I saw People's Daily correspondent saying on Times Now, " There is no need to protest for freedom during the Olympic since Tibet is an integral part of China" I ask very simple questions to him. Are you free to speak, write, and express what you feel even in your own country? Do you even know the 'real' (not defined by China) meaning of Freedom and for the people by the people theory? Let me admit, I do not even consider him to debate this large issue.
It is nothing new that Amir Khan has no shame for taking just a wrong stand without worrying the cause of crores (at least 5.5 Crores Gujaratis) but worrying for the cause of 1.5 Lacs and many times worrying just for his own publicity. While I am writing, it is my emotions, somehow stopping me to write anything bad for Tendulkar as I owe him many cheers and shoutings I did for TEAM INDIA when he exhibited the best of the Cricket and won games for every one of us. But even with many emotions can I ask, how can you run/march over thousands of massacred dead bodies with the Olympic torch? Your level of sports icon should have avoided the tourch is my personal opinion sir.
First time I have seen sportsman openly and vocally standing up for a cause (which is not flashy or glamourous) but a cause for freedom seekers. Bhaichung Bhutia is standing up today for many homeless; The Tibetans.
When Govt. India show red eyes to the peaceful protesters. It shows that we have not developed enough tolerance for getting a true and dynamic republican or a democratic nation. I am also against illegal and forceful stand by Foreign Minister to curb protests and a warning to many of our Atithis (Guests) to shut their mouth against China. I say illegal stand because the apex court of India has stated in 1991 "Govt. can not prevent from staging peaceful demonstrations". Shouting slogans, burning photos are not violent ways of protest (source: this week's Sunday sentiments, HT).
Most Asian countries have already bowed to Giant Dragon - who always claims Arunachal belongs to them since ages. Lets check 'em in short.
Singapore, " Supports Chinese Policy……."
North Korea, " Inalienable territory of China………."
Myanmar, " Internal Affair………….."
Japan, " Basically a domestic………"
Thailand, " Internal affair……."
Vietnam, " Govt. of China will take action…….."
Pakistan, " Concern with China's sovereignty…….."
Sri Lanka, " One China Policy…"
Do we need to stand a part? Let the readers decide.
Before I take a pause, does any one really get a solution by a violent protest or bloody struggle? NO. NEVER. Evidently, LTTE hasn’t got a solution in SL; Maoists in India are not serving any other purpose except harming badly the lives of many innocents; look at Pakistan and Bangladesh – they have been thrown two decades back by their own children; misguided fanatics are just blowing up themselves in the middle of Baghdad or Kabul for no reason and sadly ending up and shedding the blood of their own thousands of people; Sikh movement did not serve any purpose except the life of Mrs. Gandhi and their own Sikh people in Delhi; No battle field gave India a much needed freedom except diplomatic moves by many freedom fighters including Sardar Patel, Gandhi, Tilak and many more. Neither Godhara(Train burning) nor Gujarat riots except earning a shame for every Indians. Examples are endless to say that what ever-happened in Lhasa was terribly wrong and should never be repeated. Therefore, I strongly condemn the killings of innocent Chinnese by Tibetans.
Peaceful protests by none other than Tibetans will bring the Independence some day I believe. Don’t go too far, Gandhi or Nelson Mandela technique should work against dragons too. Piece of advise to Tibetians - Make some friends in both China and Lhasa (Gandhi made some friends in UK and in India and diplomatically it worked, didn't they ?).
4 comments:
good Jinu Ji... my one professor during My university time used to say "Dont roam around the bush just Hit the Bush" whenever we stuck with some problem in probability.
Dude, you are thinking about such serious topics. I think you're gonna be a statesman. :P
Coming to your idea- I differ on two counts. First - carrying the olympic torch is not tantamount to supporting the violence in Tibet. For a sportsman, at least, it is one of the biggest honour to carry the torch in its historically significant transfer of venues. So I think that when a sportsman carries the torch, he pays a homage to world's oldest sporting tradition and not to that particular venue.
Secondly, while I do not condone what is happening in Tibet - no one can - but to expect that the whole world should oppose it, is like living in Utopia. It cannot happen and more so against China. Third - I think that while non-violence is a virtue. The result that it leads to, is dependent on the circumstances of the aggressor and the victim nations. Britain was under strain after WWII and India's non-violent struggle coincided with the strain and hence we got free in 1947. Tibet was so non-violent then that recently-ravaged (by Japs) and under-recovery China could take it over almost without a single casualty. And there are examples of successful violent struggles as well - Bangladesh and Balkan states being a couple. So in the end, what I mean is that almost no country in its right mind is going to antagonize China as of now, sportsmen respect the torch and not where it is going to, and Tibetans will have to make themselves militarily and economically strong enough to win their own independence (or China has to weaken substantially).
from wat i have ead ... only france has the balls to put in a strong protest agiinst China...and as far as i understand ... it is due to non dependence on Chinese economy and no fear for for China's growing prowess as a military might.
Even USA, the biggest bully of the world, has said that China should ease their strong stands against tibetans but.... Bush will still attend the Olympic Ceremony...
my point, jinu sir, is that countries (especially the developing ones... incl. India) dont want to sour ties with China due to their economic dependence as well as the Chinese Military might. So the not so strong revolts against China and not so strong support for Tibet.
As far as the film and sports personalities are concerned.. they would not want to miss out on such a wonderful opportunity of being part of the Olympics, even when their profession is nowhere connected to the games. So u can again put ur faith in the Great Maestro as well as the Perfectionist.
- Hemal
(Do u Remember??)
Jinu,
I think you are becoming too idealistic and hardly realistic. Any one who comments on the China-Tibet issue just 'comments' and does not do anything. It does not matter what you and me think how China is treating tibet. What matters is that how the top people think in this issue, and let me tell you, that they think only one thing, which is "SAVE YOUR ASS". Truly, there is nothing else in anyone's mind. Nobody wants to protest against a dancing dragon.
The developed nations have always been useless on foreign issues and they are still living up to their image. And I think that is the most realistic approach. If tomorrow, you try to stop your neighbour from hitting his wife, there can be 2 possibilities: if the neighbour is a Bengali, you will scold him and get the matter solved; but in case, the neighbour is a Haryanvi jaat, you might end up carrying a swollen eye yourself and making things worse. China-Tibet is the scenario of a Haryanvi jaat and knowing the repurcussions, nobody will burn himself. March 10 was the 49th anniversary of a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule. If we could not fight the evil of reservations in 58 years, how do you expect the Tibetans to do that. What happended at India Gate with thousands of students holding a silent protest against reservations was not dissimilar. Sorry for getting away from the topic, but I am just saying that such problems have always existed, it is nothing new.
It would be great, if the Indian Govt. gives some support to the monks, but even if they don't there is nothing wrong in it.
Always raise your voice, when you have a chance of winning the argument.
Post a Comment