Why do Indians need approval of Western Media?

Pulwama Attack

While it took me five years to write my first blog, it took me 10 years to write my second one. If I continue this way, I may have just another post left in me before I call it quits. So this penultimate post of mine is particularly precious. To be honest, my disappointment with some reputed Western media and opposition political parties in India led me to share my thoughts.

In today's world of social media, propaganda supersedes facts. In the context of air strike by India's air forces in response to Pulwama attack by Jaish-e-Muhammed terrorists with aid and abetment of the Pakistani military, there have been quite a few Western media who questioned the truth of the claim made by the Indian government.

Maria Abi-Habib, a New Delhi based journalist of New York Times, appears to have written the article "After India Loses Dogfight to Pakistan, Questions Arise About Its ‘Vintage’ Military" from the perspective of the Pakistani government. She also wrote other articles related to the Pulwama terrorist act and Indian air strike:

1. Pakistani Military Says It Downed Two Indian Warplanes, Capturing Pilot
2. In India’s Election Season, a Bombing Interrupts Modi’s Slump

While India was able to influence diplomats across the world except for China, some of these Western media is hesitant to call a terrorist attack a terrorist attack. The second article is particularly vicious as it calls the Pulwama incident that killed more than forty paramilitary force personnel an explosion. She went further and made it all about the influence on Indian election as if the lives of the Indian armed forces incidental. This makes all respectful Indians who do not feel that they need approval from the Western world, question the authenticity and motivation of the New York Times.

While the whole world knows about the duplicity of the Pakistani government and military, the New York Times seems to be more eager to believe them rather than the Indian armed forces and government. If memory serves right, Osama Bin Laden, most dreaded terrorist, was never in Pakistan until the US special forces killed him in Abbottabad.

There are desperate conspiracy theorists who say that 9/11 was an inside job by either the US government or by the Jews. Disingenuous politicians of Indian Congress party claimed that 26/11 Mumbai attack, one of the worst terrorist attack in Indian history, is the handiwork of Hindu extremists (whatever that oxymoron means). Now there is growing assertions by opposition parties and even some journalists that either the Pulwama attack is an inside job before the election to prop up chances of the reelection of Mr. Modi as Prime Minister of India or the claim of air attack is simply false. One minister of the state of Punjab said that the airstrike achieved nothing more than grounding some trees, speaking in alignment with the Pakistani government. Given these unfortunate counter-claims made by those opposition leaders and journalists, I could not resist but ask a few fundamental questions to them:

• Why would India risk twelve expensive Mirage fighters, should they have to lie about the operation to strike the Jaish-e-Muhammed terrorist camp in Balakot, Pakistan? They could have just claimed about an air strike operation, and lie just like the Pakistanis often do.
• Why do Indians look for affirmation from the Western media even after 70 years of independence? Did the US public wait for confirmation of Indian media in case of operation carried out to eliminate Osama Bin Laden? Did any of the Western media ask to see the body of Osama?
• If the Pakistani government was to be believed, that there was no material effect of the Indian air strike, why were journalists from Reuters trying to visit the terrorist campsite? Why were those journalists not allowed to visit the site by the Pakistani military who are so trustworthy to the Western media? What does the Pakistani military have to lose by allowing the journalists? Or do they need more time to clean up the site?
• Many including some on the Indian side was effusive about magnanimity of Imran Khan and his win over Modi with respect to publicity. New York Times also wrote an article about it (Imran Khan Says Pakistan Will Release Indian Pilot, Seizing Publicity in Showdown). How do you win with respect to publicity by sending terrorists in a neighboring country and letting global terrorists roam free in your own country?
• Some people in India said that Imran Khan's government is a new one and that we should lay trust in him. Why would any sensible Indian trust leader of a party that had been founded in late 1994 by an ex-ISI chief, General Hamid Gul and Mohammad Ali Durrani, and a Jamaat-e-Islami leader? General Hamid Gul, who was retired then but claimed to articulate the ‘ideology’ of the establishment and enjoyed enduring links with the deep state. Mohammad Ali Durrani who, having staged a rebellion in the Jamaat-e-Islami, had run away with its youth wing, Pasban, which he headed. Does it make sense that Imran's party would be any different with respect to India considering that Hamid Gul always had been known to have a deep hatred for India who planned and carried out several attacks on India?

Too many people indulge in wishful thinking with respect to terror and Pakistan. Or is it just motivated hatred for Indian Prime Minister of India, Mr. Narendra Modi, and rise of New India under his able leadership? What does Ms. Maria Abi-Habib of the New York Times say? Many Indians would want to understand where her unflinching trust on Pakistani military come from.