N.Ram is twisting and turning to be in line with the high command's stated line, even if it means contradicting himself. So here he goes on to prove that zero=one.
The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : The nuclear deal: key issues and political circumstances
The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : The nuclear deal: key issues and political circumstances
While several readers agree that the Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation deal should be put on hold under the present politically murky and changing circumstances, some readers have raised questions about what they perceive to be changes and even a ‘contradiction’ in The Hindu’s editorial position on the deal. One reader has specifically asked: “What has changed” between August 6, when the newspaper published the le ader “A sound and honourable 123,” and August 20, when it published the leader “Put the nuclear deal on hold”? We welcome this kind of serious public debate, which we believe will help clarify the key issues and their implications in a changing political context.
This is our editorial assessment and it can be seen that there is no contradiction between the leaders of August 6 and 20.
Posts
3 comments:
Poor editor-in-chief. He didn't expect that he would have to eat his own words, that too so quickly, in a gap of a few days. That's why all the verbal jugglery.
Or, in a rare instance of (commie) journalistic independence, he would have thought of editorial experimenting without getting prior clearance from the all-powerful Politburo!
Unlike Dr. Manmohan Singh (who, as Chindu would like to remind us, is running a minority show), Chindu always seems to enjoy a comfortable majority.
Thus, when Chindu editorially praised the UPA nuclear deal about a week ago, we had a majority of the letter writers supporting the deal.
Now that Chindu suddenly runs into the opposite camp (piloted by Karat-speak), we have the spectacle of the majority of the letter writers justifying and supporting Chindu's pathetic volte face.
Comrade N Ram buffoonized himself with great alacrity.
On August 6th he believed that the deal is an honorable one, and he claims to continue to believe so. Then, if his newspaper has any backbone, it should stand up for what it belives in, and join issue with those opposed to the deal. In stead we find it joining hands with them. Contradiction in deeds is worse than contradiction in words.
I hope Comrade Editor has learnt his lesson not to speak out of turn. Moral of the story is: always wait for the word from Beijing to come in before you proceed to put your foot in your mouth.
Post a Comment