At the beginning of the war in 1971, our freedom fighters had in their hands the “three-naught-three” rifle, and the Pakistani army had a modern rifle made by China. Many Bangladeshis came to know of China for the first time when they heard about these Chinese rifles, used by the Pakistani army, which killed hundreds of our people, women and children during the war of liberation.

On the other hand, India came forward to help Bangladesh at that time. When the Indian government started giving modern weapons to our freedom fighters, the Pakistani army began to lose. But China was in favour of Pakistan and as long as the Father of the Nation “Bangabandhu” Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was alive, China did not recognize Bangladesh. However, after his death, China recognized the nation, and went on to have good relations with Ziaur Rahman and Khaleda Zia, staunch opponents of the Awami League in the field of Bangladeshi politics. Although China does have relations with the Sheikh Hasina government, inwardly their relations are with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), which was known to be pro-China and anti-Independence.

August 15 is the day of the death of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman—and also the day BNP leader Begum Khaleda Zia declared as her birthday, even though it isn’t. Last year, on this day of mourning for the Bangladeshis, the Chinese Ambassador to Bangladesh sent a bouquet of flowers for Khaleda Zia and joined the celebrations.

Although the Chinese have invested in Bangladesh, there are no grants or aid which come from them. They invest and earn interest. However, Bangladesh’s relationship with India is not just about neighborliness or friendship. It began with the birth of the nation. India took the risk of a war for Bangladesh. The lives of both Indian soldiers and Bangladeshi freedom fighters were sacrificed during the war of liberation. India also gave shelter to our refugees. India is a tested friend of Bangladesh.

On the other hand, when the Myanmar government started torturing the Rohingyas and they entered Bangladesh in groups, China stood up for Myanmar.

Although Bangladesh is involved in China’s initiative for the Covid-19 vaccine now, it is temporary. This has been discussed inside the country. As progressive intellectuals and political leaders of the nation think, China can never be a true friend of Bangladesh.

BACKDROP

 For decades, the strategic planners of India have been boosting offensive capability along the western borders for credible deterrence and remained contented with limited offensive capability with a reactive mindset along the northern and eastern borders, against the basic military strategy which says that “offense is the best form of defence” and a defender can at best respond to the offensive as he doesn’t have the initiative. The number of strike corps earmarked for the western borders versus the northern/eastern borders bears testimony to this observation. WAS OUR STRATEGY AGAINST CHINA REACTIVE? One of the reasons for adopting a reactive/dissuasive strategy against China by various decision-makers was unwarranted faith in the confidence building measures (CBM) between China and India, in the form of various Border Peace and Tranquility Agreements (BPTA), although the basis of the faith was unrealistic, in light of the Chinese’s repeated misadventures like in 1962, Sumdurong Chu, Doklam, to name a few. The fact that the Chinese have been dragging their feet on the demarcation of the LAC/border settlement also proves the fragility of any agreement with them. Except for a few proactive actions at tactical/operational level like the Pangong Tso heights, Nathu La and Doklam, by and large, the Indian strategy against China has been reactive. Voices for China being “Enemy No. 1” and proposals to have mountain strike corps have been on the tables of South Block for long, but the delay in complete raising of the Mountain Strike Corps has been apparently due to economic and bureaucratic reasons, together with the idea of not disturbing peace and tranquility on the borders, due to an over-reliance on CBMs, BPTA and other agreements, despite China violating them repeatedly. The fact is that incidences of patrol clashes and soldiers pushing each other, having different perceptions of the LAC, have been quite frequent, which remains an unsatisfactory arrangement for any professional force to guard the borders/LAC without firing.

ISN’T THERE AN INESCAPABLE NEED FOR THE MOUNTAIN STRIKE CORPS NOW?

 After China junked all the CBMs in Eastern Ladakh, and became reluctant to disengage in ‘other areas’ after disengaging in North and South of Pangong Tso, it is evident that de-escalation is nowhere in sight. The campaigning season is approaching with summers, which can again lead to heavy troop concentration by both sides. With many similar actions taken by China along the LAC in the past few decades, it is evident that a reactive, defensive strategy will not influence China to negotiate the LAC/borders, which is important to avoid repeated standoffs. The need of a dedicated Mountain Strike Corps for India is inescapable to create worthwhile punitive deterrence against China, which can also be used elsewhere. As per media reports, some realignment/rebalancing of existing offensive forces, grouped with adequate mechanized forces and other elements is being done to create corps-level offensive capability for the northern theatre and partially raised ‘Mountain Strike Corps’ for the eastern theatre, with adequate flexibility of application in other theatres. It makes strategic sense to meet the offensive requirements of various theatres and is a reasonably practical option, till India completes further capacity building.

STRIKE CORPS HEADQUARTERS VERSUS INTEGRATED BATTLE GROUPS UNDER THEATRES

The much-referred division/independent brigadesized ‘Integrated Battle Groups’ is a concept tried in many exercises in the recent past with adequate media coverage, but there is a need for all such forces to operate under offensive Corps Headquarters, tasked for an offensive role in the adversary’s territory, so that they are oriented, trained and equipped accordingly, which is a time-consuming process. Historical experience of operations in these areas indicates that the theatre commanders, by virtue of such long borders and wide span of control, had a tendency to manage their defensive posture as a higher priority. To create a deterrence and not be reactive, India needs offensive Corps Commanders to be looking for objectives into the adversary’s territory and posturing accordingly. The logistics requirements and equipment profiling of an offensive corps has to be much different in terms of light tanks, guns, clothing and other equipment. It needs detailed planning and earmarking resources, which IBGs are not designed to handle, and theatre headquarters will find it difficult to concentrate on offensive build up due to the large span of control. The Mountain Strike Corps Commander will be able to pick up his objectives across the LAC, capable of threatening its vital objectives, oriented, trained, equipped and organized with logistics set up to sustain forces across the LAC, which will improve the punitive deterrence capability of India. There may be a need to locate parts of such offensive corps at heights to minimize the acclimatization requirements, to cut short the mobilization timings. It is therefore recommended that the Mountain Strike Corps be developed with Corps Headquarters, IBG and other components as part of it, on priority. This will impose the required cost on China, making settlement of the LAC/border issue a better option than not doing so.

 FUTURE MILITARY STRATEGY IN DEALING WITH AN AGGRESSIVE CHINA

India needs to adopt a multipronged strategy to include military, economic, diplomatic and other elements of power. Preparing for a ‘Two Front War’ for India is not a choice, but a compulsion, although it may or may not happen. The only way to avoid the ‘Two Front War’ for India is to convince the potential adversaries that it is capable of fighting it successfully and posing multiple fronts for China. This convincing has to be backed by building the capability to do so. India seems to be working on it, fast-tracking procurements and boosting indigenous production of necessary equipment through ‘Aatmanirbhar Bharat’, besides a tough stance by the Forces on the borders. India needs to be prepared to pose a threat to Chinese vulnerabilities in the maritime domain in collaboration with the Quad and other friendly navies. The overall strategic approach has to be proactive at the tactical, operational as well as strategic levels.

Maj Gen S. B. Asthana (retd) is a strategic and security analyst, a veteran Infantry General with 40 years of experience in national and international fields and the UN. The views expressed are personal.

In the ongoing saga of Punjab politics, Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh has challenged dissident leader Navjot Singh Sidhu to contest against him from Patiala in the 2022 Assembly polls. In doing so, the Captain has sent a strong message to the party high command that he would no longer tolerate Sidhu’s rebellious behavior and if the former cricketer is going to be encouraged by senior functionaries from Delhi, he would not yield to any pressure.

The Captain’s reaction came during an interview with a Punjabi channel where he lashed out at Sidhu for fueling speculation about his future which could be without the Congress. The Chief Minister, who continues to be the most popular political figure in his state, has simultaneously launched multiple measures to prepare the party for next year’s elections. He has started meeting MLAs in small batches, realizing that the political class had strong reservations regarding his inaccessibility. He is obviously aware that the sacrilege issue was very sensitive and could be the determining factor in next year’s showdown. Sidhu has been stressing that the Congress rode to power in 2017 because of the sacrilege matter in the state as well as its promise to strictly punish those responsible for the drugs trade. His constant complaint has been that the Chief Minister has not acted decisively against either those responsible for the sacrilege or those who pushed drugs. His insinuation is that the CM was deliberately soft on the Akalis with whom he had a secret pact. Not to allow these charges to gain credence, the Captain has now unleashed a no-holds-barred attack at Sidhu. While daring him to contest against him, he has said that he would meet a fate, similar to that of former Chief of Army Staff General J. J. Singh who was the Akali Dal candidate in 2017 from Patiala. Not taking kindly to his name being drawn in the internal Congress conflict, J. J. Singh has criticized the CM.

Several other developments that seek to deflect attention from the real issues in Punjab have also taken place recently. S. S. Randhawa and State PCC Chief Sunil Jakhar offered to resign. Some Congress leaders maintain that Jakhar had already sent his resignation to Sonia Gandhi many days before he offered to quit. He knows that he has to go. The question which now remains is whether the high command would persist with Sidhu or, bowing to the defiant Captain, bring somebody else as the Chief. In this connection, names of likely contenders for PCC president have cropped up. These include Vijay Inder Singla, a minister considered close to Rahul Gandhi, Rajya Sabha MP and senior leader Pratap Singh Bajwa, and Sports Minister Rana Gurmit Singh Sodhi, who has proximity with both the CM and several Central leaders.

Unconfirmed reports also suggest that a powerful lobby was trying to broker a deal between Sidhu and the Aam Aadmi Party. How this would play out is to be seen. In the meanwhile, there is also speculation that Sidhu may float a regional party with the support of influential people. The last word on Punjab is yet to be heard. 

Education is the foundation on which the pillars of a country stand. If the education sector is harmed, the future of the whole nation will be in jeopardy. India is a country where teaching as a profession, and teachers in particular, are respected more than any others. However, the Covid-19 pandemic has led to a shift in that norm.

In the pre-Covid era, the education sector was a lucrative business and teachers were paid well by most private institutions. But since March 2020, all our educational institutions, from kindergarten to the PhD level, are working in a new online format. Most youngsters like this format as they can attend classes in a relaxed environment—often too relaxed. The advantages and disadvantages of these online classes would be understood only in the coming years.

However, the lives of teachers in most private institutions are in peril, especially when compared to their counterparts in government institutions. There are many private educational institutions where a teacher with a PhD degree is paid a three-digit salary! In spite of this meagre salary, there are many dedicated high-quality teachers working in these institutions, doing yeoman service for society. Unfortunately, many among the public fail to notice the contributions of these teachers.

The Covid-19 pandemic has put the lives of many such teachers in greater turmoil. In spite of working from morning to evening, engaging students over online classes during the lockdown, and doing their administrative duties, many teachers are being paid only a partial amount of their salaries by institutional managements, who are citing reasons like economic instability. This is being done despite the fact that most private institutions are collecting full tuition fees and other accessory charges from their students. Many students are still being compelled to buy textbooks, notebooks and even uniforms from their schools. But the schools are not paying the salary due to the teachers. Managements have even terminated the services of many qualified teachers, apparently due to the pandemic making them cut back on costs.

So, is Covid-19 being used as an excuse by institutions to hide their misdeeds and not give teachers their due? Going by the reports available, the answer to this question is a resounding yes. A society that undermines the worth of a teacher is on the verge of collapsing. Can we expect dedication and sincerity from teachers who are not valued for their services? For an average student, the purpose of education is to get a decent life ahead. That’s why they join postgraduate or doctoral programmes, spending nearly 20 years of their life in academia. But if society doesn’t value their time and energy, there would be very few takers for such degrees and programmes in the near future. And a society cannot survive only with professionals like engineers or doctors. We need good musicians, historians, scientists, literary figures and more importantly more philosophers for maintaining a healthy society. All these individuals can only be nurtured if we build a pool of good and qualified teachers.

It’s true that Covid-19 has put technology at the forefront of education, moving teachers to the back seat. Many students now cherish the lessons provided on educational apps rather than by teachers in an offline classroom setup. But has anyone assessed the quality of the students who grew up in such an environment? Even for developing content for emerging educational apps we need good teachers. And we cannot expect good teachers to come up if they are not taken care of financially. Ultimately, everyone works for his or her daily bread.

We are living in a period where academic ranks or other credentials rarely matter for the purpose of employment. There was a time when everyone with a college degree used to get a government job, but today even people with PhDs and postdoctoral experience are finding it difficult to get hired by someone. The world today is for people with particular skill sets and a knack for innovation, no matter what qualifications they hold. This can be developed only by good education, for which we need good teachers. Therefore, agencies like the CBSE, AICTE or UGC should make sure that all teachers are paid their full salary in these pandemic days, otherwise it might eventually endanger the country’s education system. 

It was 23 April 1956. On that stunning evening, a small Mediterranean town was transformed into a dazzling extravaganza by the annual movie madness. In the midst of flashbulbs, red carpets and film stars, the world’s most notable film festival was back in Cannes. The Carlton Hotel on the palm-lined La Croisette that ran along the Cote d’Azur was swarming with fans craving a glimpse of their beloved actors. The twenty-one-year-old Brigitte Bardot competed for attention with Ingrid Bergman, Ginger Rogers, Kim Novak, and Dora Doll. And at Aga Khan’s Villa Yakimour, stars and celebrities posed for keepsake photographs for the paparazzi. The ninth edition of the festival opened at the Palais des Festivals with a screening of the lavishly made Marie Antionette. The French Minister of Justice François Mitterrand graced the occasion and 1,500 film folks and journalists outfitted in expensive gowns and black tuxedos showed up. Over the next eighteen days, the big names and the anonymous, the old-timers and the novices in the global movie industry paraded their filmmaking talent before an illustrious festival jury and competed to win the famous Palme d‘Or award that was introduced in 1955.

Earlier in September 1946, Indian filmmaker Chetan Anand’s Neecha Nagar had shared the top prize at Cannes (Grand Prix du Festival International du Film) and eight years later Bimal Roy was one of the winners of the International Prize for Do Bigha Zameen. In 1956, towards the end of the festival, an unknown Indian film by an unknown director was scheduled to be screened at midnight. It was titled Pather Panchali and was the debut film of Satyajit Ray. The filmmaker was born in Calcutta (Kolkata now) on 2 May 1921, into a family involved with art and literature. He graduated in economics from the University of Calcutta and studied painting for three years at Rabindranath Tagore’s Visva-Bharati University before working at an advertising agency. During a six-month business trip to London in 1950, he immersed himself in motion pictures. In 1947, he had written, “What we need is a style, an idiom, a part of the iconography of cinema which would be uniquely and recognizably Indian.” Now inspired by Vittorio de Sica’s The Bicycle Thief he wrote the first draft of Pather Panchali, based on Bibhutibhushan Bandhopadhyay’s novel. Though he had never shot a foot of film in his life, the young man, encouraged by French director Jean Renoir, who was then shooting The River in India, started the self-financed film with an inexperienced crew. The film was made under very problematic financial conditions over many years. Hollywood filmmaker John Huston, visiting Calcutta, saw the rough cut of the film and at once knew it was the work of cinema’s great natural talents. Pather Panchali was eventually released in India on 26 August 1955, where it ran for several weeks, but its journey from Calcutta to Cannes was fraught with political shenanigans. Ultimately, the direct intervention of the Prime Minister’s office enabled the print to reach the projection room at the Palais de Festival in Cannes as India’s official entry. However, the national award-winning film had arrived in Cannes starved of any advance publicity and the filmmaker was not present. Ray later recalled, “I had no means of going, so I stayed back and held my breath. As I learnt later, the official screening of the film took place around midnight. The jury had already, on the same day, sat through four long features and decided to skip the Indian entry.”

The sole official screening of Pather Panchali was also eclipsed by the most sought-after invitation – the Japanese dinner for publicizing Akira Kurosawa’s I Live In Fear, hosted on the rooftop of a hotel overlooking the Mediterranean. Some critics nevertheless persisted in watching the Indian film instead. They came out of the cinema mesmerized by the unforgettable experience. Ray’s expressive portrait of a family living in rural India presented one of the most breathtaking scenes in all of world cinema – Apu and his sister’s first glimpse of a train in motion. The jury was persuaded to rescreen the film and then on the night of 11 May in Cannes, Maurice Lehmann, the President of the Jury, revealed the winners from the finest films the world had to offer. He slowly detailed, “Prix du document humain: Pather Panchali, Inde”. Ray’s debut film won the Best Human Document award at Cannes and it was accepted in absentia. Although the film was denied the honour of Palme d‘Or and handed an improvised award, The New York Times’ Howard Thompson concluded, “Pather Panchali, a labour of love and the first film made by the Indian Satyajit Ray, was the most important picture of the festival.” With the discovery of a new masterpiece of poetic cinema, a brilliant and original cinematic idiom made itself visible across the world.

It was the cinematic idiom of Satyajit Ray. And in time Pather Panchali was considered one of the best films ever made.

A year later, in August 1957, the thirty-six-year-old Satyajit Ray checked into room number 41 at the Hotel Riviera on the Lido in Venice to attend his first international film festival as a filmmaker. He later wrote, “My film Aparajito (The Unvanquished) was an entry in the competitive section. In the same section were films by Akira Kurosawa, Luchino Visconti, Fred Zinnemann, and Nicholas Ray. I am being absolutely honest when I say that I had not the slightest hope of winning any prizes. This time I was present and experienced the rising tension that marks the occasion for a competing director.” Ray’s Aparajito followed the story of the family from Pather Panchali and picked up where the first film left off. It was screened on 4 September at the 6,000-seater Grande Salle. Seated with Toshiro Mifune, Henry Fonda, Maria Callas, and assorted celebrities, Ray fidgeted due to the somewhat untidy editing, soundtrack, and processing. Then suddenly in the scene of the flight of pigeons that followed Harihar’s death the audience spontaneously burst into applause. In spite of this, the film had a mixed reaction. The next day, on 5 September, Ray, the towering six-foot-four-inch figure with a strong handsome face, was sipping coffee and smoking Rothmans at a pavement café in Venice. Abruptly, a middle-aged European journalist recognized him and sneaked close to dramatically whisper into his ears, “I can hear the lion’s roar!”. And before the refined Indian filmmaker could respond the man vanished into the crowd. On 8 September, the last day of Venice, a festival representative arrived at the Riviera Hotel and nonchalantly informed Ray that he had to appear on the stage that night. A bewildered Ray, who spoke in a commanding voice, gently inquired the reason and was briefed that he had won the top prize, the Leone d’Oro (The Golden Lion). Struggling to suppress his exhilaration he at once rushed off to the post office to send a cable conveying the news to his wife Bijoya, a former schoolteacher. That night Ray, the intellectual filmmaker with a global sensibility, attired in a white Jodhpur jacket, gracefully picked up not only the top honour at the Venice Film Festival but also the Cinema Nuovo award and the critics’ award. Back at their book-lined apartment in downtown Calcutta, his mother Suprabha Devi felt so proud of her son that she created a scrapbook of press cuttings. She had single-handedly raised her only child from the age of two after the sudden demise of her husband Sukumar, who was a writer and an illustrator. And now their son with two prestigious prizes from Cannes and Venice had truly arrived on the international cinema stage.

Then on the cold evening of Thursday, 16 February 1961, the traffic parted on the streets of Washington DC as the Presidential limousine sped past and made its way to Dupont Theatre on Connecticut Avenue. After obtaining the clearance of the Secret Service, the main door was cautiously unlocked, and the newly elected President John F. Kennedy, accompanied by former US Ambassador to India Senator John Cooper and Lorraine Cooper, stepped out. They were warmly received by Indian Ambassador Mohammadali Carim Chagla who sat next to the President in the cinema hall. Dupont was the first non-segregated movie house built in the capital and Kennedy was attending his first function after taking the oath of office. The screen lit up with the preview of the prize-winning Indian film, Satyajit Ray’s Apur Sansar (The World of Apu). The much-acclaimed film had opened the London Film Festival on 19 October 1959 and picked up the Sutherland Award Trophy for best film. In the concluding part of the Apu Trilogy, Ray dealt with Apu’s adulthood and poignantly described the events in his life. The hero was delicately played by Soumitra Chatterjee who later became Ray’s preferred actor. Ambassador Chagla recalled in his autobiography that Kennedy after watching Ray’s film had a better appreciation of the enormous economic challenges India faced.

A decade later on 3 July 1973, Satyajit Ray’s Ashani Sanket (Distant Thunder) collected the Golden Bear for the best film at the Berlinale. By then, it was largely accepted that the multifaceted Indian was among the greatest film directors of all time. On 12 January 1977, Ray entered the studios of Doordarshan in Lutyens’ Delhi along with Elia Kazan, Akira Kurosawa, and Michelangelo Antonioni to discuss Humanism and Cinema. The legends of world cinema were invited by Ray to attend the Sixth International Film Festival of India (January 3 to 17, 1977). The recording of this rare discussion with film critic Amita Malik as moderator has mysteriously vanished. Only the pictures of the great filmmakers admiring the Taj Mahal on a day trip to Agra are accessible now. 

In May 1982, to mark its 35th birthday, the Festival de Cannes invited twelve great filmmakers of the world and hosted an ‘Hommage à Satyajit Ray’. It was an extraordinary year for India at Cannes – Adoor Gopalkrishnan’s Elippathayam was in the Un Certain Regard section and Dakhal made by Goutam Ghose was presented in the Director’s Fortnight while Mrinal Sen served on the jury. Even the Carlton Hotel was splattered with huge billboards of James Bond’s Octopussy to be shot in India in October. Ray, slightly greying at sixty-two, landed in Cannes on 14 May after putting the finishing touches to his twenty-sixth film Sadgati, based on Premchand’s classic. By now, the Berlin Film Festival had adjudged him as one of the three all-time masters of cinema and Oxford, in an extraordinary decision, conferred on him the doctorate honoris causa. Yet India’s cultural ambassador to the world casually strode into the opulent Hotel Martinez in Cannes wearing a modest brown sports jacket and without much fanfare. Ray was the star on the opening night. He was bestowed with the Directors’ Trophy, the award for the greatest Cannes directors of the last 35 years, designed by Igor Mitoraj. Dressed in a traditional Indian kurta and shawl, the gentleman filmmaker thanked the festival in his characteristic baritone, “This is a very special day for me…the first international prize I ever won as a filmmaker was in Cannes for my first film…but there was no question of my being present here personally to receive the award…twenty-five years after that event, today, for the first time on my first trip to Cannes, I am here to receive this award in the presence of the most distinguished filmmakers which makes me very happy and very proud…” Afterwards the paparazzi captured him in an informal discussion over coffee with Antonioni, Billy Wilder and John Boorman on the Carlton terrace. That year in September he was also presented the Golden Lion for Career Achievement at Venice along with Kurosawa, Frank Capra, Jean Luc Godard, and other celebrated filmmakers. Five years later, on 2 February 1987, French President Mitterrand flew into Calcutta to confer Ray with France’s most prestigious award – the Commandeur de Légion d’honneur. Ray was pleased that the decoration “came from the land of Jean Renoir, my principal mentor, and with this singular honour, I feel fulfilled as an Indian artiste.” The international recognition was overwhelming and it was capped by the Academy Honorary Award (Oscar for lifetime achievement) handed to an ailing Ray at a nursing home in Calcutta on 16 March 1992. As an afterthought, four days later the Indian Government bestowed him with the Bharat Ratna, India’s highest civilian award.

It was 23 April 1992. On that evening Calcutta was unexpectedly hit by a storm. Earlier that day Satyajit Ray’s life had reached its final moments. The Indian parliament paid homage to the great son of India, who had won every major film award, appropriately stating that humanity was poorer after his demise. In his passing, at the age of seventy, the world lost a renaissance man who left human civilization richer by producing over thirty-five films and countless other creative works. Defining his filmmaking philosophy, the world famous auteur once acknowledged, “What is attempted in most films of mine is, of course, a synthesis of East and West”. As India celebrates Satyajit Ray’s centenary this year, his recognizable cinematic idiom remains an unmatched legacy.

Bhuvan Lall is the author of “The Man India Missed The Most Subhas Chandra Bose” and “The Great Indian Genius Har Dayal”. He can be reached at writerlall@gmail.com.

Amid the flurry of comments on social media about the current pandemic-triggered crisis in India, one comment from a Westerner attracted the attention of this writer. The gentleman, full of sympathy for India and Indians, was commenting on a foreign media report about the pandemic and was saying that this will result in complete “social collapse”, or societal collapse, in India, given the number of people being affected and dying and the devastation being wreaked by Covid-19. Of course, Indian social media users swarmed to the gentleman’s post to “educate” him about India being a country of 1.3 billion people and how no Chinese virus, however infectious, can result in India’s social collapse. But the Western gentleman is not alone. Phone calls and messages to Indians are coming from a panic-stricken Indian diaspora, as they are bombarded with blown-up images in “respected” foreign newspapers of funeral pyres. Horrifying reports are giving the impression that every street corner is littered with dead bodies. On social media, a foreign correspondent based in India went to the extent of describing one such photograph as “stunning”, and when severely criticised, took refuge of the dictionary to say that stunning also meant shocking. This is a classic case of “voyeurism”. There is a difference between empathizing and being a voyeur of death. There is nothing sensational about death or funerals. Every loss is devastating and has far-reaching consequences for the people left behind. To look for the sensational in death is thoughtless, gruesome and in fact criminal for the way the privacy of a victim’s family is invaded. It is like vultures feeding off carcasses—which may sound harsh, but is a fact. Add to that foreign media reports such as India underreporting its cases and deaths and that it’s actually half a billion—yes, 65 crore—people who have been affected by the virus and millions are dying, and no wonder an Australian newspaper ran a headline about this country being driven towards apocalypse. It is a different matter that 65 crore cases mean nearing herd immunity and if India had herd immunity the infection wouldn’t be spreading so fast.

But then it is not just the foreign media that is painting an apocalyptic picture of India, a large part of the narrative is being fed from within the country itself, with horror stories about a “broken country” spread around the globe. In fact, it should not come as a surprise that this is being done by those who have been going global with the “intolerant” India narrative for the last seven years.

Has the coronavirus affected us? Yes, very badly. Are lakhs of people testing positive every day? Yes, they are. Are thousands of people dying? Yes, they are and, lest we forget, every life lost counts. Is our healthcare system in shambles? Yes, it is. But in such a once-in-a-century global pandemic of this scale, have the developed countries emerged unscathed? No, they have not. Their numbers are much worse when seen in terms of the numbers affected or dying per million. But since we are Indians we must be hiding our numbers—or that is what the Western media says.

Do we need to do more? Yes, much more. We need to hold the people responsible for the mess accountable, we need to demand that our governments make healthcare a priority, that the system is fixed so that it is better able to cope with such an emergency. But are we a broken country as we are being told? No, we are not. Our best asset is our people. For every horror story about the lack of oxygen or hospital beds, there are ten stories of people coming together to help those in need; of administrations—initially caught napping—getting their act together and starting to deliver. And these are the stories that are reported. It has to be seen to believe the kind of community-level work going on in the parts which have been badly affected, from distributing medicines to organizing tests and hospital beds. These are just ordinary Indians—empathetic and resilient. It is time someone talked about them. Moreover, scare-mongering is not taking us anywhere. Too much stress is being caused by insensitive coverage of the situation. Too much panic, because of which hoarding is happening even though reputed doctors are saying that in 85-90% of the cases the infection is very mild. It is only 10-15% of the patients who need hospitalisation. People are quarantining at home and emerging fit and fine. Vaccination is helping save lives in a major way. Let’s talk about that as well. It’s time some sanity returned to the discourse.