Indian-American lawmaker blasts NYT for anti-India editorial
- Why didn't Pak raise Kashmir at Ufa: Rajnath on cancellation of NSA talks
- Still No.1: Usain Bolt claws back, just in time
- Narendra Modi not a liar but Rahul is, says Smriti Irani in Amethi
- OROP demand: Union Minister VK Singh's daughter joins protest at Jantar Mantar
- What is Modi trying to achieve? Kejriwal on AAP MLA's arrest
A powerful Indian-American lawmaker on Teusday blasted The New York Times for terming India as a "longtime nuclear scofflaw". In an editorial on the eve of the visit of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to India on July 17, NYT had termed New Delhi as a "longtime nuclear scofflaw" and held India responsible on Kashmir, relations with Pakistan and also partly blamed it for the nuclear weapons programme of Iran. Kumar Barve, the Majority Leader in Maryland House of Delegates, said, "to me the most troubling aspect of the article was not to be found in the blatant and unprofessional factual errors or omissions. It was the tone. How haughty, how condescending, how arrogant and patronizing. How like the British Raj."
"The Times' editorial contains a factual error in its very first sentence when it describes the Republic of India as a "longtime nuclear scofflaw". "Actually, India never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty because it felt it discriminated against third-world counties," Barve wrote in an email to his constituents. "The Times is free to disagree with this policy, but it ought to at least agree that one can only be a scofflaw if a law, or in this case a treaty agreement is violated. India has done nothing of the sort," Barve said in a rare email on international matters. "It is not customary for me to comment on international matters. But the recent editorial of the New York Times on the occasion of Secretary of State Clinton's visit is too appalling to ignore," Barve wrote giving reasons for him writing on such a issue. "The tone of the narrative gets worse. The article goes on the chide India for undermining international negotiations that it deemed were not in its favour, including ones relating to global warming. What major, secular multi-party democracy does this remind us of? The United States, perhaps? They ask for India to "take more responsibility" internationally," he wrote.