jul 7th, 2008
i think james astill is by far the worst foreign correspondent to have ever worked in india. and that takes some doing, his competition having included the formidable barbara crossette, et al. so now the answer to the tiger's problems is to give a white woman autocratic powers as queen empress of india! which century is this buffoon living in?
http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/greenview/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11693231&fsrc=nwl
james astill is the guy who noted in the economist web edition before he was shipped to india that he really liked pakistanis, whom he found to be good companions that he could "have a drink with and sit around wondering what the heck was going on". he apparently enjoyed his stay in pakistan. (why, we shall not enquire, out of politeness, suffice to say that enquiring minds might wonder if james astill was of the public school persuasion. that would sure explain a lot).
indians, he confessed, he didn't really like, because they were "prickly nationalists".
this is just before he was transferred from pakistan to india. talk of impartial observers!
i checked, but can no longer find james astill's unsigned confession in the archives of the economist some time in 2007. i guess they figured discretion is the best part of valor and quietly removed the incriminating evidence.
however, james astill continues to pour out his vitriol -- especially against hindus -- from his perch in new delhi, no doubt to the loud cheers of JNU folks, who get a certain frisson from a white massa dissing brown folks. for instance, i am sure they cheered him wildly for saying that the mohammedans in jammu and kashmir were right in not giving hindus some land for their amarnath yatra. why, after all, every good white limey must support the efforts of kashmiri (aka pakistani fifth columnist) mohammedans to make their ethnic cleansing of hindus a Final Solution, and have the dhimmi government of sonia "please, mohammedan terrorists, you can have anything you want so long as you don't shoot me and my brat" nehru pay for it, too.
1 comment:
Letter to the economist:
Dear Editor,
Unacceptable Prejudice is a wonderful article published by Economist.com on Aug 14th 2008. It's message is “Don’t be beastly to the Poles”. In the same spirit, I am sending this message “Please stop being beastly to the Hindus".
I am deeply offended by statement “pilgrims see (Amarnath) as a phallic symbol of the god Shiva”, in the Aug. 2008 article, "Bitter fruit". All encyclopedias make it clear that phallic representation of Shiva is controversial and predominantly a western interpretation. Wikipedia and other sources also make it clear that neither Hindu Seers nor Pilgrims see Amarnath as a phallic symbol of the god Shiva. In light of above facts, I request that false statement be replaced immediately with fact. I also request that a statement of clarification be published in all online versions of the article and in the next print edition of The Economist.
Please review and reflect on following references to articles published on Economist.com:
1) Reference to the sacred Amarnath Caves as a “penis-shaped lump of ice,” in the July 21st article, "Kashmir’s future: Fleeting chance."
2) Dec 2010 article “Shaking the mountains” states that Amarnath pilgrims are unmolested; However, Nothing can be further from truth. Amarnath pilgrims were massacred on several occasions. For instance, On August 2nd 2000, 105 pilgrims were murdered by terrorist who attacked makeshift pilgrim tents.
3) June 2011 article “The Swami’s Curse” indirectly describes Ayurveda and Yoga as quack cures. Personally, I am neither a follower nor a support of Baba Ramdev and Lokpal movement but I was shocked by the tone, tenure and foul language of the article.
4) Economist has printed tons of articles on Kashmir like Nov. 2010 “The K Word”. These articles almost always omits “The P Word” (i.e., indirectly deny cum downplay Kashmiri Pandit Plight). Only one article reluctantly mentioned “The P Word”.
5) Economist has printed many articles about Ayodhya dispute. Almost all articles omit/suppress entire history and deny archeological evidence. Example, Oct 2010 article “The uneasy split” falsely claims that “there is no archaeological evidence to support either belief”; However, Nothing can be further from truth. Archeological evidence of Hindu temple is a fact proven beyond reasonable doubt in India’s high court.
6) March 2010 article “The rights approach”, which is about RTI Act, has nothing to do with Hinduism but nevertheless slips into Hindu bashing.
I am an avid reader of The Economist. I read it mostly for its economic content but I also regularly read its banyan and other S. Asian columns. On many occasions, S. Asian columns provide disparaging description of Hinduism and its followers. Some reactive comments on S. Asian article are equally disgusting. Thanks for tolerating all kinds of comments and not suppressing voice of readers.
In conclusion, Problem is pervasive with deep roots. Please launch systematic reforms to restore Journalistic ethics, fairness, and enhance credibility of magazine.
Yours Sincerely,
M Patel
Post a Comment