What is India's role in Burmese protests?
Wednesday, 26th September '07, BBC report: Explaining India's silence over Burma...
India has remained silent about the anti-government protests by Buddhist monks across Burma (Myanmar) , and this has earned the wrath of many intellectuals who feel that India should actively take part to help in mediating between the military Govt of Burma and the protesters.
India's Foreign minister, Pranab Mukherjee, however has been quite unambiguos about india's position on this issue:
"We have strategic and economic interests to protect in Burma. It is up to the Burmese people to struggle for democracy"
Bravo! Well done minister! Spoken like a sensible person! You may be called heartless, but at least you have proven that are not a hypocrite!
But everybody doesn't like the Minister's stand on the issue- people like Mrs. Nandita Haksar, some Human Rights Lawyer who was quoted on BBC, opines:
"We cannot have democracy at home and support military tyrants in the neighbourhood. India must do all it can for the restoration of democracy in Burma"
Let me state right away that I don't know Mrs.Haskar, nor do I have a grudge against her, but I didn't quite like what she said.
So Mrs. Haskar, what do you think India should do? -Send its troops into Burma? Will you go yourelf, or send your husband and sons, if you have any, to fight on the Indian side to restore democracy in Burma? Or do you think that since you pay taxes, a big part of which goes into the defence sector, the Govt is bound to listen to your whims and send its troops across the border? Or do you think 'talks' and 'sanctions' will solve the issue?
Or is it that you want India to get involved in a fight with Burma so that next time you can critisize the Indian Govt for Human Rights violation in Burma and get to enjoy your another five minutes of fame on BBC? Aren't US troops in Iraq working now for the protection of Human Rights (as US would put it)? But I am sure you must be shouting against USA as well on some other news channel.
So what exactly do you want? -first critisize and tempt a Govt to enter into a problem, and then critisize it for meddling in it? Is that how Human Rights Protection Groups work these days? No wonder BBC never runs short of articles related to it!
India should use this opportunity to blackmail the present Burmese Govt and foster its relation to prevent growth of terrorist groups in north-east, strike deals to get access to Burmese fuel and oil reserves and improve relations with Burma to counter Chinese influence over it. If still their military Govt doesn't respond favorably to such plans and continue to let China enjoy all its resources, India should join the world in critisizing the Burmese Govt, ask for UN intervention and send troops if necessary to overthrow that Govt, and then when a Democratic Govt is established there, India should pretend to be a useful ally as ever. Why just let our troops die unnecesarily in the outset itself? First try to take advantage of the situation, if that doesn't work out, then strike like a venomous snake, and then become very friendly once again! So surely India can have democracy at home and support military tyrants in the neighbourhood.
Who said 'hypocrisy' is bad? Aren't we all hypocrites?
Hypocrisy is fundamental to human nature. Denying that is either naive or hypocritic in itself!
India has the right to be hypocritic, just like any other nation, just like any individual, and therefore the likes of Mrs. Haskar and editor Sumit Chakrabarty should just keep their mouth shut.
India has remained silent about the anti-government protests by Buddhist monks across Burma (Myanmar) , and this has earned the wrath of many intellectuals who feel that India should actively take part to help in mediating between the military Govt of Burma and the protesters.
India's Foreign minister, Pranab Mukherjee, however has been quite unambiguos about india's position on this issue:
"We have strategic and economic interests to protect in Burma. It is up to the Burmese people to struggle for democracy"
Bravo! Well done minister! Spoken like a sensible person! You may be called heartless, but at least you have proven that are not a hypocrite!
But everybody doesn't like the Minister's stand on the issue- people like Mrs. Nandita Haksar, some Human Rights Lawyer who was quoted on BBC, opines:
"We cannot have democracy at home and support military tyrants in the neighbourhood. India must do all it can for the restoration of democracy in Burma"
Let me state right away that I don't know Mrs.Haskar, nor do I have a grudge against her, but I didn't quite like what she said.
So Mrs. Haskar, what do you think India should do? -Send its troops into Burma? Will you go yourelf, or send your husband and sons, if you have any, to fight on the Indian side to restore democracy in Burma? Or do you think that since you pay taxes, a big part of which goes into the defence sector, the Govt is bound to listen to your whims and send its troops across the border? Or do you think 'talks' and 'sanctions' will solve the issue?
Or is it that you want India to get involved in a fight with Burma so that next time you can critisize the Indian Govt for Human Rights violation in Burma and get to enjoy your another five minutes of fame on BBC? Aren't US troops in Iraq working now for the protection of Human Rights (as US would put it)? But I am sure you must be shouting against USA as well on some other news channel.
So what exactly do you want? -first critisize and tempt a Govt to enter into a problem, and then critisize it for meddling in it? Is that how Human Rights Protection Groups work these days? No wonder BBC never runs short of articles related to it!
India should use this opportunity to blackmail the present Burmese Govt and foster its relation to prevent growth of terrorist groups in north-east, strike deals to get access to Burmese fuel and oil reserves and improve relations with Burma to counter Chinese influence over it. If still their military Govt doesn't respond favorably to such plans and continue to let China enjoy all its resources, India should join the world in critisizing the Burmese Govt, ask for UN intervention and send troops if necessary to overthrow that Govt, and then when a Democratic Govt is established there, India should pretend to be a useful ally as ever. Why just let our troops die unnecesarily in the outset itself? First try to take advantage of the situation, if that doesn't work out, then strike like a venomous snake, and then become very friendly once again! So surely India can have democracy at home and support military tyrants in the neighbourhood.
Who said 'hypocrisy' is bad? Aren't we all hypocrites?
Hypocrisy is fundamental to human nature. Denying that is either naive or hypocritic in itself!
India has the right to be hypocritic, just like any other nation, just like any individual, and therefore the likes of Mrs. Haskar and editor Sumit Chakrabarty should just keep their mouth shut.
posted by Soumya Sen @ 6:39 PM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
why does the West want to impose its ideals of government, liberty and freedom on other countries? Isn't democracy another tool to empower the elite few who fund election campaigns?
It's strange how the media puts it own spin on things. Watch cnn.com and compare with aljazeera and u will find how emphasizing and reporting out of context and can distort the truth completely.
I agree with you that media has always played a dubious role in the world, just like politics. West wants to impose its ideas as they consider those to be virtuous, while their opponents protest against them. It is difficult to assess who is right and who isn't, primarily because we don't really know what the right thing is, or what the truth is. The 'truth' and 'right' thing for someone depends on his views and his interpretations. Therefore I think the only perennial truth is the theory of the survival of the fittest. The bully will win, unless you can outwit it. If you can, then you survive, you are fitter!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home