Paris, je t’aime (Paris, I Love You) seemed to be the overwhelming sentiment when the 21^st United Nations’ climate conference came to an end with a deal signed by 196 countries. The fact that the city had begun the year with a gruesome attack and was limping to normalcy a fortnight after the second attack and also hosting the mother of all climate summits, the overwhelming sense of solidarity to declare the Paris Conference of Parties (COP) a success was an understandable mood.

The reports that followed in mainstream big media from east to west used phrases like “historic”, “world leaders hailed”, “last chance to save mankind” and other such superlatives. We did a post-conference wrap two days after the gavelling of the deal when some experts, reporters were still in Paris and some of those euphoric words found their way into our show too. Though we also dedicated one whole segment to the tightrope walk India does, i.e. championing equity globally, at the climate talks, but not exactly addressing the gross inequity intra-country. In fact, the only article which was published on the topic amon the leading media platforms, was a piece by Lekha Sridhar in Scroll. Her piece did address the gross carbon emissions inequity between the elites of South Delhi and South Mumbai, and bottom 10 per cent of urban and rural India. That, the author is a researcher, and not a reporter, is important to note.

Al Jazeera‘s Listening Post also looked at the way global media reported the Paris Summit and the superlative words which were used. In a brilliant 10-minute segment, they showed the influence of western reportage on the choice of words. They did a take-down of the summit on three counts – – that is,  compensation/adaptation fund, polluters pay principle and insufficient voluntary commitments. They also quoted the New Internationalist that declared the Paris accord an Epic Fail where countries were hailed for what they could (reluctantly) do rather than what justice and science demanded. They also exposed the reluctance of African negotiators towards their own media’s combative reporting on the Western governments’ obduracy and hard stance. One of the reporters went on record to share that African journalists were being told by their own negotiators to go soft on reporting about the United States’ stance since bi-lateral deals and aid from the US will be adversely affected.

That brings me to the point of how climate summits get reported by our journalists in the country. First, the small mercies, from amongst all the summits of 2015, the Paris COP did get very good coverage in leading print and broadcast media. And digital platforms like The Wire, Scroll and India Together had regular reports/dispatches. Broadsheets like Business Standard and The Hindu had regular dispatches. Nitin Sethi, one of the leading Climate negotiations tracker, had his pieces simultaneously carried by Business Standard and The Wire and they also got tweeted by the Indian permanent mission at United Nations.

Unsurprisingly, most Indian media also chose to celebrate the Paris accord, though the fine print on losses for India started coming in soon after. But the in-country inequity juxta-position, was still a missing narrative.

Nitin Sethi’s reportage on climate is oft-quoted. He does some insightful writing on development and social policy issues but he is firmly of the opinion that the intra-country inequity of India should be off-topic at international summits. He has said as much in our show too. He considers those are issues to be addressed in country. While left thinker writer D Raghunandan believes it is a false choice and a Sophie’s choice no less! Such dichotomy in practise and preach weakens India’s position as global equity champion. In an inter-connected world, India’s in-country actions are visible to everyone. The consumption and emissions of the elite, the low duties on cars, over-presence of private transport, lack of investment in public transport incentivises over-consumption. And considering the Indian climate reportage has always been pro-India’s international negotiating position, issues of equity intra-country never get reported. Raghunandan has said as much in our show too.

That brings me to the reportage by the guru of environmental journalism in India, Darryl D’Monte. He has always shined a light on the dichotomy in India’s stance and his despatches from Paris were as much about the street protests as about closed-door negotiations and climate justice being failed and the poor being short-changed.

But there is a crucial difference between the three climate reporters/commentators and how their reportage has been treated. The Indian permanent mission to the United Nations meant to represent interests of 1.2 billion Indians at the United Nations tweets Nitin Sethi’s pieces where he is discussing the global north (rich countries) stand-off vis-a-vis the global south (poor countries) and the justice principle in India’s positions. The reportage by the other two never gets that kind of attention. And Nitin’s reportage on India’s human development and social policy failings also never gets any attention by the Indian representatives at the United Nations (in their personal or official handles). That brings us to the moot question, is this a case of negotiators getting too proximate to a reporter or is it selectively promoting pieces and arguments by reporters that further the negotiators’ positions? Perhaps it is safe to assume it is the latter.

But the journalistic question remains moot, since when is reporting on India’s intra-country inequity and the need to address the same to amplify India’s global equity agenda anti-national? It reminds us of Ravish Kumar’s Chennai flood reportage where he highlighted, reporting on one’s country’s short-comings is essential journalism for public policy making too and treating journalists who report on the short-comings as anti-nationals comes at a huge price to us all. Hope the Indian negotiators are consuming the writings of the likes of Darryl D Monte, Raghunandan and our shows (however uncomfortable), even if they are not re-tweeting/promoting them. At least for determining the negotiating positions on behalf the 1.2 billion Indians.