Today's editorial in The Hindu categorically tells us that China has entered Indian territory. You would then assume that the editorial will go on to condemn this act of aggression by China and how their bullying tactics have led to increased tensions along the border at a time when their other virus, Corona is creating havoc in India and the world. You would assume that the editorial will ask China to immediately back off from these provocations and focus on the bigger task at hand. You would assume that the editorial will praise the Indian Army for valiantly fighting to retrieve our territory.
Not surprisingly though, the editorial does none of this. No condemnation of China; not even a mild criticism of China (especially when we are told China came into our territory). Instead, the onus is also on India to show “some honest commitment to abide fully by any agreement", otherwise “talks with Beijing at this point might not mean more than empty words”.
One can argue that the advice to “show some honest commitment” is for both countries. If so, why the reference to “talks with Beijing” instead of saying “talks between both the countries”? The Hindu is normally at the forefront on being judgmental on anything and everything in the world. What explains their silence in not condemning China’s aggression? Worse, where do they get the gall to suggest that despite China’s boorish behaviour it is India that needs to show “honest commitment”?
Does their chicanery end here? No, they have an Op-Ed too. We are told that “While India’s border infrastructure is only now catching up with the infrastructure China built…”. We are also told that the idea of building infrastructure was seeded in the mid-1950s by Nehru. There is no “analysis” as to why our infrastructure is only “now catching up” instead of being on par since the mid-1950s when Nehru came up with this idea! No critical arguments either on why we took so long to catch up with China on this front. Only a reminder that the idea was seeded by Nehru.
We are also told in this op-ed that the Indian-Bhutan bonhomie and agreements helped India during the Doklam standoff “in the face of severe pressure from China”. Now, do you recollect any articles at that time (2017) condemning China for this cheap act of “severe pressure”. Surely, one can condemn one’s neighbour for inflicting unnecessary troubles on oneself, right? You don’t have to be a “bhakt” or a “nationalist” to simply condemn acts of aggression and pressures by other countries. Why the silence at that point of time too?
And of course, everything has to boil down to the abrogation of Article 370. So, we are told that “Finally, it is necessary to introspect on how India’s own reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019 has changed the security matrix and threat parameters for India,”
Necessary to introspect? It is necessary to introspect why such an article stayed on for 70 years and not why China is behaving weirdly because of a decision India took. We are told that China issued a “warning that the move was unacceptable and will not come into force”. What standing does China even have to comment on this, leave alone issuing a warning on the same? Do we now take decision based on whether China will be happy or not? How will China ensure that a decision of the Indian Parliament “will not come into force”? Why doesn’t The Hindu condemn these cheap acts of unnecessary aggression by China instead of advising India to take China’s feelings into account each time a decision is made?
It is worrying (though not surprising) that The Hindu leaves all objectivity aside and asks to pretty much surrender to the whims and fancies of China. No wonder China feels emboldened in wanting to be controlling the media narrative in our country too. Surely, we deserve better.
0 comments:
Post a Comment