[Reader-list] The Hindu on Tibet
waliarifi3 at gmail.com
Fri Apr 11 00:28:43 IST 2008
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
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!
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.!
> ----- 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/>
More information about the reader-list