The Hindu published a full-page advertisement on behalf of the People's Republic of China on October 1st. Questions were raised in the social media about the propriety of the newspaper (Indian?) sporting this advertisement when China had started border clashes with us. The newspaper calls this as a vicious campaign against itself. 'Vicious' according to Merriam -Webster dictionary means 'dangerously aggressive', 'marked by violence or ferocity', 'malicious, spiteful', 'having the quality of immorality', 'defective, faulty' and 'impure, noxious'. We do not know what The Hindu means.
The Hindu has now responded to the 'vicious' campaign adopting what it calls 'a rational view'. The newspaper has justified the publication on the following grounds:
1) It was clearly marked as an advertisement. (So what? The so-called vicious campaigners recognised this as an advertisement only)
2) It was from a neighbouring nation-state, with whom India has excellent diplomatic relations. (This is a breathtaking justification. I feel too paralysed to respond.)
3) Can we use the Galwan valley exchanges, where the PM himself is yet to name the aggressor, to deny advertising space to an embassy to celebrate its foundation day? (The newspaper ought to know who is the aggressor. Does The Hindu think India is the aggressor? If the PM had named China as the aggressor, would the Sinophiliac newspaper have refused to carry the ad? Does The Hindu want many more of our soldiers to be killed by China before stopping such advertisements?
4) We have trade relations with China. (Trade with China cannot stop abruptly. So continuing trade with China does not mean the newspaper must advertise for China.)
China has violated our sovereignty. Similarly, it has border disputes with many neighbours. If the newspaper is unaware of this, it is moribund. China has done injustice to the entire world by exporting the Wuhan virus. By associating with China, The Hindu is complicit in China's anti-world activities.
9So what?)
No comments:
Post a Comment