The only way the Central Government should respond to the Pegasus allegations

A thorough perusal of articles about the Pegasus news story proves that the news is, as the risk of sounding cliched, much ado about nothing meaning.

The articles contain myriad synonyms for the words ‘possible’ and ‘alleged’.  The list contains ‘possible targets’ or ‘potential targets’ and the surveillance is ‘alleged’ or ‘purported’. The sources are always unnamed.

Those making the outrageous allegations are habitual offenders. It must be remembered The Washington Post baselessly claimed, with certitude, that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton.

In fact, if one attempts to chronicle the numerous mendacious stories that The Washington Post carried about the Trump Presidency, we probably would have a text that reads longer than a Tolstoy novel.  

As always there was never a smidgen of evidence provided to back their preposterous claim. There never is a retraction, correction, or apology even when they are found wrong. This is the very paper that eulogized the slain leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi calling him an “austere religious scholar”.

Yet they continue to call themselves the sole beacon of hope for democracy. New organizations such as the Washington Post are the reason why the US ranked last among 46 countries in trust in media, according to Reuters Institute report.

The less said about the Indian confederates of the Washington Post the better.

In the end, these are baseless allegations and fabrications.

So how does the Government respond?

They issue a very basic terse but signed statement on an official government document that reads as follows.

“We do not respond to baseless, unfounded, unsubstantiated allegations or speculations”

The words ‘unfounded’, ‘unsubstantiated’ are synonyms for baseless, but worth adding to emphasize the point being made. It also adds a twist of irony since those casting stones seem to suffer from a fetish for synonyms.

The statement is not a refutation of the allegations but a rejection of the entire premise. A refusal to be dragged into the sludge of groundless accusations.

The Government must emphatically not cite surveillance done by previous governments, because it implicitly suggests some guilt. It could be understood as – ‘that they did it and hence we did it too’ which means we all have the same moral standing.

There must be no mention of the sinister grand conspiracy by globalist powers to bring down this government and PM Modi. Firstly an elected government can never be brought done unless it is voted out, secondly, it sounds self-aggrandizing and pompous. Above all, it is unwise to respond to baseless allegations with baseless claims.

When the allegations are so flimsy, there is no need to issue extensive statements the purposes of which are often self-defeating. In a democracy, the press has a right to question the government and the government is obliged to answer. But these questions have to be rooted in fact, not vicious gossip from ‘sources’

The government must continue to issue the terse refutation each time there are ‘sensational new details’ to these allegations. Their spokespersons must continue to repeat reject the premise.

As the perspicacious Polonius advised his son Laertes ‘Brevity is the soul of wit’.