Front Page
No big story dominates the headlines today, but common across the dailies is the seat sharing deal between the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) in Uttar Pradesh. On its front page flap report, The Times of India says the deal is “Stamping out any possibility of Congress being part of the opposition alliance in Uttar Pradesh.”
The plan is that BSP will fight for 38 seats, leaving 37 for the Samajwadi Party and 3 for the Rashtriya Lok Dal.
Making it the day’s lead, The Hindu writes, “The alliance has decided to not field any candidates in Rae Bareli and Amethi, currently held by Sonia Gandhi and Congress president Rahul Gandhi.”
HT doesn’t carry the news on its front page, and the Indian Express announces it via a photograph on page 1, leaving a more detailed report for page 6, which says the alliance is “up against ground reality.”
It finds that the distribution of seats between the SP and BSP “has not been allotted to the party that polled more votes than the other in 2014.” This possibly puts “an end to the hopes of the local candidates who were hoping to contest as the alliance candidate on the basis of their party’s performance in the 2014 election.”
“This disgruntlement could be exploited by rival parties and might work against the SP-BSP alliance,” the report adds.
EPFO
The changing rate of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) gives every newspaper its own spin. TOI headlines its report “Amid falling rates, EPFO to offer 8.65%, its 1st hike in 4 yrs.” It writes, “The pre-election announcement was the first increase in four years and came amid expectations that rates will be left unchanged.”
The Express’s headline calls it a “poll vault,” writing in its ‘Explained’ box that “The rate hike is good news for employees ahead of polls but it comes when the economy is moving towards a lower interest rate regime.”
In “EPFO interest rate increased to 8.65% for current fiscal,” HT strongly agrees, “The EPFO’s rate hike is seen as a sop for the salaried middle class and marks a continuation of the central government’s efforts to keep key vote banks happy ahead of Lok Sabha polls.”
China on Pulwama
The lead story on IE’s front page is “China signals shift: UNSC condemns Pulwama terror attack, names Jaish.” No other newspaper gives it front page space, which is strange considering “China has singlehandedly blocked the listing of JeM chief Masood Azhar as a ‘global terrorist.’”
The big deal is that China “signed off on a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) statement that “condemned in the strongest terms” the Pulwama terror attack,” one which named the Jaish-e-Mohammed, too.
Even stranger is that the English language dailies completely drop what Hindi newspapers and even the New York Times pick up: India’s decision to divert water supply to Pakistan.
Hindi dailies
Dainik Jagran and Amar Ujala lead with Union minister Nitin Gadkari’s statement that India will stop its water from flowing into Pakistan.
Dainik Jagran headline reads “Ab paani ko tarasega Pakistan” while Amar Ujala says, “Ab Pakistan ka paani band” The latter says that the water of Ravi, Beas and Sutlej will be diverted to Punjab and Kashmir. Jagran mentions Gadkari’s comment that work on Shahpur-Kandi project on Ravi in Jammu and Kashmir has begun.
Dainik Bhaskar has meanwhile led with Pakistan pretending to be serious about dealing with terrorism by banning two organisations of Hafeez Saeed. This according to the newspaper is to save itself from international sanctions and that the ban put up a third time is a sham.
Bhaskar‘s editorial is on Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal’s desperation to have an alliance with the Congress in Delhi. Jagran in a strongly worded editorial bemoans the politics on issues of national security with the review petition of Rafale being accepted by the Supreme Court.
Opinion
On the minds of newspapers this morning are India-Saudi relations. The Indian Express and Hindustan Times agree that the timing of the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit “present(s) a tricky situation” (HT), but that “India-Saudi relations cannot be seen through the prism of Pakistan” (Express).
In “Pakistan can’t dictate Saudi ties,” HT firmly states that “the Narendra Modi government did well not to succumb to the anger of the moment and put an important relationship with Saudi Arabia in jeopardy.”
“Moreover,” it adds, “MBS’ visits…were decided well in advance. His agenda certainly didn’t include playing a mediator between India and Pakistan following the attack in Pulwama.”
The Express agrees, adding that “Saudi Arabia is no spring chicken to the geopolitics of the region.”
“Reading the two (joint) statements together…the feeling is hard to escape that the two cancel each other out…Ultimately, tightrope walking is what nations do.”
Indrani Bagchi in Economic Times is more critical, saying the meeting “showed the limits of the protocol-driven diplomatic mechanisms like ‘joint statements’, particularly when the mode of governance is ruler-led, instead of institution-led.”
“Diplomatically, India has to ‘just get along with everyone’ until the Saudis figure things out,” she writes, referring to the kingdom’s precarity since “oil isn’t cutting it anymore,” prompting investments in India, Pakistan, and possibly China.
“If India has to invest in Saudi Arabia, it would not do to publicly snub him as a visiting head of state,” she writes.
Prime Time
With the Indian government issuing a directive to stop river water sharing with Pakistan, television media took to the order as an opportunity to praise the Modi government.
On Times Now, anchors Navika Kumar and Rahul Shivshankar discussed the change in water sharing policy and how #ModiPunishesPak. They sought to know, “Is the decision to choke water supply a surgical strike on Pakistan’s economy and psyche?”
Criticising the move, political analyst Vivek Srivastava said, “It is a government of jumlas and nautanki, 5 years they did nothing. 2019 has come, they have to show some result.”
However, BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra said, “We are Indians at the end of the day. I believe when the nation has taken decision, the first thing we should do is stand by it, rather than saying it is a jumla.”
CPI(M) spokesperson Fuad Halim tried to reason why India shares this water with Pakistan in the first place.
“6 per cent that is allowed to enter Pakistan, India has been allowing this water to flow as there is an issue of flooding on our soil…the water is allowed to flow as we cannot handle it ourself,” said Halim.
Arnab Goswami took on the task of “#IdentifyAntiNationals” on RepublicTV. The major criticism was reserved for Congress for calling the Pulwama terrorist “home grown.”
BJP spokesperson Sudhanshu Trivedi said, “This type of act of dividing through caste, religion in army should not happen. There are media houses that are deliberately promoting anti-nationals.”
During a debate on the politicization of the attack on Aaj Tak, anchor Rohit Sardana spoke to representatives of SP, Congress, JDU and BJP.
Congress spokesperson Priyanka Chaturvedi defended the press conference saying, “The Congress party as an opposition had promised the ruling party of solidarity and support, which it did. The BJP took to discussing the attacks in its rallies.”
Security analyst G.D. Bakshi, however, said, “In any mature democracy during times of national security threats there is a bipartisan consensus and solidarity. The first few days when we saw the two parties in tandem made us very happy but now both the opposition and the ruling party are back to name calling and mud-slinging.”