T
he usually loquacious comrade Yechury, of CPI-M, recently weaseled out of criticizing China's terror tactics in Tibet, and its suppression of Tibetans' human rights, freedom of speech, and their freedom of expression, when asked about the protests in Lhasa.
It is completely understandable why he would do a volte-face embracing an out-of-character laconic stance, considering that he belongs to the same group that hoorayed "China's chairman, our chairman" while the "People's Liberation Army" was thrusting its bayonets inside Indian soldiers, in Oct. 1962.
But the premise he cites to justify his chicanery is questionable at best. He hides behind the tried-and-tested "internal matter" subterfuge.
Tibet belongs to Tibetans, not China, who have been illegally and forcefully occupying it since the '50s based on some dubious imperial claims. That some Han raiders conquered Tibetan territory is not ground enough for China to lay its claim on Tibet for eternity.
The behavior of communists reminds me of their own vicious diatribe at Nehru: Who's the running dog of (Chinese) imperialism now?
What happens in Tibet is the internal matter of Tibetans, not Chinese. The Tibetans want everyone to speak about their "internal matter," because the Chinese have robbed them of their home. And that's all that matters, if it has to be about permission. Indians ought to speak out in support if only for human solidarity, and against colonialism.
For an authoritarian cabal whose ideological centrepiece is that "power flows through the barrel of gun," speaking won't matter much, but then the lure of freedom is what ultimately brought down another "evil empire" in a not so distant past. The one in Beijing awaits its demise. The means it has adopted will ensure that it does.
PS- Please do read Anne Applebaum's article on Slate.com, "Shaky cell-phone videos from Tibet foretell doom for the Chinese empire."
he usually loquacious comrade Yechury, of CPI-M, recently weaseled out of criticizing China's terror tactics in Tibet, and its suppression of Tibetans' human rights, freedom of speech, and their freedom of expression, when asked about the protests in Lhasa.It is completely understandable why he would do a volte-face embracing an out-of-character laconic stance, considering that he belongs to the same group that hoorayed "China's chairman, our chairman" while the "People's Liberation Army" was thrusting its bayonets inside Indian soldiers, in Oct. 1962.
But the premise he cites to justify his chicanery is questionable at best. He hides behind the tried-and-tested "internal matter" subterfuge.
Tibet belongs to Tibetans, not China, who have been illegally and forcefully occupying it since the '50s based on some dubious imperial claims. That some Han raiders conquered Tibetan territory is not ground enough for China to lay its claim on Tibet for eternity.
The behavior of communists reminds me of their own vicious diatribe at Nehru: Who's the running dog of (Chinese) imperialism now?
What happens in Tibet is the internal matter of Tibetans, not Chinese. The Tibetans want everyone to speak about their "internal matter," because the Chinese have robbed them of their home. And that's all that matters, if it has to be about permission. Indians ought to speak out in support if only for human solidarity, and against colonialism.
For an authoritarian cabal whose ideological centrepiece is that "power flows through the barrel of gun," speaking won't matter much, but then the lure of freedom is what ultimately brought down another "evil empire" in a not so distant past. The one in Beijing awaits its demise. The means it has adopted will ensure that it does.
PS- Please do read Anne Applebaum's article on Slate.com, "Shaky cell-phone videos from Tibet foretell doom for the Chinese empire."
2 comments:
Hi Socal
While i have enjoyed your perceptive comments in several blogs,it was a plesant suprise to find that you have been running a terrific blog .Makes great reading.
Thanks, Prasanna. It's always good to hear encouraging words.
Post a Comment