomatic achievement", especially for India . "The agreement ends decades of India`s isolation from the mainstream of the international nuclear order." Does it? Should not leader writers wait before they pronounce judgment, especially if in the very next senetence you are going to add that "the India-US nuclear deal does not explicitly recognize India as a nuclear weapons state"?
The Indian Express, of course, has emerged as a sort of American Pravda in India. "History is sometimes made, to paraphrase George Bush and Manmohan Singh, by getting rid of history." Ouch! Need I say more?
The Pioneer, poor thing, got caught on the wrong foot. It needed to condemn for political reasons but could not because it was the BJP that had started the whole thing. By describing US`s relations with India as a "strategic partnership" and civil nuclear cooperation as "a necessary agreement" which "will help both our peoples", he has provided more than a glimpse of how Washington perceives New Delhi `s role in the fast-changing matrix of global geo-politics. India has virtually arrived."
But it was the only one to mention Pakistan. "But it would be in order to point out that Gen Musharraf has little to show that he has been successful in containing terrorism within his country or in preventing cross-border terrorism. India has presented the US with documented evidence of terror camps that continue to operate in Pakistan and American agencies are no stranger to the truth about jihad factories that masquerade as madarsas. The death of an American diplomat in Thursday`s suicide bombing should make Mr Bush tell his ally in Islamabad a few harsh truths. India expects the US to accept and acknowledge the reality of Pakistan as the crucible of Islamist fundamentalism."
The Deccan Herald too used many cliches "shaking hands", "landmark agreement" etc. and played safe. No analysis of the downside.
The Hindustan Times was predictable as well. "What he (Bush) did not say was that the agreement, which would upend the traditional US non-proliferation policy, was also a means of signaling that the US has a special place in its mind for India in the emerging world order." Was that good or bad? HT did not say.
No one mentioned nuclear commerce. It could be worth $30 billion to the US in the next ten years. Not much, perhaps, but a lifesaver for the US nuclear industry which has been sitting on its hands for the last 30 years.