just last month a number of indian media outlets carried an exciting story about an inflammatory plan by china to build an astronomical observatory in the aksai chin, a remote area, neighbouring ladakh, which is claimed by india. japan and south korea had been asked to help on the project. so china was accused of seeking to “internationalise” its claim to disputed territory. in the narrative of chinese policy to which indians have become accustomed by their press, it added another chapter to a familiar, consistent campaign by china to do india down.
上个月很多印度媒体编造了一个精彩的故事，说是中国企图在临近拉达克的偏远地区阿克赛钦建造一座天文台，印度对该地区有领土要求。中国曾经请求日本和韩国协助建造这项工程。因此印度指责中国在处理领土争端时寻求国际化。中国政府声称印度人对这种报道已经习以为常，它还附上一则中国在不断打击印度的类似报道。
it was not true. wherever the proposed observatory is built, it seems it will not be in the aksai chin. for those, like china’s prime minister, wen jiabao, who are inclined to blame the perennial tensions in india-chinese relations on an alarmist press, this was a prime piece of evidence. such critics believe the press harps on the strategic tensions between the two huge neighbours, playing down their booming trading relations and convergence on some issues of global concern, such as climate change.
这不真实。无论天文台建在哪也轮不到阿克赛钦。主要证据就是中国总理温家宝也讨厌这类挑拨印中关系的危言耸听的报道。批评人士认为这类对中印两大邻国之间紧张的战略态势的频繁报道冲淡了双方蓬勃发展的贸易关系以及对一些全球性问题（如气候变化）的共识。
equally, indians inclined to fret about china’s international strategy can look at the views of chinese bloggers and move from mild concern to panic. in 2009, a chinese website, calling itself the official-sounding “china international institute for strategic studies” posted an article (“china must break up india”) arguing that “if china takes a little action, the so-called great indian federation can be broken up into 30 pieces.” indian press duly reported the threat as emanating from an “authoritative” website, though in fact its origin was an unofficial forum.
同样，中国人博客里面有关国际战略的观点从温和转向激进也另印度人惴惴不安。2009年一家自称“中国国际战略研究所”的“官方”机构在网上发布一篇文章（“中国必须肢解印度”）声称：“只要中国动个指头，所谓的大印度联邦就会分成三十块。”印度媒体及时地转发了这篇来自“官方网站”的文章，其实这篇文章只是出自一个非正式论坛。
in a commendable effort to help bridge this divide, the institute of south asian studies at the national university of singapore this month convened a workshop on the role of the press in india-china relations. it brought together practitioners and experts from china and india and one foreign journalist (banyan).
一种可贵的力量在帮助弥补这个鸿沟，新加坡国立大学的南亚研究所这个月召集了一个研究会，探讨媒体在印中关系中扮演的角色。来自中印两国的新闻从业人士和专家（还有一个外国记者）在这个研讨会上汇聚一堂。
to say there was a meeting of minds would not be honest. the chinese journalists were frank that their role in bilateral relations was to promote them. the indians thought their job was to report and analyse them. the foreigner agreed with the indians. some consensus was reached, however, in identifying the problems. far too few indian reporters are based in china—just four—and vice versa. indian commentary on china tends to be monopolised by a few loquacious hawks, including retired members of the security establishment, whose paranoia about china seems to carry especial weight. (see, for example, this warning of a “limited border war”, or this one on the need to narrow the gap in “tactical capabilities with china”.)
如果说双方意见一致那是在撒谎。中国记者坦诚自己的任务是推动双边关系。印度人认为自己的工作是报道和研究双边关系。外国人赞同印度人的观点。双方还是在发现问题方面取得了某些相同意见。迄今为止，常驻中国的印度记者非常少，只有四个。同样在印度的中国记者也不多。印度关于中国的实况报道被几个喋喋不休的鹰派人物把持，里面有几个安全机构的退休人员，他们针对中国的偏执观点似乎举足轻重。（比如，这个说要警惕“有限的边境战争”，那个道需要弥补在“战略能力上和中国的差距”。）
and, with the burgeoning of the chinese media, nobody knows any more who speaks for the government. in particular, the global times, a newspaper produced out of the people’s daily stable, which takes a strongly nationalist and hence sometimes anti-indian line, could give the indian press lessons in hawkishness. and the blogosphere remains heavily policed. so the dividing line between “outrageous-but-tolerated” and “officially sanctioned” is very blurred.
中国媒体发展迅速，人们不知道哪家代表政府说话。特别是人民日报旗下的环球时报，采用强硬的民族主义立场，有时也发出反对印度的声音，这给印度的鹰派媒体上了一课。博客空间也被严密监控。所以“粗暴而温和的言论”和“被官方谴责的报道”之间的界限非常模糊。
one point of consensus was that much is the fault of the foreign press, accused of playing up tensions and frictions between china and india, and thereby influencing perceptions in both countries, which are then reflected in the local press. an example cited was the reporting of india’s successful launch in april of an agni-5 missile. india, as is usual for governments in this position, said the missile’s development was not aimed at anyone. china’s reaction was muted. yet almost all foreign coverage noted that this put many chinese cities within range.
中印两国媒体人士都指责那些夸大中印两国关系紧张和摩擦的言论，可惜外国媒体没能做到这一点，因此影响了两国之间的相互理解，这反应在地方媒体的报道上。有个例子引用了四月份印度成功发射烈火5导弹的事情，印度声明自己发展导弹并不针对任何国家，站在印度政府的立场来说，这很正常。中国的反应也是温和的。然而几乎大部分外国媒体报道说烈火5导弹的射程能覆盖很多中国城市。
for most of the indian reporters, and the foreigner, this was just useful context. for the chinese it was subjective and alarmist. fortunately, no once seemed to have read the economist’s coverage, where a comment by india’s prime minister, manmohan singh, praising his scientists for adding to “the credibility of our security and preparedness”, was translated as meaning, roughly, that “india might for the first time soon threaten nuclear retaliation on beijing or shanghai.” subjective, yes; alarmist, perhaps; but, the foreigner would argue: true.
这些报道对大部分印度记者和外国人非常有用。中国人认为这些报道主观臆断危言耸听。幸运的是，经济学人也没能免俗，它引用了印度总理曼莫汉•辛格对科学家的赞美 “增强了我们安全和战备的可靠性，印度能迅速对北京或上海实施核报复。（这是按照印度总理表达的意思翻译的）”这的确有点主观，也有点耸人听闻，但是外国人会争辩道——这是真的啊。
the same goes, some howlers aside, for much of the indian press’s coverage of china. at a public event in singapore linked to the workshop, sunanda datta-ray, a distinguished indian journalist, reminded the audience of an earlier incident over the aksai chin, where in the late 1950s china built a road linking tibet and xinjiang. both governments denied the road’s existence. it was an indian newspaper, the statesman, that proved them wrong. more than half a century later, the indian press remains paranoid about china, but partly because china gives it a lot to be paranoid about.
滑稽的是很多印度媒体报道中国也是如此。这次新加坡研讨会的一个公共活动中，杰出的印度记者孙南达•达塔雷回忆了很早以前发生在阿克赛钦发生的事件，上个世纪五十年代后期中国在那里修筑了一条连通西藏和新疆的公路。两国政府都不承认有这条路。印度的政治家报证明他们都是错误的。半个多世纪后，印度媒体保留了关于中国的偏执观点但这至少是中国媒体对印度的更加报道偏激造成的。