who, indeed cares about tibetans? they are the descendants of the
buddhists massacred by bakhtiar khilji in 1192 CE at nalanda.
therefore, as the 'eminent historians' would say, it is their
privilege to be massacred by hans now. they should indeed be thankful.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: thehindu@web1.hinduonnet.com <thehindu@web1.hinduonnet.com>
Date: Jul 11, 2007 2:49 AM
Subject: Article from The Hindu: Sent to you by Ram
To:
The readership of The Hindu sometimes disappoints me. Loyalty to China
is central to our newspaper and readers should understand this instead
of harping on meaningless issues such as Tibetan human rights.
=============================================================
This article has been sent to you by Ram ( nram@thehindu.co.in )
=============================================================
Source:
Opinion
-
Letters to the Editor
On Tibet
The two articles “Tibet in the time of high economic
growth” (July 3) and “The politics of Tibet: a 2007
reality check” (July 5) by N. Ram were very illuminating. No
country, outside China, will be happier than India if a rapprochement
between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government comes about. While
the delay in solving the Tibet issue was largely because of the
intransigence of the Dalai Lama on the question of independence, the
inflexible approach of the pre-Deng Xiaoping Chinese governments also
contributed to it.
Apparently, the residual areas of conflict, as listed by Mr. Ram, are
two — Dalai Lama’s wish to have more autonomy than other
autonomous regions and his demand for a Greater Tibet. Dealing with
the first, if China can successfully live with the orthodox capitalism
of Hong Kong and Macao, it can surely find a compromise for a system
for Tibet, somewhat different from that of other autonomous regions.
Coming to the second point, once multi-party democracy is granted, a
re-organisation of Tibet, not confining it to its traditional
boundaries, will work to the advantage of the Central government. Here
again India’s experience comes to mind. With re-organisation of
States on linguistic basis, any dormant separatist intent in former
princely states was effectively squelched.
Group Captain P.V. Iyer (retd.),
San Jose, California
There is no doubt that Lhasa is now a modern city with exquisite
malls, well-laid out roads , and well maintained monasteries. But a
visit to the old city of Lhasa (Barkor Street and near Jokhang
Monastery) would reveal the existence of two societies — one
that is rich and the other that is deprived of economic progress. Most
Tibetans have been left behind in the economic and social progress of
Tibet.
The Dalai Lama is seeking true autonomy which means the right to
manage the affairs relating to his religion, culture, education,
health, and environment. He has never asked for the return of mainland
settlers; he is only pleading for a stop to the policy of transfer of
the Han population so that Tibetans do not become a minority in their
own land.
Col. Virendra Sahai Verma (retd.),
New Delhi
The two articles are indeed brave efforts to present an impartial
account of the developments in Tibet. But nothing can hide the fact
that both India and China have betrayed an ancient culture and
tradition in a land where neither has any right to be.
A. Krishnamurthy,
Chennai
Although exceptionally well researched, the reality check on Tibet is
totally biased in favour of the Chinese establishment without any
consideration for the interests of the Tibetan people.
Mihir Nayak,
Bad Hofgastein, Austria
The economic development taking place in Tibet is not meant to benefit
the Tibetans. It is the immigrant Chinese who reap the benefit. And
the infrastructure development is targeted to extract the natural
resources of Tibet. We cannot support, at least morally, the Chinese
occupation of Tibet just because there is development in Tibet, thanks
to China. There would have been greater development in India had the
British still been ruling us.
Tibet, historically, has been a sovereign country and has a unique
culture entirely different from that of China. We are firm in our
‘one China policy’ due to political reasons. At least let
us not make a mockery of the Dalai Lama’s peaceful efforts.
R. Subramaniyan,
New Delhi
The article on Tibet’s political situation is flagrantly one
sided. Tibet was an Indian protectorate and we abandoned our
responsibility. One has to remember that the Chinese invasion of India
followed our silence on Tibet.
Santhosh Rajagopal,
Madurai
India’s stand on Tibet is flawed and undermines the principle of
sovereignty, freedom, and democracy. Its policy on Tibet under Nehru
was the same as it is now. India never wanted confrontation with
China.
Threat to freedom anywhere is threat to sovereignty everywhere. The
world should ascertain the views of Tibetans on whether they want to
be independent or accede to China.
Shakeel Anjum,
New Delhi
The article has glorified China’s Tibet policy. What it has
forgotten to mention or chosen not to mention is the human rights
abuse of the Tibetans in that region by those who govern.
Tsering Ladol,
Leh, Ladakh
Copyright: 1995 - 2006 The Hindu
Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly
prohibited without the consent of The Hindu
No comments:
Post a Comment