A POINT OF VIEW - People, govt must act
...
People, govt must act
sensibly in J&K
S
oon after the street protests broke out in Srina-
gar recently, the migrant labourers packed their
bags and left. They confided that they were asked...read more...
Monday, August 25, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Letters on Tibet
Letters on Tibet
Your edit on The Question of Tibet (March 26) was surprising. It is strange that there was not a single word of sympathy or understanding for thousands of Tibetans who are being forced to live in exile across the world. In India too they have lived and carried on their lives peacefully without causing any unrest or clash of cultures. Their right to protest democratically against the violation of their human rights cannot be denied. Therefore it is unethical even to suggest that India should exercise pressure on them to toe the Chinese line. India has been home to refugees from various lands and it is only recently that attempts are being made to muzzle their voice. If China were only a progressive or benevolent State as has been portrayed, it would have been difficult to stage manage protests inland as has been suggested. In spite of a categorical assertion by the Dalai Lama that they are neither against Chinese government nor people and seek only a genuine autonomy, the Chinese have shown no inclination to resolve the issue. In contrast, they have accused the "Dalai clique" for orchestrating violence and used force to crush it. Dalai Lama on the other hand has denounced violence unequivocally and even threatened to resign if it continues. It is possible that the warring parties may be offering only half truths but violence in Tibet and elsewhere may well be due to suppression of the democratic aspirations of the people who have been denied to right to live in their homeland for half a century. This would not have happened If China were such a progressive and benevolent nation as has been portrayed. Our response to the crisis next door should be based on universal respect for human rights rather than the economic clout or military might of China. (Sent to Editor, The Hindu on 26.03.2008)
Barkha Dutt's account of how the world has failed Tibet (HT, March 29) was touching. In realpolitik, political parties and the governments run by them are largely dictated by ideology and self-interest. That is why CPM's Yechuri's had "no views to offer on Tibet". Viewed thus, nothing happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989 and nothing is happening in Tibet now. But there is no need for pessimism. Gandhi's non-violent struggle against the British, despite a similar skepticism among the middle classes, ultimately succeeded. So did the movements against apartheid in South Africa and Congress' internal emergency of 1975 at home. China, despite its economic or military might, shall not be able to wipe out those it oppresses with an iron fist. On our part, we must support the Tibetans since they deserve to return to an autonomous homeland. (Sent to Hindustan Times, on 29.03.2008)
The assertion by China's Consul-General in Kolkata that Olympics belong to the world and should not be boycotted makes sense. So is his claim that sports and politics should not be mixed. However, his own country is refusing to act as a generous host by suppressing local Tibetans and forcing others to live in exile. If China wishes to earn universal goodwill, it will have to facilitate their return to a genuinely autonomous homeland and also enable them to participate in the Olympics. (Sent to Hindustan Times on 3.04.2008)
Your edit rightly faults the govt. over the decision to cut down the route of Olympic flame (IE, April 5). The official assurances given to Chinese government have been demeaning and slighting to our self-respect. Have the Chinese ever expressed regrets over the noise it made over PM's visit to Arunachal Pradesh or grabbing of Aksai Chin? Did it feel sorry for denying visas to civil servants belonging to Arunachal Pradesh on the ludicrous claim that they were Chinese citizens? India, unlike China, is a democracy in which all citizens, including the Tibetans living in exile, have the right to protest. The ruling party must act strongly and liberate itself from the ideological grip of its Left allies who issue threats about Indo-US strategic relationship everyday but have no views to offer on repression in Tibet. An independent foreign policy is one that protects national interest and upholds universal values.
(Sent to Indian Express, 5.04.2008)
Your question why India should carry the torch of China's Olympian intolerance (IE, April 12) is pertinent. But CPM, which said it had "no views to offer on Tibet" is unlikely to provide an answer. Nor would it explain why India's military exercises with China, despite the latter's claim on Arunachal Pradesh and occupation of Aksai Chin, are acceptable while any strategic relationship with US send it into a shiver. By allowing Chinese security men to guard the torch during its truncated run in Delhi, the govt. has undermined confidence in India's security apparatus. It has also transformed the torch into a Chinese asset, which needs to be protected by its own soldiers. Unfortunately the Congress, only keen to last its full term, can do no better by taking its ally to task for banning a Tibetan protest rally in Kolkata. The torch may run but its spirit has already been extinguished.
(Sent to Indian Express, 12.04.2008)
Your edit on The Question of Tibet (March 26) was surprising. It is strange that there was not a single word of sympathy or understanding for thousands of Tibetans who are being forced to live in exile across the world. In India too they have lived and carried on their lives peacefully without causing any unrest or clash of cultures. Their right to protest democratically against the violation of their human rights cannot be denied. Therefore it is unethical even to suggest that India should exercise pressure on them to toe the Chinese line. India has been home to refugees from various lands and it is only recently that attempts are being made to muzzle their voice. If China were only a progressive or benevolent State as has been portrayed, it would have been difficult to stage manage protests inland as has been suggested. In spite of a categorical assertion by the Dalai Lama that they are neither against Chinese government nor people and seek only a genuine autonomy, the Chinese have shown no inclination to resolve the issue. In contrast, they have accused the "Dalai clique" for orchestrating violence and used force to crush it. Dalai Lama on the other hand has denounced violence unequivocally and even threatened to resign if it continues. It is possible that the warring parties may be offering only half truths but violence in Tibet and elsewhere may well be due to suppression of the democratic aspirations of the people who have been denied to right to live in their homeland for half a century. This would not have happened If China were such a progressive and benevolent nation as has been portrayed. Our response to the crisis next door should be based on universal respect for human rights rather than the economic clout or military might of China. (Sent to Editor, The Hindu on 26.03.2008)
Barkha Dutt's account of how the world has failed Tibet (HT, March 29) was touching. In realpolitik, political parties and the governments run by them are largely dictated by ideology and self-interest. That is why CPM's Yechuri's had "no views to offer on Tibet". Viewed thus, nothing happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989 and nothing is happening in Tibet now. But there is no need for pessimism. Gandhi's non-violent struggle against the British, despite a similar skepticism among the middle classes, ultimately succeeded. So did the movements against apartheid in South Africa and Congress' internal emergency of 1975 at home. China, despite its economic or military might, shall not be able to wipe out those it oppresses with an iron fist. On our part, we must support the Tibetans since they deserve to return to an autonomous homeland. (Sent to Hindustan Times, on 29.03.2008)
The assertion by China's Consul-General in Kolkata that Olympics belong to the world and should not be boycotted makes sense. So is his claim that sports and politics should not be mixed. However, his own country is refusing to act as a generous host by suppressing local Tibetans and forcing others to live in exile. If China wishes to earn universal goodwill, it will have to facilitate their return to a genuinely autonomous homeland and also enable them to participate in the Olympics. (Sent to Hindustan Times on 3.04.2008)
Your edit rightly faults the govt. over the decision to cut down the route of Olympic flame (IE, April 5). The official assurances given to Chinese government have been demeaning and slighting to our self-respect. Have the Chinese ever expressed regrets over the noise it made over PM's visit to Arunachal Pradesh or grabbing of Aksai Chin? Did it feel sorry for denying visas to civil servants belonging to Arunachal Pradesh on the ludicrous claim that they were Chinese citizens? India, unlike China, is a democracy in which all citizens, including the Tibetans living in exile, have the right to protest. The ruling party must act strongly and liberate itself from the ideological grip of its Left allies who issue threats about Indo-US strategic relationship everyday but have no views to offer on repression in Tibet. An independent foreign policy is one that protects national interest and upholds universal values.
(Sent to Indian Express, 5.04.2008)
Your question why India should carry the torch of China's Olympian intolerance (IE, April 12) is pertinent. But CPM, which said it had "no views to offer on Tibet" is unlikely to provide an answer. Nor would it explain why India's military exercises with China, despite the latter's claim on Arunachal Pradesh and occupation of Aksai Chin, are acceptable while any strategic relationship with US send it into a shiver. By allowing Chinese security men to guard the torch during its truncated run in Delhi, the govt. has undermined confidence in India's security apparatus. It has also transformed the torch into a Chinese asset, which needs to be protected by its own soldiers. Unfortunately the Congress, only keen to last its full term, can do no better by taking its ally to task for banning a Tibetan protest rally in Kolkata. The torch may run but its spirit has already been extinguished.
(Sent to Indian Express, 12.04.2008)
Letters on Tibet
Letters on Tibet
Your edit on The Question of Tibet (March 26) was surprising. It is strange that there was not a single word of sympathy or understanding for thousands of Tibetans who are being forced to live in exile across the world. In India too they have lived and carried on their lives peacefully without causing any unrest or clash of cultures. Their right to protest democratically against the violation of their human rights cannot be denied. Therefore it is unethical even to suggest that India should exercise pressure on them to toe the Chinese line. India has been home to refugees from various lands and it is only recently that attempts are being made to muzzle their voice. If China were only a progressive or benevolent State as has been portrayed, it would have been difficult to stage manage protests inland as has been suggested. In spite of a categorical assertion by the Dalai Lama that they are neither against Chinese government nor people and seek only a genuine autonomy, the Chinese have shown no inclination to resolve the issue. In contrast, they have accused the "Dalai clique" for orchestrating violence and used force to crush it. Dalai Lama on the other hand has denounced violence unequivocally and even threatened to resign if it continues. It is possible that the warring parties may be offering only half truths but violence in Tibet and elsewhere may well be due to suppression of the democratic aspirations of the people who have been denied to right to live in their homeland for half a century. This would not have happened If China were such a progressive and benevolent nation as has been portrayed. Our response to the crisis next door should be based on universal respect for human rights rather than the economic clout or military might of China. (Sent to Editor, The Hindu on 26.03.2008)
Barkha Dutt's account of how the world has failed Tibet (HT, March 29) was touching. In realpolitik, political parties and the governments run by them are largely dictated by ideology and self-interest. That is why CPM's Yechuri's had "no views to offer on Tibet". Viewed thus, nothing happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989 and nothing is happening in Tibet now. But there is no need for pessimism. Gandhi's non-violent struggle against the British, despite a similar skepticism among the middle classes, ultimately succeeded. So did the movements against apartheid in South Africa and Congress' internal emergency of 1975 at home. China, despite its economic or military might, shall not be able to wipe out those it oppresses with an iron fist. On our part, we must support the Tibetans since they deserve to return to an autonomous homeland. (Sent to Hindustan Times, on 29.03.2008)
The assertion by China's Consul-General in Kolkata that Olympics belong to the world and should not be boycotted makes sense. So is his claim that sports and politics should not be mixed. However, his own country is refusing to act as a generous host by suppressing local Tibetans and forcing others to live in exile. If China wishes to earn universal goodwill, it will have to facilitate their return to a genuinely autonomous homeland and also enable them to participate in the Olympics. (Sent to Hindustan Times on 3.04.2008)
Your edit rightly faults the govt. over the decision to cut down the route of Olympic flame (IE, April 5). The official assurances given to Chinese government have been demeaning and slighting to our self-respect. Have the Chinese ever expressed regrets over the noise it made over PM's visit to Arunachal Pradesh or grabbing of Aksai Chin? Did it feel sorry for denying visas to civil servants belonging to Arunachal Pradesh on the ludicrous claim that they were Chinese citizens? India, unlike China, is a democracy in which all citizens, including the Tibetans living in exile, have the right to protest. The ruling party must act strongly and liberate itself from the ideological grip of its Left allies who issue threats about Indo-US strategic relationship everyday but have no views to offer on repression in Tibet. An independent foreign policy is one that protects national interest and upholds universal values.
(Sent to Indian Express, 5.04.2008)
Your question why India should carry the torch of China's Olympian intolerance (IE, April 12) is pertinent. But CPM, which said it had "no views to offer on Tibet" is unlikely to provide an answer. Nor would it explain why India's military exercises with China, despite the latter's claim on Arunachal Pradesh and occupation of Aksai Chin, are acceptable while any strategic relationship with US send it into a shiver. By allowing Chinese security men to guard the torch during its truncated run in Delhi, the govt. has undermined confidence in India's security apparatus. It has also transformed the torch into a Chinese asset, which needs to be protected by its own soldiers. Unfortunately the Congress, only keen to last its full term, can do no better by taking its ally to task for banning a Tibetan protest rally in Kolkata. The torch may run but its spirit has already been extinguished.
(Sent to Indian Express, 12.04.2008)
Your edit on The Question of Tibet (March 26) was surprising. It is strange that there was not a single word of sympathy or understanding for thousands of Tibetans who are being forced to live in exile across the world. In India too they have lived and carried on their lives peacefully without causing any unrest or clash of cultures. Their right to protest democratically against the violation of their human rights cannot be denied. Therefore it is unethical even to suggest that India should exercise pressure on them to toe the Chinese line. India has been home to refugees from various lands and it is only recently that attempts are being made to muzzle their voice. If China were only a progressive or benevolent State as has been portrayed, it would have been difficult to stage manage protests inland as has been suggested. In spite of a categorical assertion by the Dalai Lama that they are neither against Chinese government nor people and seek only a genuine autonomy, the Chinese have shown no inclination to resolve the issue. In contrast, they have accused the "Dalai clique" for orchestrating violence and used force to crush it. Dalai Lama on the other hand has denounced violence unequivocally and even threatened to resign if it continues. It is possible that the warring parties may be offering only half truths but violence in Tibet and elsewhere may well be due to suppression of the democratic aspirations of the people who have been denied to right to live in their homeland for half a century. This would not have happened If China were such a progressive and benevolent nation as has been portrayed. Our response to the crisis next door should be based on universal respect for human rights rather than the economic clout or military might of China. (Sent to Editor, The Hindu on 26.03.2008)
Barkha Dutt's account of how the world has failed Tibet (HT, March 29) was touching. In realpolitik, political parties and the governments run by them are largely dictated by ideology and self-interest. That is why CPM's Yechuri's had "no views to offer on Tibet". Viewed thus, nothing happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989 and nothing is happening in Tibet now. But there is no need for pessimism. Gandhi's non-violent struggle against the British, despite a similar skepticism among the middle classes, ultimately succeeded. So did the movements against apartheid in South Africa and Congress' internal emergency of 1975 at home. China, despite its economic or military might, shall not be able to wipe out those it oppresses with an iron fist. On our part, we must support the Tibetans since they deserve to return to an autonomous homeland. (Sent to Hindustan Times, on 29.03.2008)
The assertion by China's Consul-General in Kolkata that Olympics belong to the world and should not be boycotted makes sense. So is his claim that sports and politics should not be mixed. However, his own country is refusing to act as a generous host by suppressing local Tibetans and forcing others to live in exile. If China wishes to earn universal goodwill, it will have to facilitate their return to a genuinely autonomous homeland and also enable them to participate in the Olympics. (Sent to Hindustan Times on 3.04.2008)
Your edit rightly faults the govt. over the decision to cut down the route of Olympic flame (IE, April 5). The official assurances given to Chinese government have been demeaning and slighting to our self-respect. Have the Chinese ever expressed regrets over the noise it made over PM's visit to Arunachal Pradesh or grabbing of Aksai Chin? Did it feel sorry for denying visas to civil servants belonging to Arunachal Pradesh on the ludicrous claim that they were Chinese citizens? India, unlike China, is a democracy in which all citizens, including the Tibetans living in exile, have the right to protest. The ruling party must act strongly and liberate itself from the ideological grip of its Left allies who issue threats about Indo-US strategic relationship everyday but have no views to offer on repression in Tibet. An independent foreign policy is one that protects national interest and upholds universal values.
(Sent to Indian Express, 5.04.2008)
Your question why India should carry the torch of China's Olympian intolerance (IE, April 12) is pertinent. But CPM, which said it had "no views to offer on Tibet" is unlikely to provide an answer. Nor would it explain why India's military exercises with China, despite the latter's claim on Arunachal Pradesh and occupation of Aksai Chin, are acceptable while any strategic relationship with US send it into a shiver. By allowing Chinese security men to guard the torch during its truncated run in Delhi, the govt. has undermined confidence in India's security apparatus. It has also transformed the torch into a Chinese asset, which needs to be protected by its own soldiers. Unfortunately the Congress, only keen to last its full term, can do no better by taking its ally to task for banning a Tibetan protest rally in Kolkata. The torch may run but its spirit has already been extinguished.
(Sent to Indian Express, 12.04.2008)
Sunday, August 17, 2008
A POINT OF VIEW - Read between the l...
A POINT OF VIEW - Read between the l...
T
he Prime Minister in his Independence Day
speech has mentioned the Right to Information
Act as a major achievement of the UPA government.
Passed in 2005, the Act empowers citizens to seek
a...read more...
T
he Prime Minister in his Independence Day
speech has mentioned the Right to Information
Act as a major achievement of the UPA government.
Passed in 2005, the Act empowers citizens to seek
a...read more...
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Let us work towards a safer India
Let us work towards a safer India
T
he spate of bombings ?rst in Bangalore and
later in Ahmedabad brought the focus back
on the issue of internal security. Had the countless
bombs planted all over Surat gone off, the toll woul...read more...
T
he spate of bombings ?rst in Bangalore and
later in Ahmedabad brought the focus back
on the issue of internal security. Had the countless
bombs planted all over Surat gone off, the toll woul...read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)