Russell Leigh Moses writes in China Real Time:

April 15th is almost as sensitive an anniversary in China as the actual suppression of the protests that began on the evening of June 3rd.  For years, the day passed with little mention of its significance in official media as the Party tried desperately to suppress anything that would revive positive memories of a movement it has always cast as a “counterrevolutionary rebellion.”

It was significant, then, that Liberation Daily, Shanghai’s main Party newspaper, ran two lengthy essays on Monday, each extolling Hu Yaobang as a reformer, while another essay originally published on the website of the Party-controlled China Youth Daily revisited political errors in the coverage of his death.

Ananth Krishnan in The Hindu on what the heir-apparent of the Congress Party in India got right and wrong about China.

Jeffrey Wasserstrom in The Atlantic:

They speculated on the likelihood that the new man in charge (no doubt about that the gender of the person selected in Rome would be the same as the one in Beijing) would be a “conservative” or a “reformer,” and also mused about whether his predecessor would fade away completely or exert some influence from behind the scenes. In both cases, Western reporters spoke of complex bureaucratic organizations that had been rocked by scandals, that many outsiders viewed as plagued by corruption, and that had traditionally been loathe to admit that they had made mistakes. Commentators also talked, in each case, of selection processes that were mysterious and cloaked in secrecy.