Nuke press coverage well handled: High Commission

TCA Raghavan, the Counsellor in charge of press and information at the High Commission said, that this had been an 8220;emerging story8221; and that it was not necessary for the India House to make comments here as they were being made in India.

He said that the High Commission8217;s role was better served through providingbackground and private briefings to the local press, and that the High Commission can claim some credit for the balanced coverage of India8217;s position in the British press. Raghavan said, 8220;the manner in which we approached the issue was tailor made for this country .. we geared our strategy to the situation here ..8221; He said, 8220;there is considerable knowledge of the Indian position here ..the government knew our concerns 8230; and there was no need for us to take a more open position.8221; Asked to respond to criticism that India House had not adequately defended India8217;s position on the news networks, he said, 8220;there are more sophisticated ways of doing this ..8221; especially as 8220;on domestic networks and in the press, editorial writers, and even the local British population on radio phone-ins, were arguing India8217;s case.8221; This, he said, served the purpose better than for the High Commissioner or a High Commission spokesperson going on TV and having to 8220;debate8221; the issue in a combative format.

Media watchershere agree. They say that any direct or assertive intervention by the Indian High Commission would have been 8220;counterproductive8221;. The High Commission, said one seasoned journalist based in London 8220;goes on TV to present India8217;s view to improve India8217;s image8221;, but, 8220;you could say that India8217;s image did not need improving8221;. An important element of the British media8217;s coverage of the Indian nuclear tests was the balance of opinion.

For every article critical of India there was one that presented, and in many cases justified, India8217;s position. There were, some may say, surprisingly few writers who questioned India8217;s vast defence expenditure in face of the under-development.

India was definitely not treated as the rogue8217; state in the British press. Indeed, even where, on one occasion the Hinduja brothers appeared on TV torather inadequately present India8217;s case, the programme presenter, Jeremy Paxman appeared to be doing a far better job of it, by persistently asking the US government representative, ifwhat he was saying was 8220;its okay for you to have the bomb, but not for India or Pakistan ?8221; Most newspaper editorials and comment articles displayed knowledge and understanding of India8217; position on the nuclear issue.

They took on board the various factors that India has traditionally used to justify its nuclear programme: the regional security risks, the fact that other countries including Britain have retained deterrents and the fact that the test ban and non-proliferation protocols are hypocritical.

In part, the balanced coverage of the tests can be explained by the fact that the nuclear issues, these specific tests apart, is not an Indian problem but a global one. Unlike news of a communal riot or of police atrocities or human rights violations in India, this issue was much larger than the domestic political agenda.

While in these other cases India missions abroad have to 8220;defend8221; the government8217;s position or handling of the event, in this case, the defence already existed. The tests were onlythe last stage in a programme that has been on-going for over 25 years. The reasons why successive Indian governments had refused to sign up to the CTBT and NPT are well known.