Chindia Alert: You’ll be Living in their World Very Soon
aims to alert you to the threats and opportunities that China and India present. China and India require serious attention; case of ‘hidden dragon and crouching tiger’.
Without this attention, governments, businesses and, indeed, individuals may find themselves at a great disadvantage sooner rather than later.
The POSTs (front webpages) are mainly 'cuttings' from reliable sources, updated continuously.
The PAGEs (see Tabs, above) attempt to make the information more meaningful by putting some structure to the information we have researched and assembled since 2006.
Rahul Ganghi at a rally in Sriganganagar, Rajastan, on Tuesday. (Congress/Twitter)
Congress president Rahul Gandhi on Tuesday said the promise of minimum income guarantee is his party’s “surgical strike on poverty” that will ensure there is no poor in the country after 2019. Gandhi said the Congress’s promise of minimum income guarantee is “an explosion”.
“It will set off a bomb…This is the Congress’s surgical strike on poverty. They (the BJP) tried to eliminate the poor. We will eliminate poverty,” said Gandhi at a public rally in Rajasthan’s Ganganagar.
‘Surgical strike on poverty’: Rahul Gandhi counters BJP on minimum income promise
A day after the Bharatiya Janata Party tried to discredit the Congress’ promise of a minimum income guarantee scheme in case it comes to power, Congress President Rahul Gandhi countered the BJP’s criticism.
Gandhi hit out at the Narendra Modi government in his speech alleging that the current regime has brought back people who were uplifted from the below poverty line by the Congress-led UPA rule. “The fact that 25 crore people are living in poverty in the 21st century India is a shame,” Gandhi said.
The Congress president said nowhere such a scheme has ever been implemented. “There should not be a single poor person in the country,” he said addressing the Congress’s Jan Sankalp Rally at Suratgarh in Ganganagar district.
On Monday, Gandhi promised that his party would, if it comes to power, guarantee an income of at least Rs 12,000 a month for 20 per cent of India’s poorest families by giving them Rs 6,000 a month. He said the minimum income guarantee scheme, named NYAY (standing for Nyuntam Aay Yojana) meaning justice, would cover 5 crore families or 25 crore people, who constitute the poorest 20 per cent of Indian households.
The scheme, if implemented, is expected to cost Rs 3.6 lakh crore, around 2 per cent of India’s GDP. Gandhi has insisted that it is fiscally prudent.
At his Rajasthan rally, Gandhi said Prime Minister Narendra Modi has tried to “create two Indias” in the last five years giving all the benefits of the government to select few rich people while insisting that if voted to power, the Congress will eradicate poverty completely.
“If Narendra Modi can give money to the rich, the Congress will give money to the poor,” said Gandhi, who also took a swipe at the prime minister’s chowkidar campaign. The Congress president said PM Modi is a chowkidar but “serves rich people like Anil Ambani instead of the poor”.
The BJP has rejected the minimum income guarantee promise of Gandhi with Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley calling it a “bluff announcement” in his blog. Jaitley also said that the total promised by the Congress (Rs 72,000 a year) is just around two-thirds of what the NDA gives the poor.
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGESImage captionAn Indian man watches the news broadcasting images of the released Indian pilot
As tensions between India and Pakistan escalated following a deadly suicide attack last month, there was another battle being played out on the airwaves. Television stations in both countries were accused of sensationalism and partiality. But how far did they take it? The BBC’s Rajini Vaidyanathan in Delhi and Secunder Kermani in Islamabad take a look.
It was drama that was almost made for television.
The relationship between India and Pakistan – tense at the best of times – came to a head on 26 February when India announced it had launched airstrikes on militant camps in Pakistan’s Balakot region as “retaliation” for a suicide attack that had killed 40 troops in Indian-administered Kashmir almost two weeks earlier.
A day later, on 27 February, Pakistan shot down an Indian jet fighter and captured its pilot.
Abhinandan Varthaman was freed as a “peace gesture”, and Pakistan PM Imran Khan warned that neither country could afford a miscalculation, with a nuclear arsenal on each side.
Suddenly people were hooked, India’s TV journalists included.
Image copyrightAFPImage captionIndian PM Narendra Modi is accused of exploiting India-Pakistan hostilities for political gain
So were they more patriots than journalists?
Rajini Vaidyanathan: Indian television networks showed no restraint when it came to their breathless coverage of the story. Rolling news was at fever pitch.
The coverage often fell into jingoism and nationalism, with headlines such as “Pakistan teaches India a lesson”, “Dastardly Pakistan”, and “Stay Calm and Back India” prominently displayed on screens.
Some reporters and commentators called for India to use missiles and strike back. One reporter in south India hosted an entire segment dressed in combat fatigues, holding a toy gun.
And while I was reporting on the return of the Indian pilot at the international border between the two countries in the northern city of Amritsar, I saw a woman getting an Indian flag painted on her cheek. “I’m a journalist too,” she said, as she smiled at me in slight embarrassment.
Print journalist Salil Tripathi wrote a scathing critique of the way reporters in both India and Pakistan covered the events, arguing they had lost all sense of impartiality and perspective. “Not one of the fulminating television-news anchors exhibited the criticality demanded of their profession,” she said.
Media captionIndia and Pakistan’s ‘war-mongering’ media
Secunder Kermani: Shortly after shooting down at least one Indian plane last week, the Pakistani military held a press conference.
As it ended, the journalists there began chanting “Pakistan Zindabad” (Long Live Pakistan). It wasn’t the only example of “journalistic patriotism” during the recent crisis.
Two anchors from private channel 92 News donned military uniforms as they presented the news – though other Pakistani journalists criticised their decision.
But on the whole, while Indian TV presenters angrily demanded military action, journalists in Pakistan were more restrained, with many mocking what they called the “war mongering and hysteria” across the border.
In response to Indian media reports about farmers refusing to export tomatoes to Pakistan anymore for instance, one popular presenter tweeted about a “Tomatical strike” – a reference to Indian claims they carried out a “surgical strike” in 2016 during another period of conflict between the countries.
Media analyst Adnan Rehmat noted that while the Pakistani media did play a “peace monger as opposed to a warmonger” role, in doing so, it was following the lead of Pakistani officials who warned against the risks of escalation, which “served as a cue for the media.”
What were they reporting?
Rajini Vaidyanathan: As TV networks furiously broadcast bulletins from makeshift “war rooms” complete with virtual reality missiles, questions were raised not just about the reporters but what they were reporting.
Indian channels were quick to swallow the government version of events, rather than question or challenge it, said Shailaja Bajpai, media editor at The Print. “The media has stopped asking any kind of legitimate questions, by and large,” she said. “There’s no pretence of objectiveness.”
In recent years in fact, a handful of commentators have complained about the lack of critical questioning in the Indian media.
Image copyrightAFPImage captionIndians celebrated news of the strikes
“For some in the Indian press corps the very thought of challenging the ‘official version’ of events is the equivalent of being anti-national”, said Ms Bajpai. “We know there have been intelligence lapses but nobody is questioning that.”
Senior defence and science reporter Pallava Bagla agreed. “The first casualty in a war is always factual information. Sometimes nationalistic fervour can make facts fade away,” he said.
This critique isn’t unique to India, or even this period in time. During the 2003 Iraq war, western journalists embedded with their country’s militaries were also, on many occasions, simply reporting the official narrative.
Secunder Kermani: In Pakistan, both media and public reacted with scepticism to Indian claims about the damage caused by the airstrikes in Balakot, which India claimed killed a large number of Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) militants in a training camp.
Hamid Mir, one of the most influential TV anchors in the country travelled to the area and proclaimed, “We haven’t seen any such (militant) infrastructure… we haven’t seen any bodies, any funerals.”
“Actually,” he paused, “We have found one body… this crow.” The camera panned down to a dead crow, while Mr Mir asked viewers if the crow “looks like a terrorist or not?”
There seems to be no evidence to substantiate Indian claims that a militant training camp was hit, but other journalists working for international outlets, including the BBC, found evidence of a madrassa, linked to JeM, near the site.
Image copyrightPLANET LABS INC./HANDOUT VIA REUTERSImage captionThe satellite image shows a close-up of a madrassa near Balakot in Pakistan’s Khyber Paktunkhwa
A photo of a signpost giving directions to the madrassa even surfaced on social media. It described the madrassa as being “under the supervision of Masood Azhar”. Mr Azhar is the founder of JeM.
The signpost’s existence was confirmed by a BBC reporter and Al Jazeera, though by the time Reuters visited it had apparently been removed. Despite this, the madrassa and its links received little to no coverage in the Pakistani press.
Media analyst Adnan Rehmat told the BBC that “there was no emphasis on investigating independently or thoroughly enough” the status of the madrassa.
In Pakistan, reporting on alleged links between the intelligence services and militant groups is often seen as a “red line”. Journalists fear for their physical safety, whilst editors know their newspapers or TV channels could face severe pressure if they publish anything that could be construed as “anti-state”.
Who did it better: Khan or Modi?
Rajini Vaidyanathan: With a general election due in a few months, PM Narendra Modi continued with his campaign schedule, mentioning the crisis in some of his stump speeches. But he never directly addressed the ongoing tensions through an address to the nation or a press conference.
This was not a surprise. Mr Modi rarely holds news conference or gives interviews to the media. When news of the suicide attack broke, Mr Modi was criticised for continuing with a photo shoot.
Image copyrightAFPImage captionImran Khan was praised for his measured approach
The leader of the main opposition Congress party, Rahul Gandhi, dubbed him a “Prime Time Minister” claiming the PM had carried on filming for three hours. PM Modi has also been accused of managing his military response as a way to court votes.
At a campaign rally in his home state of Gujarat he seemed unflustered by his critics, quipping “they’re busy with strikes on Modi, and Modi is launching strikes on terror.”
Secunder Kermani: Imran Khan won praise even from many of his critics in Pakistan, for his measured approach to the conflict. In two appearances on state TV, and one in parliament, he appeared firm, but also called for dialogue with India.
His stance helped set the comparatively more measured tone for Pakistani media coverage.
Officials in Islamabad, buoyed by Mr Khan’s decision to release the captured Indian pilot, have portrayed themselves as the more responsible side, which made overtures for peace.
On Twitter, a hashtag calling for Mr Khan to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize was trending for a while. But his lack of specific references to JeM, mean internationally there is likely to be scepticism, at least initially, about his claims that Pakistan will no longer tolerate militant groups targeting India.
This was the message of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the Indian Army Special Forces’ commandos who went across the Line of Control (LoC) on September 28, 2016 to carry out surgical strikes at terrorist camps in Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir.
“Come back before sunrise, irrespective of the success or failure of the mission”.
This was the message of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the Indian Army Special Forces’ commandos who went across the Line of Control (LoC) on September 28, 2016 to carry out surgical strikes at terrorist camps in Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir.
Modi, while revealing details of the military action for the first time, told ANI in an interview that the date of the attack was changed twice, keeping in mind the safety and security of the troops.
The strikes were carried out days after terrorists attacked an Army camp in Uri in Kashmir, killing 20 soldiers.
The Prime Minister said the surgical strikes were planned as there was a “rage” building up within him as well as the Army after soldiers were burnt alive in the terror attack in Uri.
“I gave clear orders that whether you get success or failure, don’t think about that but come back before sunrise. Don’t fall for the lure and prolong it (the operation),” he said, turning a bit emotional while discussing that operation.
Emphasising that he was determined to see that none of the soldiers died in the operation, he said he had told them that they must return before sunrise even if they fail.
The Prime Minister revealed that he was keeping tab of the risky operation throughout the night and was getting live information.
“I knew it was a big risk. I never care about any political risk to me. The biggest consideration for me was the safety of our soldiers,” he said.
He said he didn’t want any harm to come to the commandos who were “willing to sacrifice their lives on our word.”
The Prime Minister disclosed that the commandos for the operation were chosen carefully and then imparted special training. Whatever equipment was required, it was arranged for them, he said.
He said he was “anxious” throughout the time the soldiers were on the other side of the LoC and the moments became “extremely difficult” when the information flow stopped for about an hour in the morning.
“In the morning, information flow stopped, for an hour. My anxiety increased. Even one hour after sunrise. That time was extremely difficult for me… Then came the information that they have not reached back yet but two-three units have reached the safe zone, so don’t worry. But I said I won’t be fine till the last man returns,” Modi said.
On politicisation of the surgical strikes, the Prime Minister said it was not done by the government but by opposition parties, which “raised questions” over the military action and cited the Pakistani version to “lend weight to their doubts”.
The Prime Minister said that even before the country was informed about the strikes, Pakistan was told about it.
“An Army officer apprised the nation (India) of the operation. That information was given to Pakistan as well… But it is unfortunate for the country that the same day (of the surgical strike), leaders of some parties raised doubts over the surgical strikes,” Modi said.
“It was necessary for Pakistan to speak like this (to deny), to keep their morale intact. But what Pakistan was saying, was being said here too. To lend weight to their views, they were citing Pakistani version. Politicisation started from that point,” he added.
Delhi CM and AAP supremo Arvind Kejriwal in a series of tweets post surgical strikes raised doubts over the veracity of the Government’s claims. Kejriwal said that Pakistan had invited foreign journalists to view their side of the border to ascertain claims of a surgical strike. “BJP I believe you. But international media publishing Pak propaganda that no strike took place. Lets expose Pak propaganda,” tweeted Arvind Kejriwal on October 4th, 2016.
PM Modi added that the opposition leaders were speaking “rubbish” and “those who raised doubts over the Army action, were wrong and such politicisation should not have happened”.
Modi said lauding the valour of soldiers from all operations including the 1962 war with China was the duty of the government and citizens.
“If we don’t hail the valour of those who stake their lives for the country, then who will? So praising the Army should not be considered as politicisation,” he said.
The Prime Minister was asked whether the objectives of the surgical strikes were met, considering that cross-LoC attacks still continue in Kashmir.
In response, he said he would not like to discuss the issue in open domain.
But then he went on to add, “Ek ladai se Pakistan sudhar jayega, yeh sochne mein bahut badi galti hogi. Pakistan ko sudarne mein abhi aur samay lagega (It will be a big mistake to think that Pakistan will start behaving after one fight. It will take a long time for Pakistan to start behaving).
Talking about the Uri attack, Modi said, “That incident made me restless and there was rage within me. I had gone to Kerala and made a mention of this. Because I could not stop myself.
Modi said that while talking to the Army, he realised that they wanted justice for their martyred soldiers and the government gave them the “free hand” to plan and execute the surgical strikes.
Special training was imparted to the commandos and secrecy was maintained.
“The topography and obstacles were kept in consideration… It was a learning experience for me as well,” Modi said.
In September 2016, terrorists of Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed entered the Army camp in Uri near the Line of Control and killed 20 soldiers in the attack.
In retaliation, the Indian Army troops including the commandos from various units of the Para (Special Forces) units deployed in Jammu and Kashmir carried out raids across the border on multiple targets.
All these targets were launch pads for terrorists for infiltrating into Jammu and Kashmir for carrying out attacks against military and civilian targets.
Though the security forces are not sure about the exact number of casualties on the Pakistan side but based on post-operation intercepts and movements, it is believed that it had suffered around 50 casualties including its regular Army soldiers who were deployed for protecting the terror camps.
From the Indian side, only one soldier had suffered injury due to a personnel mine explosion while returning from the operation.
RAM TEMPLE
PM Modi suggested that the judicial process was being slowed down because Congress lawyers were creating “obstacles” in the Supreme Court.
“We have said in our BJP manifesto that a solution would be found to this issue under the ambit of the Constitution,” the Prime Minister said about the Ram temple matter when asked whether the Ram Mandir issue had been relegated as merely an emotive issue for the BJP.
The BJP, as articulated in its manifesto, wants building of a majestic Ram temple in Ayodhya. Recently, there has been a renewed pitch within the party as well as by its sister organisations in the Sangh Parivar for expediting the process of construction of the temple.
The Sangh Parivar organisations have expressed unhappiness over the delay in resolving the matter and there are demands for promulgating an Ordinance, similar to the one issued on Triple Talaq, to facilitate construction of a temple.
The demand for Ordinance has been articulated even by BJP’s ally the Shiv Sena.
Asked whether the government could consider issuing an Ordinance on Ram temple, the Prime Minister pointed out that the matter is before the Supreme Court and possibly in the final stages.
“Let the judicial process be over. After the judicial process is over, whatever will be our responsibility as the government, we are ready to make all efforts,” he added.
The matter is slated to be heard by the Supreme Court on January 4.
CHINDIA ALERT: You'll be living in their world, very soon 
India and Pakistan: How the war was fought in TV studios
As tensions between India and Pakistan escalated following a deadly suicide attack last month, there was another battle being played out on the airwaves. Television stations in both countries were accused of sensationalism and partiality. But how far did they take it? The BBC’s Rajini Vaidyanathan in Delhi and Secunder Kermani in Islamabad take a look.
It was drama that was almost made for television.
The relationship between India and Pakistan – tense at the best of times – came to a head on 26 February when India announced it had launched airstrikes on militant camps in Pakistan’s Balakot region as “retaliation” for a suicide attack that had killed 40 troops in Indian-administered Kashmir almost two weeks earlier.
A day later, on 27 February, Pakistan shot down an Indian jet fighter and captured its pilot.
Abhinandan Varthaman was freed as a “peace gesture”, and Pakistan PM Imran Khan warned that neither country could afford a miscalculation, with a nuclear arsenal on each side.
Suddenly people were hooked, India’s TV journalists included.
So were they more patriots than journalists?
Rajini Vaidyanathan: Indian television networks showed no restraint when it came to their breathless coverage of the story. Rolling news was at fever pitch.
The coverage often fell into jingoism and nationalism, with headlines such as “Pakistan teaches India a lesson”, “Dastardly Pakistan”, and “Stay Calm and Back India” prominently displayed on screens.
Some reporters and commentators called for India to use missiles and strike back. One reporter in south India hosted an entire segment dressed in combat fatigues, holding a toy gun.
And while I was reporting on the return of the Indian pilot at the international border between the two countries in the northern city of Amritsar, I saw a woman getting an Indian flag painted on her cheek. “I’m a journalist too,” she said, as she smiled at me in slight embarrassment.
Print journalist Salil Tripathi wrote a scathing critique of the way reporters in both India and Pakistan covered the events, arguing they had lost all sense of impartiality and perspective. “Not one of the fulminating television-news anchors exhibited the criticality demanded of their profession,” she said.
Secunder Kermani: Shortly after shooting down at least one Indian plane last week, the Pakistani military held a press conference.
As it ended, the journalists there began chanting “Pakistan Zindabad” (Long Live Pakistan). It wasn’t the only example of “journalistic patriotism” during the recent crisis.
Two anchors from private channel 92 News donned military uniforms as they presented the news – though other Pakistani journalists criticised their decision.
But on the whole, while Indian TV presenters angrily demanded military action, journalists in Pakistan were more restrained, with many mocking what they called the “war mongering and hysteria” across the border.
In response to Indian media reports about farmers refusing to export tomatoes to Pakistan anymore for instance, one popular presenter tweeted about a “Tomatical strike” – a reference to Indian claims they carried out a “surgical strike” in 2016 during another period of conflict between the countries.
Media analyst Adnan Rehmat noted that while the Pakistani media did play a “peace monger as opposed to a warmonger” role, in doing so, it was following the lead of Pakistani officials who warned against the risks of escalation, which “served as a cue for the media.”
What were they reporting?
Rajini Vaidyanathan: As TV networks furiously broadcast bulletins from makeshift “war rooms” complete with virtual reality missiles, questions were raised not just about the reporters but what they were reporting.
Indian channels were quick to swallow the government version of events, rather than question or challenge it, said Shailaja Bajpai, media editor at The Print. “The media has stopped asking any kind of legitimate questions, by and large,” she said. “There’s no pretence of objectiveness.”
In recent years in fact, a handful of commentators have complained about the lack of critical questioning in the Indian media.
“For some in the Indian press corps the very thought of challenging the ‘official version’ of events is the equivalent of being anti-national”, said Ms Bajpai. “We know there have been intelligence lapses but nobody is questioning that.”
Senior defence and science reporter Pallava Bagla agreed. “The first casualty in a war is always factual information. Sometimes nationalistic fervour can make facts fade away,” he said.
This critique isn’t unique to India, or even this period in time. During the 2003 Iraq war, western journalists embedded with their country’s militaries were also, on many occasions, simply reporting the official narrative.
Secunder Kermani: In Pakistan, both media and public reacted with scepticism to Indian claims about the damage caused by the airstrikes in Balakot, which India claimed killed a large number of Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) militants in a training camp.
Hamid Mir, one of the most influential TV anchors in the country travelled to the area and proclaimed, “We haven’t seen any such (militant) infrastructure… we haven’t seen any bodies, any funerals.”
“Actually,” he paused, “We have found one body… this crow.” The camera panned down to a dead crow, while Mr Mir asked viewers if the crow “looks like a terrorist or not?”
There seems to be no evidence to substantiate Indian claims that a militant training camp was hit, but other journalists working for international outlets, including the BBC, found evidence of a madrassa, linked to JeM, near the site.
A photo of a signpost giving directions to the madrassa even surfaced on social media. It described the madrassa as being “under the supervision of Masood Azhar”. Mr Azhar is the founder of JeM.
The signpost’s existence was confirmed by a BBC reporter and Al Jazeera, though by the time Reuters visited it had apparently been removed. Despite this, the madrassa and its links received little to no coverage in the Pakistani press.
Media analyst Adnan Rehmat told the BBC that “there was no emphasis on investigating independently or thoroughly enough” the status of the madrassa.
In Pakistan, reporting on alleged links between the intelligence services and militant groups is often seen as a “red line”. Journalists fear for their physical safety, whilst editors know their newspapers or TV channels could face severe pressure if they publish anything that could be construed as “anti-state”.
Who did it better: Khan or Modi?
Rajini Vaidyanathan: With a general election due in a few months, PM Narendra Modi continued with his campaign schedule, mentioning the crisis in some of his stump speeches. But he never directly addressed the ongoing tensions through an address to the nation or a press conference.
This was not a surprise. Mr Modi rarely holds news conference or gives interviews to the media. When news of the suicide attack broke, Mr Modi was criticised for continuing with a photo shoot.
The leader of the main opposition Congress party, Rahul Gandhi, dubbed him a “Prime Time Minister” claiming the PM had carried on filming for three hours. PM Modi has also been accused of managing his military response as a way to court votes.
At a campaign rally in his home state of Gujarat he seemed unflustered by his critics, quipping “they’re busy with strikes on Modi, and Modi is launching strikes on terror.”
Secunder Kermani: Imran Khan won praise even from many of his critics in Pakistan, for his measured approach to the conflict. In two appearances on state TV, and one in parliament, he appeared firm, but also called for dialogue with India.
His stance helped set the comparatively more measured tone for Pakistani media coverage.
Officials in Islamabad, buoyed by Mr Khan’s decision to release the captured Indian pilot, have portrayed themselves as the more responsible side, which made overtures for peace.
On Twitter, a hashtag calling for Mr Khan to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize was trending for a while. But his lack of specific references to JeM, mean internationally there is likely to be scepticism, at least initially, about his claims that Pakistan will no longer tolerate militant groups targeting India.
Source: The BBC
Posted in Adnan Rehmat, airstrikes, airwaves, Al Jazeera, Balakot, BBC, BBC reporter, campaign schedule, casualty, combat fatigues, commentators, congress party, critical questioning, Dastardly Pakistan, Delhi, escalation, factual information, fought, general election, Hamid Mir, hashtag, Imran Khan, India alert, Indian jet fighter, international border, Islamabad, Islamist militant groups, Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), JeM, jingoism and nationalism, Journalist, Kashmir, madrassa, Masood Azhar, Media analyst, media editor, militant camps, militants, missiles, nationalistic fervour, Nobel Peace Prize, Pakistan, Pakistani, Pakistani military, Pallava Bagla, pilot, PM Narendra Modi, press, press conference, Prime Time Minister, rahul gandhi, Rajini Vaidyanathan, red line, retaliation, Reuters, Salil Tripathi, Secunder Kermani, Senior defence and science reporter, sensationalism and partiality, Shailaja Bajpai, signpost's, suicide attack, Surgical strike, The Print, Tomatical strike, toy gun, training camp, TV anchors, TV journalists, TV studios, Twitter, Uncategorized, war, war mongering and hysteria, warmonger, Wg Cdr Abhinandan Varthaman | Leave a Comment »