An article written by a Chinese demagogue for a “patriotic” website has received surprisingly scant attention in India. Zhan Lue (a pseudonym for ‘strategy’) of the Institute for International Strategic Studies has written a widely circulated article that advocates China should work at splitting India into 30 states and take the help of Pakistan and other neighbours to bring this about.

The squeamishness of the Indian media is shocking. This should be headline stuff. Rarely does policy intent emerge with such forthrightness and the last thing we can do is to tide over the matter and brush it under the carpet by invoking peace and goodwill.

India and China met recently for border talks and in spite of the diplomatic noises emanating from that meeting, it is common knowledge that China has long harboured designs on India’s north-east. But Zhan Lue takes it to the next ghastly level: “China can dismember the so-called ‘Indian Union’ with one little move! China should join forces with ‘different nationalities’ such as Tamil and Kashmiri people so that they can establish independent nation states of their own.”

If that’s not language that closely mirrors the Pakistani Army’s stated intention to bleed India through a thousand cuts, I can’t say what is. Interestingly, the article was posted around the same time as the two countries met for border talks.

In a nasty dig at the concept of ‘Chindia’ (coined by Jairam Ramesh to denote the economic rise of the emerging economic giants), Zhan Lue says there can’t be two suns in the sky, and that “China and India cannot really deal with each other harmoniously.”

While there has been no word from the Chinese government on the matter, India has, unbelievably, offered the olive branch by saying that relations between the two countries are stable. “The Chinese side has conveyed to us that in approaching India-China relations, China abides by the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. One of these principles stresses respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty,” a foreign ministry spokesman said.

This, when the article could not have been posted on a well-known site and then freely disseminated without the consent of the Chinese authorities. At the very least, the government should have released a stronger statement denouncing the article and asking the Chinese government to do the same.

The economic miracle that has allowed China to have its way in the international geostrategic stakes is likely to tilt the balance in its favour in international forums. America, especially in the post-September 2008 world, cannot afford to annoy China. Irrespective of what the international community might say about the Dalai Lama/Tibet/human rights abuses, China does what it wants to, as happened recently in Xinjiang. India must treat with caution any suggestions that our partnership with the US is “natural” and must brace itself for all eventualities.

The Emraan Hashmi episode — where the actor alleged that he was denied an apartment in a Pali Hill society because he is Muslim — has generated understandable outrage, with the media, the ever-present electronic media in particular, latching on to the case to once again bolster its secular (?) credentials. However, the case, at first glance, does not look so simple as a Hindu-versus-Muslim debate.

First, every individual has the right to decide who he wants to sell his house to, regardless of his reasons for making that choice. Courts do not and cannot exercise jurisdiction over people’s prejudices in a personal domain such as this. Try looking for a house in New Delhi’s Chittaranjan Park, and if you are not a Bengali, chances are your offers will be turned down. This is truer for Mumbai than for any other city in India, where Marathis, Muslims, South Indians all hold fast to their spaces. Hashmi’s plea that he was denied the house because of his religion is open to question, since discrimination in India begins at home — caste, whether one is veg/non-veg, single/married etc all play a role.

Second, Hashmi and his uncle Mahesh Bhatt made the customary rounds of news channels’ offices to speak, no shriek, their minds. Acting suitably wronged, Hashmi screamed bloody murder: “It’s not that I can’t get a house anywhere else. If I want, I can get 10. But this is not about that. It’s about what sort of India we want to develop.” Very noble sentiments, those, but somehow, their poignancy was lost when just behind Hashmi, one could spot a gigantic poster of his latest film occupying pride of place. Hard as one may try, it’s impossible not to take this thought bubble to its logical conclusion.

But take him at his word, there still remains the slightly ungainly task of placing Hashmi in the same league as Shabana Azmi. Sure, both are actors — but it takes real dilution of one’s love for cinema to place on the same pedestal the person who gave us Arth and Masoom and one whose cinematic output limits the audience to keep separating Emraan Hashmi, the man from Emraan Hashmi, the lips.

Well, what can one say? He has been wronged, apparently, and the best way to make up to him is go watch his latest unforgivable movie, whenever it’s out. Kiss and make up, eh?