Plus ca change...

You don’t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala  

About ten years ago, the Editor of Hoot and I agreed that someone should editorialise on editorials, and this column was born. It started off as a weekly affair. But soon, with the declining relevance of editorials, it became less frequent. Then it stopped altogether for a while until it was revived a few months ago when we tried to breathe some life into it. 

But social media had exploded in the meantime.

As a result, editorials have become even more irrelevant than before. There is no longer any reason to believe that editorials express opinions that are superior merely because they are written by journalists.

To prove this, I suggested that we compare the editorials written about Chinese President Hu Jintao’s visit in 2006 and his successor Xi Jinping’s visit in 2014. It was an utterly depressing experience. The 2006 edits could have been reproduced with names and numbers changed and no one would have known the difference. I decided to start with a pro-Chinese and an anti-Chinese paper.

Hindu and Pioneer...

The newspaper that prides itself on being ‘serious’, namely, the Hindu, when it was being edited by a noted Sinophile in 2006,  took a predictably soft line on China then.

After making the usual noises about the “parallel rise of China and India” and “partners or rivals”, it lapsed into a delirious waffle about not “downplaying the importance of the United States, Russia, the European Union, and Japan”, and then took a swipe at the US about its “inability to establish a world order that is stable and peaceful.” Ergo, China would have to step in.

That salute to China executed to perfection, it said “India and China are partners, not rivals; and that they will go beyond bilateral issues to involve themselves cooperatively on the side of international peace, security, and stability.” This, given China’s claim to Arunachal Pradesh, made a few days before Hu’s visit by his ambassador in Delhi, was rubbish.

The edit ended thus: “The Sino-Indian relationship is certainly headed in the right direction. For the strategic and cooperative partnership to become truly irreversible there must be enhanced political sensitivity, trust, and enthusiasm on both sides.”

The edit on the Xi visit, however, failed to note that for China, nothing had changed. It merely noted the incident on the Line of Actual control in the Chumar region of Ladakh, but that was all. The paper, it would seem, still believes in China’s good intentions.

It also hissed at the US, saying in the very last line that “India and China are entirely capable of managing their relations despite their differences”.

The Pioneer whose archives are non-existent but which, given its pro-BJP stances, can safely be assumed to have severely whipped the UPA government for its softness on Chinese bad manners in 2006, praised Narendra Modi, who also took a soft line in 2014. What was pusillanimity for the UPA was high diplomacy for Modi.

“Prime Minister Narendra Modi has hit the nail on the head in saying that trade, cultural and strategic relations with China will truly prosper when there is peace on the border and when both countries respect each other’s concerns and sensitivities.” Please. Spare us.

It then entered the caveats. “We have two strong leaders who have the mandate to resolve the crisis... The solution will not come overnight, despite the bonhomie that seemed apparent between Mr Modi and Mr Xi...Both New Delhi and Beijing can, in a sense, consider Mr Xi’s visit to India successful.” It would seem that success, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder.

... and the rest

The other papers were more circumspect. The Telegraph wrote in 2006 that “The cause for pessimism is much more fundamental. In Asia, India and China are competing for the same political and economic space. The possibilities of adjustments within this overall contradiction are restricted... (because of) the progress made in the nuclear deal between India and the US.”

But it noted, “the most obvious agenda of Mr Hu’s visit is the economic one...At the present juncture, in any economic agreement between India and China, the former will inevitably be the weaker partner... The India chapter of the visit promises to be high on rhetoric and trivial on substance.”

In 2014 it was consistent. “Relations between India and China have long been held hostage to the myth of ‘historical friendship’...what the two leaders achieved during Mr Xi’s three-day visit to India is inconsequential in comparison to what they failed to achieve...nothing that the two leaders did suggests that they are capable of taking the big leap forward. The same old rhetoric about ‘resolving’ the border dispute and about security “concerns” dominated the exchanges.

The Indian Express, under a know-all editor in 2006, said “few bilateral relationships are more important than this...(but) China and India are neither economic equals nor political allies... attempts to solve their border disputes have continued for long years without breakthrough...agreements (are) limited further by China's long relationship with Pakistan... India and China remain wary of each other.” Wow!

By 2014, Mr Know-It-All had gone. But that made no difference to the banality of the two edits. The first warned India on Xi’s visit to Sri Lanka and the Maldives before he came here and the second, after he had met Modi, focused on praising Modi.

“The headlines... have got the essence of the story rather wrong. What’s new is Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s deliberate choice to expand economic engagement with China while asking the Indian military to respond vigorously to the PLA...” said the Express.

That was MEA spin, nothing else. The fact is that the Chinese themselves devalued the visit.  “Modi,” the paper gushed, “may be taking India out of this self-defeating approach to China marked by public bonhomie and private resentment. By simultaneously signalling toughness on the border and opening up the Indian economy to greater Chinese participation, he is trying to construct a new template for Delhi’s Beijing policy.”

Perhaps. But is China willing?

I could not find the Times of India edit of 2006 but in 2014, it took the lowest common denominator view. “Notwithstanding the pleasant atmospherics, discussions.. took place in the backdrop of the standoff between Indian and Chinese forces in eastern Ladakh...while Modi emphasised resolving the border issue between the two nations, Xi seemed lukewarm on this... it’s nevertheless welcome that both sides didn’t allow such irritants to dampen enhanced economic cooperation.” The rest of the edit was a summary of the PIB release.

The Hindustan Times wrote in 2006 that the problem was Chinese ambivalence towards India – as a strategic adversary and a huge market from which it could benefit.

It then warned China that it was being stupid because Indian’s allies – US and Japan – were far better than China’s – Pakistan. Good point.

But by 2014, a new editor had come in. The edit skimmed over the negatives and focussed on the positives, like the “promised investments of $20 billion in India’s infrastructure and manufacturing sectors over the next five years... These (investments) have to go to state governments, most of which are ruled by non-BJP parties, for a plethora of clearances. And many of these governments have not reformed ponderous procedures that delay projects while allowing local politicians and officials to extract rent in return for approvals.”

The Economic Times focused solely on the border issue and the Business Standard, which wrote two edits, one pre- and one post the visit, wrote watery edits that left the reader none the wiser.

Amazingly, no one criticised China for peeing on the Indian doorstep just before entering. That, if you ask me, is the true measure of China’s influence. Even editors purr or wag their little tails.

Such articles are only possible because of your support. Help the Hoot. The Hoot is an independent initiative of the Media Foundation and requires funds for independent media monitoring. Please support us. Every rupee helps.