North American media sees mostly
negative stories in Clinton's visit
J M Shenoy
For most part, the American newspapers -- at least The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post -- saw the Clinton visit to India as a failed exercise in diplomacy.
They have noted that Clinton had not been able to wrest any meaningful concession from India on nuclear issues. They observed how Clinton's address to the Indian Parliament was given a lukewarm reception. And they pointed out how President K R Narayanan had "snubbed" Clinton at the state dinner, hitting back at Clinton's remark made days ago that the India-Pakistan border was perhaps the most dangerous in the world.
But where were the human-interest stories?
Except for a scattered story or two, about Clinton's visit to a village in Rajasthan or how Chelsea dodged Holi colors by watching the revelers from a distance, most of the coverage focused on politics, nuclear issues, terrorism -- and the threat from Bin Laden. The cancellation of a helicopter trip to a small Bangladeshi village because of security concern was a big story, too.
The Washington Post ran a lengthy story by two of its writers who visited the Kashmir village where 40 Sikhs were murdered on the eve of Clinton's visit.
And the conservative Washington Times ran bold headlines and a page one story about how Clinton had seemingly tilted towards India.
Clinton's visit to the Taj Mahal was a story hardly any newspaper or television program missed. Even the New York Post, which rarely cares for foreign affairs stories unless Israel is involved, ran a big story about the Taj visit.
Pictures of Chelsea and Clinton in front of the Taj Mahal ran as photo captions in many newspapers who had not bothered to run any significant story about Clinton's Indian sojourn.
Some of the truly colorful stories got buried in the larger story about Clinton's other experiences. For instance, the Associated Press had a story in which Clinton lamented that he was not allowed to ride a painted elephant because his image-builders thought he would look awkward in the pictures.
But it was part of a story that talked about Clinton's pending business in Bombay and Hyderabad.
One of the most interesting and riveting of the stories on the visit asked a question in the headline: Ordinary Indians ask: Where's Clinton?
'Bill Clinton may not know it, but he has much in common with the fabled maharajas who once ruled India,' wrote Haroon Siddiqui in the Toronto Star.
'He is travelling here like one, with an elaborate mobile royal court that keeps him insulated from the masses and spectacularly indifferent to the endless inconveniences he is causing them.'
The article quoting Indian publications and the people on the streets said the Ugly American in India now is the American Secret Service. The 'most people-friendly president in decades is being kept away from a people who are among the most hospitable and tactile,' Siddique argued.
'While the Indian government and businesses are ecstatic with a presidential visit that has opened a new chapter in Indo-American relations, the public is decidedly put off.
'Travelling in a security bubble far tighter than on his home turf, Clinton has met few ordinary Indians. The Times of India called his a "virtual visit." The public has been wittier, saying the president is in purdah -- a crumbling tradition of screening Muslim and Hindu women with curtains or veils to avoid contact with strangers.
'Except for a flicker of spontaneity in Parliament in New Delhi -- where eager legislators and diplomats reached for the president with outstretched hands, and he reciprocated with glee -- the six-day trip has so far been bereft of excitement.'
Next: Amazing success story of a teen techie
Tell us what you think of this report
|
