Excerpt from this article on rediff:
Apparently unhappy over New Delhi's handling of the Tibet issue, China on Friday chose not to invite any Indian diplomat in the tour of foreign envoys to riot-scarred Lhasa, amid intensified global pressure to stop the crackdown on Tibetans and open a dialogue with the Dalai Lama
its not much of a big slight, but slight it certianly is. more such and even the Communist-supported UPA coalition will have to stand up agaisnt Chinese bullying of India.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
why India must stand up for Tibet
Prof Sumit Ganguly writes and I fully endorse:
New Delhi's reluctance to challenge China over Tibet goes back to Beijing's brutal repression of the Khampa revolt 50 years ago, when the Dalai Lama, the spiritual and temporal head of the Tibetans, fled to India. Although China sharply reproved India for providing refuge to the Dalai Lama, India stood its ground. Shortly thereafter, following a breakdown of negotiations over a disputed border, China attacked and defeated India in October 1962. Even though India's army has since been modernized and prepared for mountain warfare, the memory of this rout still haunts Indian military planners and policymakers. That's why, when the Chinese army periodically crosses the border, India responds with anodyne criticism. And why India has been willing to publicly and abjectly reassure China that the Tibetan exiles will not be allowed to engage in any meaningful political activity.
Appeasement might not be a bad policy if it actually succeeded in keeping Beijing satisfied, but it doesn't. There is not a shred of evidence that it has ever moderated Chinese behavior. Whenever Tibetan exiles have engaged in minor protests, Beijing has sternly rebuked India for allowing them to engage in political activities. Faced with Beijing's continued expressions of discontent, New Delhi has rarely missed an opportunity to genuflect before the Middle Kingdom. The Tibetan crackdown is only the latest example.
This humiliating deference undermines India's national interests as a rising Asian power and corrodes its credentials as a liberal democracy. If China can so easily cow Indian policymakers, then India's claims to great power status in Asia, let alone beyond, appear utterly hollow. It shows that Indian policymakers have been, to use a term from the cold war era, Finlandized—constrained by a foreign power. Some policy options cannot even be considered for fear of offending China. India, for example, has had little to say about China's penetration of much of Burma and its ongoing quest for military bases in that country. India has also exercised great caution in pursuing any significant commercial ties with Taiwan for fear of incurring the wrath of the mainland. What does it say about India as a democracy if the authorities harass law-abiding Tibetans who are only engaging in peaceful protests? Such actions are fundamentally contrary to the principles of a liberal democracy that enshrines the right of public political dissent.
New Delhi's reluctance to challenge China over Tibet goes back to Beijing's brutal repression of the Khampa revolt 50 years ago, when the Dalai Lama, the spiritual and temporal head of the Tibetans, fled to India. Although China sharply reproved India for providing refuge to the Dalai Lama, India stood its ground. Shortly thereafter, following a breakdown of negotiations over a disputed border, China attacked and defeated India in October 1962. Even though India's army has since been modernized and prepared for mountain warfare, the memory of this rout still haunts Indian military planners and policymakers. That's why, when the Chinese army periodically crosses the border, India responds with anodyne criticism. And why India has been willing to publicly and abjectly reassure China that the Tibetan exiles will not be allowed to engage in any meaningful political activity.
Appeasement might not be a bad policy if it actually succeeded in keeping Beijing satisfied, but it doesn't. There is not a shred of evidence that it has ever moderated Chinese behavior. Whenever Tibetan exiles have engaged in minor protests, Beijing has sternly rebuked India for allowing them to engage in political activities. Faced with Beijing's continued expressions of discontent, New Delhi has rarely missed an opportunity to genuflect before the Middle Kingdom. The Tibetan crackdown is only the latest example.
This humiliating deference undermines India's national interests as a rising Asian power and corrodes its credentials as a liberal democracy. If China can so easily cow Indian policymakers, then India's claims to great power status in Asia, let alone beyond, appear utterly hollow. It shows that Indian policymakers have been, to use a term from the cold war era, Finlandized—constrained by a foreign power. Some policy options cannot even be considered for fear of offending China. India, for example, has had little to say about China's penetration of much of Burma and its ongoing quest for military bases in that country. India has also exercised great caution in pursuing any significant commercial ties with Taiwan for fear of incurring the wrath of the mainland. What does it say about India as a democracy if the authorities harass law-abiding Tibetans who are only engaging in peaceful protests? Such actions are fundamentally contrary to the principles of a liberal democracy that enshrines the right of public political dissent.
allow Tibet into the Indian Union!
Excerpted from this article by Lhasang Tsering, Former President of Tibetan Youth Congress:
Be that as it may. I have often wondered why India doesn't stake its claim on Tibet. Between China - which seeks to exterminate the Tibetan people and to wipe out Tibetan religion and culture; and India - which gave Tibet the Buddha Dharma and has helped to save Tibetan religion and culture - there is no doubt; India has the greater claim. It is like the story of young Prince Siddhartha who saves the swan his cousin Prince Devadatta has shot. The claim of the latter rests on the grounds of having shot the swan. On the other hand, Prince Siddhartha - the future Buddha - stakes his claim on the grounds of having saved the life of the wounded swan. The King rightly awards the swan to Prince Siddhartha. In today's world of realpolitik and spineless world leaders, we could hardly hope for such a decisive verdict. Nevertheless; even if only as a diplomatic exercise, why doesn't India file a case in the International Court of Justice and also raise the issue in the United Nations to stake its claims over Tibet ?
In the first place India gave Buddhism to Tibet - the life-force of Tibetan life and culture. Today India has rendered crucial assistance and helped to save Tibetan religion and culture. If Tibet must belong to either of its giant neighbours, then surely, it should be to India - which has helped to save Tibet; and not China - which seeks to destroy Tibet.
Even on the part of the Tibetan people, if we decide that Tibetan independence is not achievable (this is the present position of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile to which I am totally opposed) and that the only option for us is to settle for some form of autonomy - however genuine or false - why then do we not decide to be a part of India ? Under any given situation or conceivable scenario; Tibet will fare far better under India than under China.
Be that as it may. I have often wondered why India doesn't stake its claim on Tibet. Between China - which seeks to exterminate the Tibetan people and to wipe out Tibetan religion and culture; and India - which gave Tibet the Buddha Dharma and has helped to save Tibetan religion and culture - there is no doubt; India has the greater claim. It is like the story of young Prince Siddhartha who saves the swan his cousin Prince Devadatta has shot. The claim of the latter rests on the grounds of having shot the swan. On the other hand, Prince Siddhartha - the future Buddha - stakes his claim on the grounds of having saved the life of the wounded swan. The King rightly awards the swan to Prince Siddhartha. In today's world of realpolitik and spineless world leaders, we could hardly hope for such a decisive verdict. Nevertheless; even if only as a diplomatic exercise, why doesn't India file a case in the International Court of Justice and also raise the issue in the United Nations to stake its claims over Tibet ?
In the first place India gave Buddhism to Tibet - the life-force of Tibetan life and culture. Today India has rendered crucial assistance and helped to save Tibetan religion and culture. If Tibet must belong to either of its giant neighbours, then surely, it should be to India - which has helped to save Tibet; and not China - which seeks to destroy Tibet.
Even on the part of the Tibetan people, if we decide that Tibetan independence is not achievable (this is the present position of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile to which I am totally opposed) and that the only option for us is to settle for some form of autonomy - however genuine or false - why then do we not decide to be a part of India ? Under any given situation or conceivable scenario; Tibet will fare far better under India than under China.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Sri Aurobindo on the native Indian commune!
(A disciple:) [In India] the forests are being depleted of animals.
Sri Aurobindo: The forests have to be preserved and also the wildlife. China destroyed all her forests and the result is that there is flood every year.
In Socialism you have the State which intervenes at every step with its officials who rob money.... It is the State bureaucracy that dictates the policy irrespective of the good of the commune. In Communism they hold the land as the common property of the whole unit, and each one is entitled to labour and to have his share from the produce.
In India we had a kind of communism in the villages. The whole village was like a big family and the lowest had his right as a member of the family. The washerman, the carpenter, the blacksmith, the barber, all got what they needed. That is the only communism that is practicable. Each such commune can be independent and many such units can be scattered all over the country and they can combine or coordinate their activities for a common purpose.
excerpted again from India's rebirth, part V. bold by me
Sri Aurobindo: The forests have to be preserved and also the wildlife. China destroyed all her forests and the result is that there is flood every year.
In Socialism you have the State which intervenes at every step with its officials who rob money.... It is the State bureaucracy that dictates the policy irrespective of the good of the commune. In Communism they hold the land as the common property of the whole unit, and each one is entitled to labour and to have his share from the produce.
In India we had a kind of communism in the villages. The whole village was like a big family and the lowest had his right as a member of the family. The washerman, the carpenter, the blacksmith, the barber, all got what they needed. That is the only communism that is practicable. Each such commune can be independent and many such units can be scattered all over the country and they can combine or coordinate their activities for a common purpose.
excerpted again from India's rebirth, part V. bold by me
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Sri Aurobindo on Communism
(A disciple:) Communism began with a high ideal and it is certainly better than Fascism or Nazism.
Sri Aurobindo: In which way better? Formerly people were unconscious slaves, now under Communism they are conscious slaves.... They are bound to the State, the dictator and the party. They can't even choose the dictator. And whoever differs from them is mercilessly suppressed.... The whole thing whatever its name is a fraud. It is impossible to change humanity by political machinery; it can't be done.
from India's rebirth, part-V
Sri Aurobindo: In which way better? Formerly people were unconscious slaves, now under Communism they are conscious slaves.... They are bound to the State, the dictator and the party. They can't even choose the dictator. And whoever differs from them is mercilessly suppressed.... The whole thing whatever its name is a fraud. It is impossible to change humanity by political machinery; it can't be done.
from India's rebirth, part-V
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Excessive guilt and oversized ego related?
Are excessive guilt and the asssociated emotions really something noble to have, a self-corrective mechanism or really a big problem by themelves? A healthy dose of guilt can surely be a great aid in being a channel for the 'small still voice within' to filter out and exercise a guiding effect in our lives. Nobody is perfect- as long as it is accepted that what is right has to be adopted, mistakes however big, are only devaitaions from the path. The greater the deviation, the greater must the urgency be, in retracing the steps. As simple as that.
But when guilt becomes a morbid obsession alsomot to the point of being self-destructive, driving individuals and societies to perpetually wallow in sorrow, is it good for anyone at all? A wrong done in the past cannot be undone even by a thousand rights - what to speak of a thousand depressing elegies from a guilt-obessessed psyche. The only thing that can be done now, is to resolve firmly, that it will not be repeated and take all steps in that direction. But an obsession with guilt never allows this- clinging on to cannot benefit and will not affect the present or the futur in any way. Rather, it will result in terminal illness and a desire for self-destruction.
This is so obviously clear to commonsense reason. But why do individuals and societies indulge in guilt-binge to the breaking point? Rather than put corrective mechanisms in place so that atleast the future is secure, why do so many people chosse instead, to chase shadows from the past? One example is the attitude of 'western educated' and 'liberal' (so-called) High-caste Hindus, towards their fellow orthodox and towards their tradition. Their guilt-obsession turns into an astonishing rage at their own past and exaggerates and reads into it what sometimes is even unlikely! Or continue peddling opinions framed by colonial propagandists about ill-treatment of the 'lower' castes without any independent investigation of their own. Take an article such as this recent piece from BBC. A telling excerpt:
And Phool Kumari belongs to that group of nearly 240m Indians who have been traditionally kept out of the Hindu caste system.
Mostly considered unworthy of touch by the higher castes, some even consider their shadow to be polluting.
Now caste oppression today, or for some centuries is undeniable in various places in India. But was it so universal and widespread that it was a 'tradition' of the Hindu caste system? Since when did the 'polluting shadow' idea become tradition? The tone of the sentence seems to imply that actually this is even the present-day position - is this true?
A more objective and careful analysis of the history of past sevaral centuries will show the unbelievable flexibility and variety in the 'Hindu caste system'. So also will the phenomenon of unsettled tribes continually settling down and adding new jatis to the caste structure- first arriving at an uneasy contract as the 'outsider' and slowly working the way up the social hierarchy through gradual mutual understanding. The fact that anthropologists and geneticists find it difficult to draw the line between the so-called 'lower' end of the caste structure and unsettled tribes- showing up a seamless contuinity in the level of settlement and acclimatization with the caste system of the settled castes and leading to gradual 'sanskritization' is proof enough of this. Fact is, Muslim and British incursions heavily disrupted this gradual diffusion and assimilation of settled and unsettled castes and tribes- leading to mutual suspicions and thus to the modern anathema to the 'outsider', recently settled tribes jostling for a place under the already colourful banner of the ancient caste order.
All this just shows how breathtakingly complex the phenomenon of caste is, in India. But writers such as those of the piece I quoted above show utter insenstivity to this compexity and typically indulge in mudslinging at the 'Hindu caste system'. But I have observed a pattern. Often, these liberal sounding pieces are penned by none other than western educated, self-alienated elites of the upper castes. Most extreme communists and extreme left-wingers in India who have nothing but rage for the Hindu society, are indeed drawn from the Hindu upper castes. It is their obsessive guilt that shows up as rage. As I said earlier, guilt is good. Upper-caste guilt at present social conditions can bring good, if it can lead to practical, constructive, wholesome steps to correct the problems. But a rambling, pointless agenda guided by rage against their own tradition can bring nothing but ultimate self-destruction. It is no surprise then, that such Hindus most often are 'all talk and no action'. Themselves alienated from even the many positives that their tradition can offer such as yoga and spirituality, ceaselessly attemtping de-nationalize themselves, demoralized, they often have no say in setting the course of the greater Hindu society, which too, just ignores them.
Thinking of this, I conclude, such excessive guilt is just the obverse of an oversized ego. 'Oh how could we have been so bad' is the driving thought. 'Because we are yet human and not divine' should be a straightforward answer from a less egoistic psyche, 'accepting our mistakes, acknowledging our humanity, we draw closer to the ideals of humanism and set the course aright' would be the logical conclusion. Not the idea of 'perpetual refusal to accept or to reconcile' and the logical desecnt into terminal cycle.
But when guilt becomes a morbid obsession alsomot to the point of being self-destructive, driving individuals and societies to perpetually wallow in sorrow, is it good for anyone at all? A wrong done in the past cannot be undone even by a thousand rights - what to speak of a thousand depressing elegies from a guilt-obessessed psyche. The only thing that can be done now, is to resolve firmly, that it will not be repeated and take all steps in that direction. But an obsession with guilt never allows this- clinging on to cannot benefit and will not affect the present or the futur in any way. Rather, it will result in terminal illness and a desire for self-destruction.
This is so obviously clear to commonsense reason. But why do individuals and societies indulge in guilt-binge to the breaking point? Rather than put corrective mechanisms in place so that atleast the future is secure, why do so many people chosse instead, to chase shadows from the past? One example is the attitude of 'western educated' and 'liberal' (so-called) High-caste Hindus, towards their fellow orthodox and towards their tradition. Their guilt-obsession turns into an astonishing rage at their own past and exaggerates and reads into it what sometimes is even unlikely! Or continue peddling opinions framed by colonial propagandists about ill-treatment of the 'lower' castes without any independent investigation of their own. Take an article such as this recent piece from BBC. A telling excerpt:
And Phool Kumari belongs to that group of nearly 240m Indians who have been traditionally kept out of the Hindu caste system.
Mostly considered unworthy of touch by the higher castes, some even consider their shadow to be polluting.
Now caste oppression today, or for some centuries is undeniable in various places in India. But was it so universal and widespread that it was a 'tradition' of the Hindu caste system? Since when did the 'polluting shadow' idea become tradition? The tone of the sentence seems to imply that actually this is even the present-day position - is this true?
A more objective and careful analysis of the history of past sevaral centuries will show the unbelievable flexibility and variety in the 'Hindu caste system'. So also will the phenomenon of unsettled tribes continually settling down and adding new jatis to the caste structure- first arriving at an uneasy contract as the 'outsider' and slowly working the way up the social hierarchy through gradual mutual understanding. The fact that anthropologists and geneticists find it difficult to draw the line between the so-called 'lower' end of the caste structure and unsettled tribes- showing up a seamless contuinity in the level of settlement and acclimatization with the caste system of the settled castes and leading to gradual 'sanskritization' is proof enough of this. Fact is, Muslim and British incursions heavily disrupted this gradual diffusion and assimilation of settled and unsettled castes and tribes- leading to mutual suspicions and thus to the modern anathema to the 'outsider', recently settled tribes jostling for a place under the already colourful banner of the ancient caste order.
All this just shows how breathtakingly complex the phenomenon of caste is, in India. But writers such as those of the piece I quoted above show utter insenstivity to this compexity and typically indulge in mudslinging at the 'Hindu caste system'. But I have observed a pattern. Often, these liberal sounding pieces are penned by none other than western educated, self-alienated elites of the upper castes. Most extreme communists and extreme left-wingers in India who have nothing but rage for the Hindu society, are indeed drawn from the Hindu upper castes. It is their obsessive guilt that shows up as rage. As I said earlier, guilt is good. Upper-caste guilt at present social conditions can bring good, if it can lead to practical, constructive, wholesome steps to correct the problems. But a rambling, pointless agenda guided by rage against their own tradition can bring nothing but ultimate self-destruction. It is no surprise then, that such Hindus most often are 'all talk and no action'. Themselves alienated from even the many positives that their tradition can offer such as yoga and spirituality, ceaselessly attemtping de-nationalize themselves, demoralized, they often have no say in setting the course of the greater Hindu society, which too, just ignores them.
Thinking of this, I conclude, such excessive guilt is just the obverse of an oversized ego. 'Oh how could we have been so bad' is the driving thought. 'Because we are yet human and not divine' should be a straightforward answer from a less egoistic psyche, 'accepting our mistakes, acknowledging our humanity, we draw closer to the ideals of humanism and set the course aright' would be the logical conclusion. Not the idea of 'perpetual refusal to accept or to reconcile' and the logical desecnt into terminal cycle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)