[Reader-list] The Hindu on Tibet
TaraPrakash
taraprakash at gmail.com
Mon Apr 14 02:55:10 IST 2008
That's where your fundamentalism lies. I must modify my statement in the previous mail, It is not always too difficult to make out a fundamentalist.
Nowhere in your list of cessationist movements or movements for social justice is mentioned any movement that is going on a land ruled by an Islamic regime. No questioning of oppression in the name of Islam.
The kind of reasoning you have used thus far on this thread, if I use for you, I will conclude that oppression is acceptable if it is not directed against the Muslims.
You would be on a higher pedestal to challenge Sonia and other signatories, again going by your way of reasoning, if you had supported the cessationist movement in Sindh in Pakistan, if you had raised your voice against the oppression of minorities in Bangla Desh, if you had fumed over what is happening in Malaysia with non-Muslims. If you never voiced your opinion against the murder of a youth called Jagdish in Pakistan for alleged blasphemy last week, if you are fine with the forced closure of barber shops, ban on all kind of music, ban on women's education by Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan and NWFP of Pakistan; if you did not write anything against women being punished by throwing acid on their faces if they came out unchaperoned or without a veil, if you never used your fingers to write anything against a ban on non-Muslims on being seen in public on Fridays, you should be the last person to challenge the signatories when they took a proactive step of challenging Hindu's playing the role of Chinese regime's mouthpiece and distorting facts in their editorials.
No one should object when someone is pro-Islamic without being savagely against "infidels", but when someone limits the word "people" in the phrases like "people's struggle" to Muslims only, I think it is highly objectionable.
----- Original Message -----
From: M Yousuf
To: TaraPrakash
Cc: sarai list
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] The Hindu on Tibet
Kashmir, Northeast, Tibet, Palestine and wherever in any continent people want to secede from their respective occupiers...I AM WITH THEM. make no mistake even if all the individual states of India demand sovereignty I WILL PRINCIPALLY HAVE NO PROBLEMS....and would stand in support.
Do I still need to say that I do not consider Kashmir to be an integral part of India?
Budhism, Islam, Hinduism and other isms or 370s are not enough to learn the political histories of struggles.
And, it may not actually be too hard to make out a fundamentalist....in the understanding of it, as appears in the text you chose not to post in the Sarai space, i find it easy to make out one.
Cheers
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 1:37 AM, TaraPrakash <taraprakash at gmail.com> wrote:
You talk of hypocrisy? Where are your mails to question Hindu's coverage or otherwise of oppression in J&K? When they question the coverage of Tibet, suddenly you think of moral grounds? Let people not smell anti-Buddhism in you. I know the sour relationship of Islam and Buddhism. Notable is that when Buddhists in Kashmir protested against what is happening in Tibet recently, those Muslims who escaped from Tibet did not join the Buddhist protesters.
Sadly, there was not much of furor from those talking about hypocrisy when Buddhist culture was being destroyed in Afghanistan in the name of Islam. Greg Mortenson and David Oliver in "Three cups of Tea" have suggested the Muslim paranoia with Buddhists. But that I thought was with the fundamentalists. But of course, a fundamentalist is difficult to make out these days.
I didn't hear you questioning Hindu when the newspaper was shamelessly siding with the oppression in Nandi Gram. When someone is challenging the paper finally you think of the moral grounds?
Even if someone acknowledges that their silence was criminal, are you guys telling them to keep on being criminals?
Last point but not the least, apart from Kashmiris, there are other people who think that Kashmir is a disputed territory, and India's claim on it is challenged, what do you say to that? Do you accept Kashmir as integral part of India? If not, how do you compare Tibet and Kashmir? If you accept Kashmir as India's part, Do we have mechanism like article 370 (even if for the name's sake) to protect the culture of Tibet in China?
I think you need to rise above the notions of self and other. Just because someone was not protesting against lack of coverage of oppression in Sudan, Turkey, Iraq, or oppression of women in the NWFP, one does not lose moral right to question the coverage of riots in Gujarat.
----- Original Message -----
From: M Yousuf
To: TaraPrakash
Cc: Wali Arifi ; sarai list
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] The Hindu on Tibet
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.net with
> > > > 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.net with
> > > 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.net with
> > 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.net with
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.net with subscribe in the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
More information about the reader-list
mailing list