[Reader-list] The Hindu on Tibet

M Yousuf yousufism at gmail.com
Sat Apr 12 23:06:55 IST 2008 

In the political morality paradigm the signatories should be bound by what
happens in their own nations. The point is not to raise voices about every
such issue that may exist anywhere else in the world. What is not heartening
is that the signatories have remained silent on the Tibet like isssue of
Kashmir where the nation state they are citizens of is perpetrating the same
crimes. From that point of view, the signatories are criminals in silence
and in that sense colaborators with the state of India in as much as the
crimes against humanity that continue to be perpetrated in Kashmir and
Northeast.

The issue is, where does one derive the moral authority to come down on
China (in which case all the protest and solidarity is perfectly justified),
and in this conversation, on The Hindu. It is utter hypocricy when similar
atmosphere prevailing in the country of one's residence is so conveniently
(and may I say criminally) overlooked.

I see no difference between the Chinese Han officials who justify their
brutality in Tibet and those nationalist Indians (Like the signatories
who ceratinly appear to me as such) who choose not to see India's brutality
and sophisticated occupation of Kashmir and Northeast.

The point I am trying to drive home is that one cannot be a wife beater and
SHO of a women's Thana at the same time.

For heaven's/Hell's sake, all of us who rise in solidarity with victims of
political injustices, can we first be civil society actors in our
own operating spaces instead of 'Advisors to Nationalism'.

In solidarity against all occupations in the world.

M Yousuf


On 4/11/08, TaraPrakash <taraprakash at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Signatories are not bound by any moral or legal contract to respond to
> anyone.
> There are so many movements going all round the world, all require equal
> attention. It does not mean that when someone starts writing about a
> specific issue, you will pin them down on the other issues. They are not
> part of a political party for heaven's/hell's sake. The people who are
> bringing Kashmir in the current issue in discussion, that of Tibet, are
> doing the same thing that Hindu has been trying to do, to sidetrack Tibet
> issue.
> The Hindu is almost threatening the government and people of India that if
> you will show any pro-Tibet leanings, the Chinese regime for whom Hindu is
> speaking, will raise the issue of Kashmir.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "M Yousuf" <yousufism at gmail.com>
> To: "Wali Arifi" <waliarifi3 at gmail.com>
> Cc: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 11:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] The Hindu on Tibet
>
>
> Dear list buddies
> >
> > Well.....Tibet is fashion for many compulsive activists, while the issue
> > deserves all the attention, solidarity and support that it is getting
> > from
> > many among us. But what is missing in all this activist dynamic is a
> > moral
> > container that so conveniently allows the many who populate this space
> > to
> > let go of or ignore issues like Kashmir and Northeast.
> >
> > Arifi deserves an answer, at least in this case, from all the
> > signatories of
> > the open letter to The Hindu in question.
> >
> > The right to question China or The Hindu on Tibet must derive from the
> > moral
> > stand of questioning the state of India that is doing what it has been
> > in
> > places like Northeast/Kashmir in the name of its citizens like Guha,
> > Tharoor, Kesavan, Jabbar et al.
> >
> > cheers
> > M Yousuf
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Wali Arifi <waliarifi3 at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > One would have hoped that this response was posted on the Sarai forum.
> > > These
> > > are no personal issues though...
> > >
> > > Now that Ms Sonia Jabbar wants a response to her work/writing about
> > > Kashmir,
> > > may I ask if she considers Kashmir a military occupation, just like
> > > Tibet, or a law and order issue most nationalist Indians like to
> > > beleive
> > > it
> > > is?
> > >
> > > Not that her readership and observance is not aware of Ms Jabbar's
> > > neo-Gandhian activism in Kashmir. Could Ms Jabbar also, for the
> > > benefit of
> > > Sarai subscribers, point out any published stand on what she believes
> > > Kashmir issue to be?
> > >
> > > And does she also have anything to say about Kashmir reportage by the
> > > likes
> > > of Praveen Swami and Barkha Dutt both of whom along with many
> > > others owe their careers as journalists to misrepresenting Kashmir.
> > >
> > > best
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/11/08, sonia jabbar <sonia.jabbar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Easy for you to accuse me of  enjoying 'an organic
> > > > relationship with the powers that be.'  Easier to say I  observe
> > > criminal
> > > > silence than to find out what I've said  and  respond intelligently
> > > and
> > > > substantively to my writings and activism.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:28 AM, Wali Arifi <waliarifi3 at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear all
> > > > >
> > > > > It is not clear why the signatories to the letter are agitated
> > > about
> > > the
> > > > > way
> > > > > The Hindu has dealt with the Tibet issue. The editorial in
> > > question
> > > > > actually
> > > > > reflects the newspaper's consistent outlook about many similar > >
> > > issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > The newspaper's well known Rural Editor simply chose to overlook
> > > > > recently
> > > > > exposed state terrorism by the CPI(M) government in Nandigram. Mr
> > > P
> > > > > Sainath,
> > > > > the interrogator of Indian social reality, in complete contrast to
> > > what
> > > > > he
> > > > > is known for, chose to remain silent about purging, massacre and
> > > > > onslaught
> > > > > of corporate world. All this in conformity with the newspaper's
> > > > > proximity to
> > > > > the so called CPI(M) ideology and the party.
> > > > >
> > > > > Similarly, The Hindu's "ace reporter" and its "Kashmir expert", Mr
> > > > > Praveen
> > > > > Swami, appears to have been left above any ethical or professional
> > > > > scrutiny
> > > > > - the right a newspaper is supposed to unequivocally reserve for
> > > itself
> > > > > and
> > > > > its readers. The newspaper willingly chooses to ignore how Swamiji
> > > > > has
> > > > > over
> > > > > time been turned into a dumping yard for its scrap book by the
> > > country's
> > > > > intelligence establishment. The ace journalist does not even seem
> > > to
> > > > > exercise the basic minimum professional duty of cross checking
> > > > > information
> > > > > dolled out to him by his intelligence handlers.
> > > > >
> > > > > For patient readers the link bellow provides just an example, the
> > > tip
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > Swamiji iceberg.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.thehindu.com/2008/04/04/stories/2008040458210100.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > While the ace reporter was being briefed for this particular
> > > report > > (I
> > > > > am
> > > > > taking the sweet liberty to imagine once like Swamiji so regularly
> > > > > does),
> > > > > his (and thus The Hindu's) trusted handlers forgot to check that
> > > the
> > > > > Hizbul
> > > > > Mujahideen (HM) ceasefire dates were off the mark only by three >
> > > > years.
> > > > > According to Swamiji, HM's July 2000 ceasefire was scripted by the
> > > > > group's
> > > > > ideologue in 2003!
> > > > >
> > > > > For a discerning reader, The Hindu cannot be disappointing in this
> > > > > regard.
> > > > > Be it Tibet, Kashmir, Nandigram or the issue of Northeast. In
> > > fact,
> > > its
> > > > > Kashmir reportage happens through the intelligence establishment
> > > with
> > > > > just
> > > > > tulip gardens from the ground. Or, may be the newspaper is
> > > mandated
> > > only
> > > > > to
> > > > > write about US imperialism.
> > > > >
> > > > > For the signatories of the letter to the newspaper, particularly >
> > > > Sonia
> > > > > Jabbar, Shashi Tharoor and Ramachandra Guha, who enjoy an organic
> > > > > relationship with the powers that be, it is easy to understand how
> > > they
> > > > > give
> > > > > themselves the moral right to talk about Tibet and choose to
> > > exercise
> > > > > criminal silence about what India has been doing in Northeast and
> > > > > Kashmir.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nationalism, lady and gentlemen, is quite a mandate!
> > > > >
> > > > > Best
> > > > >  On 4/9/08, radhikarajen at vsnl.net <radhikarajen at vsnl.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I very much appreciate your concern and anguish, but it is > > >
> > > wellknown
> > > > > fact
> > > > > > that our "cadres" always hail china and welcome them with
> > > painting
> > > red
> > > > > the
> > > > > > whole of the city like they did in 1962.The very fact that the
> > > line
> > > > > marked
> > > > > > as Mcmohan line as border between british india in 1945 after
> > > the
> > > end
> > > > > of
> > > > > > world war, even today remains unsurveyed, thanks to our cadre
> > > friends
> > > > > > engineering hindi-chini bhai bhai. It is not late even now to
> > > make > > > a
> > > > > joint
> > > > > > survey and with dialogue end the border row and disputes with >
> > > > > China,
> > > > > then
> > > > > > two nations, the developing economies of Asia, both India and
> > > China
> > > > > can have
> > > > > > honourable  interaction with all nations in the comity of
> > > nations,
> > > > > even US
> > > > > > would be thinking twice if our leaders think of the nation and
> > > its
> > > > > freedom
> > > > > > than kickbacks in N-deal for the first family.!
> > > > > > Regards.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "S. Jabbar" <sonia.jabbar at gmail.com>
> > > > > > Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2008 5:44 pm
> > > > > > Subject: [Reader-list] The Hindu on Tibet
> > > > > > To: sarai list <reader-list at sarai.net>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Letter to the Editor:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Hindu's bias in favour of the Chinese Government in its
> > > > > > > editorial on
> > > > > > > Tibet (March 28, 2008) is dismaying.  The reasons behind the
> > > recent
> > > > > > > demonstrations by Tibetans are transparent. You speak of > > >
> > > > sustained
> > > > > > > growth,omitting the fact that Han Chinese control the economy,
> > > > > > > Party and
> > > > > > > government. Impartial observers have documented the onslaught
> > > on
> > > > > > > naturalresources, the repression of Buddhism, the enforced
> > > > > > > denunciations of the
> > > > > > > Dalai Lama.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The subjugation of Tibet is most evident in re-settlement
> > > policy.
> > > > > > > In 1952
> > > > > > > Chairman Mao complained that there were "hardly any Han in > >
> > > > > Tibet."
> > > > > > > By 1953
> > > > > > > there were 100,000 Chinese in the province of Qinghai, the > >
> > > > > renamed
> > > > > > > easternTibetan province of Amdo. In 1985 there were 2.5
> > > million
> > > > > > > Chinese and 750,000
> > > > > > > Tibetans in Qinghai. By the 2000 census only 20% of Qinghai's
> > > > > > > population was
> > > > > > > Tibetan.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This demographic engineering undermines the comparison you
> > > draw
> > > > > > > betweenTibet and Kashmir. Right-wing groups in India have long
> > > > > > > demanded the
> > > > > > > re-settlement of the Kashmir Valley. However, Article 370
> > > disallows
> > > > > > > non-state subjects from buying land; and it is to allay
> > > Kashmiri
> > > > > > > anxietiesthat New Delhi has not granted autonomy or separate
> > > > > > > statehood for Ladakh and
> > > > > > > Jammu.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Beijing's abusive denunciations of the Dalai Lama and its
> > > > > > > stonewalling of
> > > > > > > his proposals make it difficult to accept their sincerity. A
> > > just
> > > > > > > solution"within the framework of one China" is precisely what
> > > the
> > > > > > > Dalai Lama has
> > > > > > > pursued.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Hindu's wholesale reproduction of the official Chinese
> > > line > > > > on
> > > > > > > Tibetdoes it little credit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yours sincerely,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sonia Jabbar
> > > > > > > Ramachandra Guha
> > > > > > > Mukul Kesavan
> > > > > > > Madhu Sarin
> > > > > > > Jyotirmaya Sharma
> > > > > > > Dilip Simeon
> > > > > > > Tenzin Sonam
> > > > > > > Shashi Tharoor
> > > > > > > _________________________________________
> > > > > > > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > > > > > > Critiques & Collaborations
> > > > > > > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.netwith
> > > > > > > subscribe in the subject header.
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe:
> > > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-
> > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> > > > > > _________________________________________
> > > > > > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > > > > > Critiques & Collaborations
> > > > > > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.netwith
> > > > > > subscribe in the subject header.
> > > > > > To unsubscribe:
> > > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > > > >
> > > > > > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> > > > > _________________________________________
> > > > > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > > > > Critiques & Collaborations
> > > > > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> > > > > subscribe in the subject header.
> > > > > To unsubscribe:
> > > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > > > >
> > > > > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _________________________________________
> > > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > > Critiques & Collaborations
> > > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> > > subscribe in the subject header.
> > > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> > >
> > > _________________________________________
> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > Critiques & Collaborations
> > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> > subscribe in the subject header.
> > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> >
>
>

More information about the reader-list mailing list