n ram is merely singing for his supper. he has to do *something* so that the uninterrupted supply of funds comes in for his pathetic rags, esp frontline.
i wonder why n ram does not go live in china, considering it is his heaven on earth. i guess his handlers find him much more useful as a fifth columnist in india. bloody jaichand, judas, race-traitor.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: kalyan97
Date: Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 6:53 AM
Subject: Quisling, china-tern worshipper on Mt. Road, Chennai, justifies Tibet genocide
To:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2008032655431000.htm&date=2008/03/26/&prd=th&
Date:26/03/2008 URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2008/03/26/stories/2008032655431000.htm
Editorials
The question of Tibet
If you go by western media reports, the propaganda of the so-called
'Tibetan government-in-exile' in Dharamsala and the votaries of the
'Free Tibet' cause, or by the fulminations of Nancy Pelosi and the
Hollywood glitterati, Tibet is in the throes of a mass democratic
uprising against Han Chinese communist rule. Some of the more fanciful
news stories, images, and opinion pieces on the 'democratic' potential
of this uprising have been put out by leading western newspapers and
television networks. The reality is that the riot that broke out in
Lhasa on March 14 and claimed a confirmed toll of 22 lives involved
violent, ransacking mobs, including 300 militant monks from the
Drepung Monastery, who marched in tandem with a foiled 'March to
Tibet' by groups of monks across the border in India.
In Lhasa, the rioters committed murder, arson, and other acts of
savagery against innocent civilians and caused huge damage to public
and private property. The atrocities included dousing one man with
petrol and setting him alight, beating a patrol policeman and carving
out a fist-size piece of his flesh, and torching a school with 800
terrorised pupils cowering inside.
Visual images and independent eyewitness accounts attest to this ugly
reality, which even compelled the Dalai Lama to threaten to resign.
There was violence also in Tibetan ethnic areas in the adjacent
provinces of Gansu and Sichuan, which, according to official
estimates, took an injury toll of more than 700. Western analyses have
linked these incidents to the March 10 anniversary of the failed 1959
Tibetan uprising, non-progress in the talks between the Dalai Lama's
emissaries and Beijing, China's human rights record, and the Beijing
Olympic Games, which will of course be held as scheduled from August 8
to 24.
Recent accounts, however, express unease and sadness over the
containment of the troubles, the 'large-scale,' if belated and
politically slow, response by Beijing, and the 'brutal ease' with
which the protests have been 'smothered'. In another context, say
Pakistan under Pervez Musharraf, such a response would have been
called exemplary restraint. As evidence accumulates, the realisation
dawns that it is too much to expect any legitimate government of a
major country to turn the other cheek to such savagery and breakdown
of public order. So there is a shift in the key demand made on China:
it must 'initiate' a dialogue with the Dalai Lama to find a
sustainable political solution in Tibet.
But this is precisely what China has done for over three decades. The
framework of the political solution is there for all to see. There is
not a single government in the world that either disputes the status
of Tibet; or does not recognise it as a part of the People's Republic
of China; or is willing to accord any kind of legal recognition to the
Dalai Lama's 'government-in-exile.'
This situation certainly presents a contrast to the lack of an
international consensus on the legal status of Kashmir. Nevertheless,
there remains a Tibet political question, represented by the ideology
and politics of the Dalai Lama and the 'independence for Tibet'
movement, and it has an international as well as a domestic dimension.
This is an era of unprecedented development for the Chinese economy,
which has grown at nearly 10 per cent a year for three decades. Tibet
itself is on an economic roll: it has sustained an annual growth rate
of more than 12 per cent over the past six years and is now on a 13-14
per cent growth trajectory. A new politics of conciliation towards the
Dalai Lama's camp has been shaped by this era, and since 2002, six
rounds of discussion have taken place between the representatives of
the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government. The former have stated that
the Dalai Lama's current approach is to "look to the future as opposed
to Tibet's history to resolve its status vis-À-vis China," and that
the crux of his 'Middle Way' approach is to "recognise today's reality
that Tibet is part of the People's Republic of China … and not raise
the issue of separation from China in working on a mutually acceptable
solution for Tibet."
The real problem arises from two demands pressed by the Dalai Lama.
The first is his concept of 'high-level' or 'maximum' autonomy in line
with the 'one country, two systems' principle. The Chinese government
points out that this is applicable only to Hong Kong, Macao, and
Taiwan, and that the kind of autonomy that the Dalai Lama demanded in
November 2005 cannot possibly be accommodated within the Chinese
Constitution. Secondly, the 2.6 million Tibetans in the Tibet
Autonomous Region (TAR), which constitutes one-eighth of China's
territory, form only 40 per cent of the total population of Tibetans
in China. The Chinese government makes the perfectly reasonable point
that acceptance of the demand for 'Greater Tibet' or 'one
administrative entity' for all 6.5 million ethnic Tibetans means
breaking up Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan provinces, doing
ethnic re-engineering, if not 'cleansing', and causing enormous
disruption and damage to China's society and political system. This
demand too is ruled out, as any comparable demand to break up States
in India would be.
Multi-ethnic India is no stranger to such challenges to its
territorial integrity: just consider the armed insurgency challenges,
in some cases with external fuelling, in Jammu & Kashmir and in
several parts of the North-East. Although the United Progressive
Alliance government has made some statements about the Tibet incidents
that hew close to the Washington line, it will be pleased that the
studied official Chinese response has been to highlight India's "clear
and consistent" stand on the status of Tibet as part of the People's
Republic of China. New Delhi has allowed too much latitude to the
Dalai Lama and the Tibetan discontents for their political activities
on Indian soil, which go against the stand that they are not allowed
"to engage in anti-China political activities in India," a principle
reaffirmed by External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee in Washington
on March 24. The time has come for India to use the leverage that
comes with hosting the Dalai Lama and his followers since 1959 to
persuade or pressure him to get real about the future of Tibet — and
engage in a sincere dialogue with Beijing to find a reasonable, just,
and sustainable political solution within the framework of one China.
From: kalyan97
Date: Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 6:53 AM
Subject: Quisling, china-tern worshipper on Mt. Road, Chennai, justifies Tibet genocide
To:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2008032655431000.htm&date=2008/03/26/&prd=th&
Date:26/03/2008 URL:
http://www.thehindu.com/2008/03/26/stories/2008032655431000.htm
Editorials
The question of Tibet
If you go by western media reports, the propaganda of the so-called
'Tibetan government-in-exile' in Dharamsala and the votaries of the
'Free Tibet' cause, or by the fulminations of Nancy Pelosi and the
Hollywood glitterati, Tibet is in the throes of a mass democratic
uprising against Han Chinese communist rule. Some of the more fanciful
news stories, images, and opinion pieces on the 'democratic' potential
of this uprising have been put out by leading western newspapers and
television networks. The reality is that the riot that broke out in
Lhasa on March 14 and claimed a confirmed toll of 22 lives involved
violent, ransacking mobs, including 300 militant monks from the
Drepung Monastery, who marched in tandem with a foiled 'March to
Tibet' by groups of monks across the border in India.
In Lhasa, the rioters committed murder, arson, and other acts of
savagery against innocent civilians and caused huge damage to public
and private property. The atrocities included dousing one man with
petrol and setting him alight, beating a patrol policeman and carving
out a fist-size piece of his flesh, and torching a school with 800
terrorised pupils cowering inside.
Visual images and independent eyewitness accounts attest to this ugly
reality, which even compelled the Dalai Lama to threaten to resign.
There was violence also in Tibetan ethnic areas in the adjacent
provinces of Gansu and Sichuan, which, according to official
estimates, took an injury toll of more than 700. Western analyses have
linked these incidents to the March 10 anniversary of the failed 1959
Tibetan uprising, non-progress in the talks between the Dalai Lama's
emissaries and Beijing, China's human rights record, and the Beijing
Olympic Games, which will of course be held as scheduled from August 8
to 24.
Recent accounts, however, express unease and sadness over the
containment of the troubles, the 'large-scale,' if belated and
politically slow, response by Beijing, and the 'brutal ease' with
which the protests have been 'smothered'. In another context, say
Pakistan under Pervez Musharraf, such a response would have been
called exemplary restraint. As evidence accumulates, the realisation
dawns that it is too much to expect any legitimate government of a
major country to turn the other cheek to such savagery and breakdown
of public order. So there is a shift in the key demand made on China:
it must 'initiate' a dialogue with the Dalai Lama to find a
sustainable political solution in Tibet.
But this is precisely what China has done for over three decades. The
framework of the political solution is there for all to see. There is
not a single government in the world that either disputes the status
of Tibet; or does not recognise it as a part of the People's Republic
of China; or is willing to accord any kind of legal recognition to the
Dalai Lama's 'government-in-exile.'
This situation certainly presents a contrast to the lack of an
international consensus on the legal status of Kashmir. Nevertheless,
there remains a Tibet political question, represented by the ideology
and politics of the Dalai Lama and the 'independence for Tibet'
movement, and it has an international as well as a domestic dimension.
This is an era of unprecedented development for the Chinese economy,
which has grown at nearly 10 per cent a year for three decades. Tibet
itself is on an economic roll: it has sustained an annual growth rate
of more than 12 per cent over the past six years and is now on a 13-14
per cent growth trajectory. A new politics of conciliation towards the
Dalai Lama's camp has been shaped by this era, and since 2002, six
rounds of discussion have taken place between the representatives of
the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government. The former have stated that
the Dalai Lama's current approach is to "look to the future as opposed
to Tibet's history to resolve its status vis-À-vis China," and that
the crux of his 'Middle Way' approach is to "recognise today's reality
that Tibet is part of the People's Republic of China … and not raise
the issue of separation from China in working on a mutually acceptable
solution for Tibet."
The real problem arises from two demands pressed by the Dalai Lama.
The first is his concept of 'high-level' or 'maximum' autonomy in line
with the 'one country, two systems' principle. The Chinese government
points out that this is applicable only to Hong Kong, Macao, and
Taiwan, and that the kind of autonomy that the Dalai Lama demanded in
November 2005 cannot possibly be accommodated within the Chinese
Constitution. Secondly, the 2.6 million Tibetans in the Tibet
Autonomous Region (TAR), which constitutes one-eighth of China's
territory, form only 40 per cent of the total population of Tibetans
in China. The Chinese government makes the perfectly reasonable point
that acceptance of the demand for 'Greater Tibet' or 'one
administrative entity' for all 6.5 million ethnic Tibetans means
breaking up Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan provinces, doing
ethnic re-engineering, if not 'cleansing', and causing enormous
disruption and damage to China's society and political system. This
demand too is ruled out, as any comparable demand to break up States
in India would be.
Multi-ethnic India is no stranger to such challenges to its
territorial integrity: just consider the armed insurgency challenges,
in some cases with external fuelling, in Jammu & Kashmir and in
several parts of the North-East. Although the United Progressive
Alliance government has made some statements about the Tibet incidents
that hew close to the Washington line, it will be pleased that the
studied official Chinese response has been to highlight India's "clear
and consistent" stand on the status of Tibet as part of the People's
Republic of China. New Delhi has allowed too much latitude to the
Dalai Lama and the Tibetan discontents for their political activities
on Indian soil, which go against the stand that they are not allowed
"to engage in anti-China political activities in India," a principle
reaffirmed by External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee in Washington
on March 24. The time has come for India to use the leverage that
comes with hosting the Dalai Lama and his followers since 1959 to
persuade or pressure him to get real about the future of Tibet — and
engage in a sincere dialogue with Beijing to find a reasonable, just,
and sustainable political solution within the framework of one China.
No comments:
Post a Comment