Bush in India: an email exchange with the BBC.

Dear Paul Danahar,

In “George Bush in India - what is success?” (By Paul Danahar, BBC South Asia bureau editor, BBC News wbsite, Tuesday, 28 February 2006), you write:

“Unlike other world figures, George Bush will not be lunging into crowds of Rajasthani villagers or addressing the parliament of the world's largest democracy.”

In your article I was expecting to read why “George Bush will not be lunging into crowds of Rajasthani villagers or addressing the parliament of the world's largest democracy.”

Indian writer Arundhati Roy writes:

“For Bush's March 2 pit stop in New Delhi, the Indian government tried very hard to have him address our parliament. A not inconsequential number of MPs threatened to heckle him, so Plan One was hastily shelved. Plan Two was to have Bush address the masses from the ramparts of the magnificent Red Fort, where the Indian prime minister traditionally delivers his Independence Day address. But the Red Fort, surrounded as it is by the predominantly Muslim population of Old Delhi, was considered a security nightmare. So now we're into Plan Three: President George Bush speaks from Purana Qila, the Old Fort.

Ironic, isn't it, that the only safe public space for a man who has recently been so enthusiastic about India's modernity should be a crumbling medieval fort?

Since the Purana Qila also houses the Delhi zoo, George Bush's audience will be a few hundred caged animals and an approved list of caged human beings, who in India go under the category of "eminent persons." They're mostly rich folk who live in our poor country like captive animals, incarcerated by their own wealth, locked and barred in their gilded cages, protecting themselves from the threat of the vulgar and unruly multitudes whom they have systematically dispossessed over the centuries. (...)

Oh, and on March 2, Bush will be taken to visit Gandhi's memorial in Rajghat. He's by no means the only war criminal who has been invited by the Indian government to lay flowers at Rajghat. (Only recently we had the Burmese dictator General Than Shwe, no shrinking violet himself.) But when Bush places flowers on that famous slab of highly polished stone, millions of Indians will wince. It will be as though he has poured a pint of blood on the memory of Gandhi.

We really would prefer that he didn't.

It is not in our power to stop Bush's visit. It is in our power to protest it, and we will. The government, the police and the corporate press will do everything they can to minimize the extent of our outrage. Nothing the happy newspapers say can change the fact that all over India, from the biggest cities to the smallest villages, in public places and private homes, George W. Bush, the President of the United States of America, world nightmare incarnate, is just not welcome.” (Bush in India: Just Not Welcome, by Arundhati Roy, The Nation, March 1, 2006 and Baby Bush go home, by Arundhati Roy, The Guardian, March 1, 2006)

The Guardian reports:

George Bush has arrived in Afghanistan for a five-hour stop ahead of his three-day visit to India, where thousands of protesters rallied before his arrival, shouting "Death to Bush". (...)

Ahead of his arrival, thousands of Indians demonstrated against the president's visit at a rally in New Delhi. Police said up to 100,000 people, most of them Muslim, gathered in a fairground that is often used for political rallies.

Communist groups - key allies of Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh - have planned a large protest march to India's parliament in New Delhi tomorrow. The parliament is a few miles from where Mr Bush will hold talks with Mr Singh and meet with other leaders.

Pushpender Grewal, secretary of the Communist Party of India, said: "We will protest against the US policies, especially the inhuman atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq, a likely invasion of Iran and its continuing support to Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine." (Bush makes first visit to Afghanistan, The Guardian, Wednesday March 1, 2006)

But in your BBC News website article you write:

“And like journalists, politicians need headlines.

In Delhi at the moment neither are having much fun because we are facing the prospect of a visit from the first Republican President since Richard Nixon that nobody will much remember.”

Maybe you could have some fun if you decided to report on what people in India think about Bush and his visit to their country. Shouldn’t that be your job as a journalist?

Thank you for your time and I look forward for your comments.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

*************************************************************

Dear Gabriele Zamparini,

Thank you for your e-mail.

The aim of Paul Danahar's piece was to mark out what US and Indian diplomats would regard as constituting a successful trip in diplomatic terms for both sides and the increasingly close relationship between the two countries. It wasn't aimed at being a news story which would include what ordinary Indians feel about the visit. For that I refer you to (link) for a news story. We will probably have a photo gallery later in the day.

For your interest we will also have a piece later in which two Indian students give contrasting views on what they feel about the United States.

I hope that helps.

Best wishes,

Bernard Gabony
BBC News website
South Asia editor

***************************************************************

Dear Bernard Gabony,

Thank you for your reply.

The title of Paul Danahar's piece is “George Bush in India - what is success?”. It’s not: “George Bush in India - what is success for the diplomats?” or “George Bush in India - what is success for the two Governments?”

I still can’t understand why Paul Danahar writes “we are facing the prospect of a visit from the first Republican President since Richard Nixon that nobody will much remember.”

Who is “we” ? Who is “nobody” ?

From what the Guardian reports and Arundhati Roy writes, it seems that people do care and will remember this visit.

Also, Paul Danahar doesn’t explain why “Unlike other world figures, George Bush will not be lunging into crowds of Rajasthani villagers or addressing the parliament of the world's largest democracy”.

In your email you write:

“The aim of Paul Danahar's piece was to mark out what US and Indian diplomats would regard as constituting a successful trip in diplomatic terms for both sides and the increasingly close relationship between the two countries.”

What exactly do you mean with “diplomatic terms” ? In a democracy, diplomats and other government officials represent the people. They work for the people. If people express their protest in big numbers and show their unhappiness about Mr Bush visit to their country, shouldn’t that be reported as part of the story “George Bush in India - what is success?” ?

Also, I can’t understand what you mean with “the increasingly close relationship between the two countries”. It seems to me people in India are protesting Mr Bush and his policies (especially regarding Afghanistan, Iraq and the so called “war on terror”). The relation between the two countries, which means the relations between the peoples of the two countries have nothing to do with this.

In your email you write:

“It wasn't aimed at being a news story which would include what ordinary Indians feel about the visit.”

Are not the “ordinary Indians” the country we call India?

Thank you for your time and I look forward for your comments.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

******************************************************************

Dear Gabriele Zamparini,

Hi, headlines and titles, almost by definition, have to be short and pithy. They dont' have to be comprehensive and all-embracing.

The 'we' is refering mainly to journalists, probably historians too. Paul Danahar is indicating, for example, that the visit won't generate landmark treaties.

The piece is about diplomacy. It is not trying to explain the rationale behind Mr Bush's itinerary.

The point about ordinary Indians and protests, is that we are reflecting the views of protesters in the news story that I pointed out to you. I also think you will find that there are plenty of Indians supportive of President Bush.

Best wishes.

Bernard Gabony
BBC News website

**********************************************************************

Dear Bernard Gabony,

Thank you for your reply.

It’s true that “headlines and titles, almost by definition, have to be short and pithy. They dont' have to be comprehensive and all-embracing.” But they must not be misleading either.

You write that “The 'we' is refering mainly to journalists, probably historians too.”

But the article reads: “In Delhi at the moment neither are having much fun because we are facing the prospect of a visit from the first Republican President since Richard Nixon that nobody will much remember.”

You write that “The piece is about diplomacy. It is not trying to explain the rationale behind Mr Bush's itinerary.”

Since the piece reads: “Unlike other world figures, George Bush will not be lunging into crowds of Rajasthani villagers or addressing the parliament of the world's largest democracy.” I guess your readers would be interested in knowing the reasons for this.

“The piece is about diplomacy”. In other words, if the Bush’s trip in India is to be considered a success or not, that depends on “diplomacy”. If I may ask, on which “rationale” and political principles?

Again, in a democracy, diplomats and other government officials represent the people. They work for the people. If people express their protest in big numbers and show their unhappiness about Mr Bush visit to their country, shouldn’t that be reported as part of the story “George Bush in India - what is success?” ?

You write “The point about ordinary Indians and protests, is that we are reflecting the views of protesters in the news story that I pointed out to you.” The “protesters” are citizens and – sorry to repeat myself – their point of view (in a democracy) should be part of a story titled “George Bush in India - what is success?”

You also write: “I also think you will find that there are plenty of Indians supportive of President Bush”

Well, I did read the BBC article you sent me, and the only reference in that article to what you write is this: “The BBC's Sanjeev Srivastava in Delhi says although many are protesting the against Bush visit, there are equally many Indians who will welcome him.”

Besides, while the Guardian reported “Ahead of his arrival, thousands of Indians demonstrated against the president's visit at a rally in New Delhi. Police said up to 100,000 people, most of them Muslim, gathered in a fairground that is often used for political rallies.” in that article the BBC reported: “About 50,000 protesters gathered in the heart of Delhi in the first of many planned demonstrations against the US president.”

Thank you for your time and I look forward for your comments.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

**********************************

UPDATE MARCH 2, 2006

Dear Steve Herrmann,
Editor, News Online

I want to thank you for the correction that’s been made to the BBC News website. As I had the opportunity to write yesterday to Bernard Gabony (BBC News website, South Asia editor) the BBC News website reported: “About 50,000 protesters gathered in the heart of Delhi in the first of many planned demonstrations against the US president.” while the Guardian reported “Ahead of his arrival, thousands of Indians demonstrated against the president's visit at a rally in New Delhi. Police said up to 100,000 people, most of them Muslim, gathered in a fairground that is often used for political rallies.”

I am glad that now the BBC website reports: “Earlier, about 100,000 protesters gathered in the heart of Delhi in the first of many planned demonstrations against the US president.”

I would like to take the chance offered by this email to ask you one more question.

In the same article “Bush arrives to Indian protests”, the BBC News website reports:

The BBC's Sanjeev Srivastava in Delhi says that although many are protesting against the Bush visit, there are also many Indians who will welcome him.

Another BBC News website article reads:

Communist parties and Muslim groups are opposed to the visit and are leading protests across India, but Mr Bush is being welcomed by many other Indians. (Bush finalises India nuclear deal, BBC News Website, Thursday, 2 March 2006)

QUESTION: Could I ask you and Sanjeev Srivastava who are these “many Indians who will welcome him” ? This is more than a simple curiosity; since you reported the numbers, the place and political and religious affiliation of the protesters, I assume you will care to do the same with the Bush’s supporters.

Thank you for your time and I look forward for your comments.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini