The Alt-Media Community and Mainstream Media were manipulated by Bloomberg’s devious spin on the future of Sino-Indo relations since it cleverly appeals to each of them in its own way, all while working to discredit India in the eyes of its targeted Western audience.
Bloomberg just published a piece about the future of Sino-Indo relations that’s sure to appeal to many in the Alt-Media Community (AMC) while angering a similarly large number in the Mainstream Media (MSM). Titled “India Has a ‘Natural’ Partner — And It’s Not America”, the piece attempts to compare China and India as part of the author’s argument that their natural economic complementarities will likely lead to an improvement in their political ties. The problem, however, is that it’s nothing but spin.
Reading between the lines, Bloomberg is attempting to discredit India by deviously drawing comparisons with China that it knows will be met with the disapproval of its targeted Western audience. For instance, claiming that “there’s no obvious alternative to Modi as leader, arguably for the first time since Indira Gandhi’s administration” and hinting that the defamation charges against opposition leader Rahul Gandhi are a political witch hunt meant to disqualify him from next year’s polls aren’t anything positive.
The innuendo is that India is no longer a multiparty democracy modeled off of the West’s but has unofficially become a one-party state along the lines of China’s. There’s nothing wrong with China’s system since it has the sovereign right to rule itself however it wants in accordance with its people’s will, but Bloomberg’s targeted Western audience obviously disapproves of it. Likewise, they’re also disinclined to look kindly on Prime Minister Modi’s allegedly “muscular” use of federal powers.
Bloomberg quoted an economics professor who’s advised the Modi administration and others before it on trade who claimed that “By making full use of ‘constructive ambiguity’ embedded in legislation and applying pressure on courts, individual and civil-group influence can be limited.” More negative innuendo can be seen in the part where this outlet suggested that India’s ecology might suffer as a result of legislation “that will make diversion of forest land easier for development projects.”
It’s also not true that “Emphasizing development and growth as key to freeing millions from poverty, with other interests subordinate or irrelevant, clearly matches Xi’s approach.” Other interests aren’t “subordinate or irrelevant” to either leader, nor is “emphasizing development and growth as key to freeing millions from poverty” the exclusive monopoly of the Chinese one. Former US President FDR’s “New Deal” was implemented before President Xi was born and set the precedent for this model.
Another example of Bloomberg deviously smearing India in its piece was when it wrote that “A grand new national museum is coming that will afford Modi the chance to tell his version of India’s story, which as a Hindu nationalist, may come at the expense of large parts of Indian society—especially Muslims, who have increasingly been targeted with violence.” This passage is a clear attempt to stir communal tensions by blowing the dog whistle of alleged anti-Muslim discrimination exactly as Obama earlier did.
The outlet’s penultimate pseudo-paragraph is also factually false. Their author wrote that “But for all President Joe Biden’s wooing of Modi’s India, the US hasn’t stepped up with any tangible trade and investment offer. That leaves many options on the table in New Delhi.” This part is debunked by the INDUS-X military-logistics deal that Prime Minister Modi clinched with the US during his trip there in late June, which was an unprecedented investment in this strategic sphere.
A larger trade and investment deal hasn’t yet been reached because India refuses to agree to any such pact that would come at the expense of its people’s economic interests or its national sovereignty. The two sides are still exploring ways to scale this up in spite of no formal agreement having been reached, but Bloomberg misleadingly makes it seem like the US is neglecting India, which isn’t true. To the contrary, India is among its most important partners this century, it just doesn’t want to be a junior one.
The AMC will nevertheless celebrate the devious spin that this piece put on Sino-Indo relations since they’re unlikely to realize that the comparisons made therein are intended to discredit India. They want so badly to believe that all non-Western countries are uniting in opposition to the US that they’ll probably fall for this propaganda. As for the MSM, it might be influenced by this information warfare product into suspecting that India is playing a double game and thus can’t be trusted.
The reality is that rising Sino-Indo challenges preclude the restoration of normal relations between these Asian Great Powers exactly as Indian External Affairs Minister Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has repeatedly said. In fact, right around the time that Bloomberg published its piece, India withdrew from the World University Games in China to protest Beijing stapling visas onto the passports of sportsmen from Arunachal Pradesh.
That region is an integral part of Northeast India but is claimed by China as “South Tibet”. Newly reappointed Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi also said in his first comments since reassuming this position that he will “resolutely safeguard the sovereignty, security, development and interests” of his country. Taken together, it’s clear that territorial disputes will continue to poison Sino-Indo relations and prevent the pivot towards China that Bloomberg deviously suggested India might soon undertake.
The MSM therefore has nothing to worry about while the AMC will inevitably experience deep disappointment once this obviously doesn’t happen. Both were manipulated by Bloomberg’s devious spin on the future of Sino-Indo relations since it cleverly appeals to each of them in its own way, all while working to discredit India in the eyes of its targeted Western audience. India will neither go to war against China on the US’ behalf nor pivot towards China, but will continue multi-aligning between them.
(The article was published on Korybko.substack.com on July 30, 2023 and has been reproduced here.)
