西方記者對印度有偏見嗎?

When India’s space agency ISRO launched a successful mission to Mars prior to the 104 satellites sent in the first week of February the New York Times ran a demeaning cartoon showing an Indian farmer with his cow knocking at the doors of the Elite Space Club.

當印度向火星成功發射探測器後（發生在2月份成功發射104顆衛星之前），美國紐約時報發表了一幅有貶低意味的漫畫：一個印度農民帶着他的奶牛去敲航天精英俱樂部的大門。

Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) successfully launching a record 104 satellites. (PTI Photo)

印度航空航天研究機構（ISRO）成功發射了創記錄的104顆衛星。（PTI 攝影）

And this triggers an important question: 70 years after Independence are western journalists and correspondents still biased against India a country they are supposed to report honestly about so that their readers who are Mostly ignorant get enlightened?

這就引出了一個很關鍵的問題: 在印度獨立70年之後，西方記者依然對印度懷有偏見嗎？他們本應如實報道印度從而讓他們的那些大體無知的讀者有所啓迪。

Well from a western correspondent himself the answer is…YES.

作爲一個西方記者，我的回答是：是的。

There are four reasons for that sad fact:

對於那個令人傷心的現實，有四個原因:

1) India is never in the news in the West unless there is some major catastrophe or huge elections. Thus if you want to write and be published you have to find alternate stories that often border on the sensational the marginal or even the untruthful.

1. 除非印度發生了什麼災難，或者是大型選舉，印度是不會登上西方媒體頭條的。因此，如果印度新聞想要上媒體的話，你就得專門找那些近乎爆炸性的甚至是根本就不真實的新聞；

2) Your editor in New York Paris or London has often set ideas on India even though most of the time he or she has never set foot here. You need to toe the line otherwise you may not be published which is tough if you are a freelance that is paid per piece. Most western correspondents thus rein in. I had one guy like that in Paris Charles Lambroschini in Le Figaro who believed that the RSS was the most dangerous outfit in India.

2. 你在紐約巴黎或者是倫敦的主編經常喜歡替你出主意即使他們絕大部分時間根本就沒有去過印度。所以如果你不按照他們的想法做的話，作爲一個自由記者，你可能就拿不到你的稿費。因此大部分的西方記者就受到了約束。在巴黎就有這麼一個編輯，他的名字叫做 Charles Lambroschini，在費加羅報工作，他認爲印度右翼黨是印度最危險的組織。

3) Three or even five years which is the usual period that foreign correspondents are posted (as well as diplomats) is not enough for understanding a country that is so vast so diverse so contradictory sometimes. In fact one needs to go beyond the appearances in India. Indeed the western sense of the hygienic and the esthetical is very different from India’s and the first contact of dirtiness slums or poverty often scars the perception of many western correspondents who then refused to go beyond that barrier.

3）通常外國記者（以及外交官）會被外派3到5年，但是這麼短的時間是無法瞭解一個這麼巨大多樣甚至是時而矛盾的國家的。事實上，人們應該透過表面來看印度。西方的衛生和美感標準確實有別於印度，所以印度骯髒的貧民窟和貧窮在一開始就給西方記者留下了深刻的印象，導致他們不願意跨越這道障礙繼續深入瞭解印度。

4) Delhi where everybody is posted is physically so far from the rest of India and so disconnected. The same ideas and clichés are heard in parties and embassies’ cocktails and repeated ad infinitum till every foreign correspondent thinks they are the gospel truth: ‘secularism minorities Hindu fundamentalism human rights in Kashmir right wing saffron’ etc.

4）西方記者所進駐的德里與印度的其他地方距離遙遠，也幾乎與印度其他地方相隔絕。所以同樣的觀點和陳腔濫調在派對和大使館酒會上傳播和重複，直到每個外國記者都認爲他們獲得了真相：世俗主義，少數民族，印度教，原教旨主義，克什米爾的人權，右翼，藏紅花等等。

Is this why CNN or New York Times or the Independent haves been particularly nasty in the last few years against the BJP and Narendra Modi even after he was democratically elected by 100 million Indians? It felt more like a biased witch-hunt than actual reporting. For instance very few western journalists cared to mention that the 2002 Gujarat riots were triggered by the attack by a Muslim crowd of the Sabarmati train where 56 Hindus 32 of them women and children were burnt like animals.

這就是爲什麼CNN、《紐約時報》或者《獨立報》在過去的幾年內極其惡意地反對印度人民黨和莫迪的原因，即使在他由十億印度人民民主選舉就任印度總理之後？與其說是真實的新聞報道，那更像是富有偏見的政治迫害。例如極少有西方媒體關心提及2002年古吉拉特邦騷亂是穆斯林引發的，他們襲擊了薩巴爾馬提的火車。在那場事件中，56名印度教信徒包括32名婦女兒童像牲畜一樣被焚燒。

But the pioneer of them all has got to be the BBC which has been the inspiration of much of the slant of the foreign journalists on India which seems to stem from an unconscious sense of superiority (same is true of western Indologists). I remember when I used to cover Kashmir in the late 90’s how Mark Tully then a beacon to all foreign correspondents & Indian journalists used to say all the time that it was ‘untrue that Pakistan was sponsoring arming and sheltering Kashmiri militants’. Which everybody repeated (bar this writer). He even had a Kashmiri stringer who was named Yussuf I think that informed the militants. When the army arrested him Yussuf Tully kicked such a ruckus that he had to be eventually released.

但所有西方媒體的駐印記者都受到BBC的啓發，源於無意識的優越感（西方的印度學者也一樣），對印度進行有偏向性的報道。我還記得當在90年代末我在報導克什米爾地區時，Mark Tully，他當時簡直就是外國記者和印度記者的燈塔，總是表示“巴基斯坦資助、武裝和庇護克什米爾激進分子的消息是不實的” 。每個人都這樣說（除了我）。他甚至有個我認爲爲激進分子提供情報的叫Yussuf的克什米爾通訊員。當軍隊逮捕Yussuf時 Tully還大鬧了一場，最終不得不被釋放。

Speaking of stringers the sad fact is that most of the Indian stringers of major western media outlets such as BBC or AP or CNN toe the line that is report what their masters want them to say. In fact they go sometimes even overboard to paint a negative and clichéd image of their own country. No doubt the Nirbhaya rape was a horrible happening and the guilty should have been punished in a harsher manner (and not released like the so-called juvenile). But this was so much reported on so much hyped particularly by the BBC that every westerner thinks now that India is the land of rape. In fact when any western girl wants to travel to India now she is warned “careful – you might be raped”. Yet proportionately there are less rapes in India than in Sweden which has the maximum number of rapes in the world for instance and it is safer to walk at night in Delhi than in certain suburbs of Washington or Paris.

說到特約記者，一個悲傷的事實就是，很多西方主流媒體（比如BBC，美聯社或者CNN）所僱傭的印度特約記者只報道他們主人想聽的。事實上這些印度記者有時候都非常熱衷於用消極和陳腔濫調的筆畫來描繪自己的國家。Nirbhaya 強姦事件無疑是一個非常可怕的事件，嫌疑犯必須得到非常嚴厲的懲處。（而不是因爲所說的未成年人被釋放了）但是這個事件被過度的報道被bbc過分的大肆宣傳，以至於每個西方人現在還認爲印度是個強姦的樂土。事實上當某個西方女孩想去印度旅遊的時候，她都會被警告小心點，你可能會被強姦。然而比例上印度的強姦率比世界上發生強姦率最高的瑞典還要低，並且你在德里的晚上散步要比一些華盛頓或者巴黎的城郊更加安全。

India should have a look at China which gets a lot more respect from western journalists. Why? Because China does not take insults lying down. Paradoxically western journalists have so much more liberty in India where they can move freely. Whereas in China they still need permission before going anywhere and need to submit the subject of their reporting. They can be censored too or their websites even blocked.

印度應該看看中國，中國從西方記者那裏得到了更多的尊敬。（是麼？扯淡呢吧？）爲什麼？因爲中國不會對侮辱不做任何反抗。相對的來說西方記者在印度會得到更多的自由去他們想去的地方。然而在中國，在想去哪裏之前還是需要許可，並且需要提交報道的主題。他們可能會被審查或者他們的網站也會被屏蔽。

Sure there is no conspiracy that I can see and most western correspondents come to India with a sincere aspiration to report fairly and faithfully. But again the first task of a foreign journalist without being blind to India’s faults – and there are many but not more than any other country in the world – should be to report truthfully and create some empathy amongst its readers or viewers for a country that is unique and endearing and whose ancient civilization that viewed the world as One family has survived centuries of savage onslaught including by the British who are still trying to lecture India.

誠然這裏面沒有陰謀（是麼？這話還敢再要臉點麼？），我看到大多部分進入印度的西方記者都帶着一顆誠摯的願望去報道的公平和可信。雖然不能對印度的缺陷視而不見，但是哪個國家沒有缺陷呢，所以西方記者去印度時的第一個任務就是進行真實的報道，讓讀者泛起同理心，讓他們知道印度是個獨特可愛的國家，其古老文明視整個世界爲一個大家庭，並且經受了幾個世紀的野蠻攻擊，包括直到如今還想對印度說教的英國的攻擊。