Author: Chidanand Rajghatta
Publication: The Times of India
Date: September 28, 2003
URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/xml/uncomp/articleshow?msid=205373
The Indian PM's annual visit to
the United States produces ritual bellyaching among Indians both in India
and the US about how little coverage he is getting in the American media
vis-a-vis Pakistan and its leader.
This year, once again, Gen Mush-arraf
was all over the western media, speaking to ABC, BBC, CBC and every other
BC, including three chats with CNN (for its domestic, international, and
business programmes). In contrast, there was no Vajpayee at all in the
US media.
Indian officials provide their own
spin to what some see as a media drubbing, ascribing lofty meanings to
Vajpayee's reticence. He is a philosopher-poet, a man of few words, above
such mundane concerns, etc. The Pakistanis need to talk, they say, because
they stand condemned before the bar of world opinion and have to explain
themselves constantly. Vajpayee doesn't need to indulge in a gabfest.
Fortunately though, India itself
speaks louder and clearer than Vajpayee, whose days as a great communicator,
alas, are long past. There was a time when we complained endlessly about
the negative coverage and portrayal of India and Indians in the west. But
try this sample of the coverage in the US media during the week Vajpayee
was in the US.
From a Washington Post story on
India's growing middle class to a Wall Street Journal report headlined
'India's elephantine economy may be poised to run', the country's growth
was an everyday event. The New York Times reported on whether India's new
frontier is electronics while several news outlets ran stories on India
becoming the most preferred destination for the American automobile manufacturing
business. There was the usual clutch of stories on India's IT sector and
on outsourcing. There was also a good deal of coverage in the mainstream
media about Indian arts, culture, literature, cinema. The NYT may not have
even mentioned Vajpayee's name in the time he was here, but it reviewed
Vidya Murthy's Pushpanjali dance and Deepa Mehta's Bollywood-Hollywood.
The Washington Post had a story on an Indian woman's effort to promote
alternative therapies such as ayurveda and reiki, and India's first community
radio effort.
The Indian flavour is not restricted
to the big media. India and Indians now feature regularly in Middle America.
In the last week alone, the Daily Pennsylvanian had a story on Pepsi President
Indra Nooyi, the Oregonian wrote about a Kuchipudi performance by Swapnasundari,
the Houston Chronicle featured John McLaughlin on his collaboration with
Zakir Hussain, the Arizona Republic wrote about the path to Miss India
USA, the Milwaukee Sentinel had a story on the opening of an Indian restaurant,
and the Albany Times Union and the Daily Texan wrote about local Indian
festivals.
In contrast, the NYT welcomed Musharraf
with an editorial headlined 'Pakistan, a Troubled Ally?' Time magazine
asked 'Pakistan a Friend or Foe?', a question echoed by an ABC Special
also titled 'Friend or Foe?'
CBS' Dan Rather ran a special on
Pakistan as a renegade nation that is suspected of both terrorism and proliferation.
Stories from Pakistan too centred around its slide into fundamentalism
and anarchy, while stories in the US about the Pakistani diaspora almost
always dealt with the problems they are facing post 9/11. Much of Musharraf's
media exertion was devoted to countering all this negative coverage.
So should India be worried about
Pakistan or Musharraf getting more coverage in the US media? Sympathy might
be a better sentiment. It's too much of a bad thing.
