This is a response by George Fitzherbert, a DPhil in the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Oxford University, to an editorial in the Hindu extending N Ram's attack on the campaign for Tibetan autonomy. The editorial is here. The Hindu did not carry the letter. George specializes in Tibetan culture and language.
Sir,
Your misleading editorial on "The Question of Tibet" (26 March 2008) cannot go unanswered.
1. You throw scorn on the notion that Tibet is in the throes of a democratic uprising against Chinese rule. As anyone who has been to Tibet well knows, that country has been in a state of simmering unrest for the past 50 years, during which time it has experienced no form of consensual government. The current unrest is a rare moment when this discontent has become visible. To dismiss it so flippantly is to completely misunderstand the Tibetan situation.
2. On initiating dialogue with the Dalai Lama, you say, "this is precisely what China has done for over three decades". In fact China has shown no political will to settle the issue of the Dalai Lama's return, which would do more than anything else to ease Tibetan discontent. The Dalai Lama has shown a consistent ability to compromise, for example by forsaking his demand for Tibetan independence in favour of one for autonomy - a status supposedly guaranteed by the 17-point agreement of 1951. However the Chinese have consistently built walls and set up humiliating pre-conditions to prevent any meaningful dialogue and have continued to portray the Dalai Lama in their official press as an arch criminal. Their aggressive insistence that Tibet has always been and always will be "an inalienable part of the Chinese motherland" presents a further unacceptable and insurmountable obstacle to any meaningful compromise. In this regard, it is of value to note that international scholars on Tibetan history are by and large united in their sympathy for the Tibetan perspective.
India's historic failure to be assertive with regard to Tibet, has played into Chinese hands to tragic effect. In his enthusiasm for Indian-Chinese friendship, Nehru failed to discern that Chinese communism was at its core a nationalist movement, as he was to realise to his regret in 1962. That successive Indian governments have kowtowed to Chinese diplomatic aggression, is both a betrayal of India's role as Asia's greatest democracy, and a shameful capitulation in the face of aggression. China gave financial, logistical and training support to the armed Naga insurgency; India does not even allow a Satyagraha march by disenfranchised exiled Tibetans. It is disappointing that The Hindu, which takes such care in its pages to be politically correct and sympathise with the downtrodden at home, shows such disdain and arrogance with regard to Tibetans. I suggest that in future The Hindu look less towards Xinhua, the Chinese state propaganda service in its coverage of the Tibetan issue, and take a more judicious view of Tibet's plight.
Face the reality: India's policy of appeasement towards China with regard to Tibet is borne of military weakness not diplomatic integrity. It is an extreme arrogance for an Indian liberal newspaper, which advocates democratic and economic rights for its own citizens to so flippantly disregard the rights of those beyond its borders. Indian sensitivity with regard to Kashmir is understandable, but the analogy is inadequate. If Tibet had even a fraction of autonomy which Kashmir enjoys we quite possibly would not be speaking of "the question of Tibet" at all.
- Raghu Karnad's blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
[...] Raghu Karnad wrote an interesting post today on Questioning the Apologist: China, Tibet, IndiaHere’s a quick excerptAn unpublished response to an editorial in the Hindu extending N Ram’s attack on the campaign for Tibetan autonomy. The editorial is here. Solomon George FitzHerbert is a DPhil in the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Oxford University. … [...]
Without taking away from the moral weight of your argument for Tibet, is this really necessary?
Constitutional or practical?
[...] in the media news, Raghu Karnad shares a response by George Fitzherbert, a DPhil in the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Oxford University, to an N.Ram [...]
Now that I've read the editorial as well, the letter has a fundamental misreading of the purpose of the editorial. The Hindu is essentially using China as a proxy for India, and in that respect, is being pretty accurate and regrettable in this context.
Or we could have read the first line :) sorry. :)
Hell - I should have made this clearer: I didn't write the letter. It was written by George Fitzherbert - who is a friend of mine - and I posted it to help give some visibility to the letter he wrote (as the Hindu didnt carry it). I'll invite George to come by and respond to your critiques. I do think that George was using rhetorical flourish.
Much of this editorial, and especially the second half of this last line:
... shows that The Hindu is playing fill-in-the-blanks in their editorial section. Substitute "Beijing" with "Colombo" and "China" with "Sri Lanka," and you have a tried-and-true editorial line. It's a modular approach that doesn't require any engagement with the political context. And it's all the more appalling when, unlike the LTTE on the SL Tamil national question, the Tibetan leadership has been quite open to making compromises on the modalities of self-determination, and explicitly denounced violence as a means to that end.
Even in my limited reading of The Hindu, Frontline, and other articles over the past few years, N. Ram's editorial stance is quite clear: States can do no wrong, especially when painted red, or even nominally "democratic socialist."
Dr A:
I agree, it's not necessary-- but I say so because I think its inaccuracy actually takes away from the moral-political weight of Raghu's argument.
To present this as a question for "Asia's greatest democracy" to arbitrate is misguided given the government of India's strategic interventions throughout this region and anywhere it has perceived to be "its own backyard"-- for example, Bangladesh, Burma, and Sri Lanka, not to mention the obvious border disputes with China, Nepal and Pakistan. This history is what makes The Hindu's editorial so troubling to me.
But it's also entirely possible that Raghu deliberately used that phrase as a friendly gesture towards the reader who would potentially publish his letter.
Unfortunately, I think the statement gives (the government of) India an elusive and illusory high ground that is part of the problem. The image of being "Asia's greatest democracy" is combined with "the fastest growing market" and "the demands of national security" in ways that justify specific policies and interventions-- to put it very crudely (and unfair in some instances), it's what allows one government to act as regional hegemon with impunity on a so-called 'global stage'.
India's "kowtowing" to China seems to me less "a shameful capitulation in the face of [diplomatic] aggression" (an argument that finds a strange ally in the BJP?) than it is a passive exercise of that same diplomatic aggression, which finds a common cause with Beijing in $40 billion in trade.
Seeing that, some Tibetan activists are arguing that the issue is in India's long-term security interests.
But having followed the fallout of this approach in another part of the region, I have to ask: Is that argument in the people of Tibet's best interests?
k,
i think i agree with you almost completely. To clarify, i meant "notwithstanding the legitimacy of the claims regarding Tibet", not "the statement on India has no impact on those claims", which it does, as you spelled out.
Therein lies the rub. The dichotomy between what you say in order to get a hearing and what you "really" believe is a false one; the question is really one and the same, and it's about the manner in which you go about compromising and on what matters, which requires some deliberation.
That's a very clever way to criticise The Hindu without engaging with its rather shameful record of being a mouthpiece for the Chinese Commie administration for over 25 years now. That's a slap on the wrist. Like Calcutta "intellectuals" demonstrating against the WB Commies for their acts in Nandigram, for not being commie enough!
For those who aren't old enough N.Ram and The Hindu have the ones who have covered themselves with glory by their infamous whitewashing of the Tiananmen Square massacre, press-releases-as-newsreports from Tibet, and winking at grave violations of diplomatic convention as when the Chinese Commie thugs dressed-as-a-mob ransacked the Japanese Consulate in Shanghai. The Hindu with Ram at its helm has never found anything wrong with dictatorial thugs as long as they are communist or "anti-imperialist" or "anti-US". Blood thirsty tyrants like Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe always have a free pass. And if you want to see a peaceful and prosperous North Korea helmed by its Dear Great Leaders, leaf through the glossy Frontline, its pages decked out in meretricious colour and finery. I wouldn't attend a Kaangress Party convention in hte hope of witnessing a speech on the ills of dynastic succession or go to the AEI or CEI for presentations on climate change research (we know there's no such thing right?) but The Hindu and its abject, craven, dishonest, and duplicitous advocacy of the interests of the Chinese Communist party are beyond all norms of decency and scholarship. This goes way beyond denialism. When The Hindu in an editorial parrots the Chinese Commie party line on Dalai Lama dubbing him an instigator of violence you scratch your head and ask yourself, "Where have heard of something like this?" Inquistion? Witch Trials? The Great Stalinist Purges? Pol Pot's "People's Courts?" So my dears, it is not an "innocent" thing about simply endorsing "state power". It is vile dishonesty.
The 3-day protest by Tibetan groups scheduled to take place in Kolkata this past week, and for which permission had previously been granted, was reduced to a one-day, indoor, out of view meeting at the eleventh hour. The W. Bengal Government pulled the plug. No explanation given. What a surprise from the CPM leadership...interesting how they side with China against India on this issue, LOL.
well said mantavara, I think the Hindu's position on this is more than a blot on an otherwise good paper. to me it tarnishes the whole editorial institution. however it seems to me kettikeli's point is very interesting and sound. The hindu's leftism appears to mean statist first and uncritically "anti-imperialist" second, which in effect makes it fawning towards some of the most fascist, though nominally leftist, regimes of modern times.
when i wrote this letter in anger i did not know about the hindu's editorial background on China. I hear it is known by some as the Chindu. but it was heartening to see this week that they published a letter signed by a few of their best writers, including Ramachandra Guha, criticising the editorial stance on Tibet.
This N Rao really seems to be a Tibet-hater.
thanks for the comments.I am learning a lot from your posts.
george fitzherbert
My ties with The Hindu are so close (my family has known Ram's for over three generations now) that its long slide into communist sycophancy is distressing at a personal level. And how can anyone still consider the West Bengal government with respectm when it winked at a rally by extremist Muslims that precipitated the expulsion of Taslima Nasrin from India, and it is now denying a permit to a group of peaceful Tibetan protestors. Tibet and its culture have a centuries long association with Calcutta. Be it the flavorful and nourishing Momos (dumplings) you can find all over the city or the learned tomes on Tibetan Buddhism and its culture that were written at the Calcutta University by hte late scholar Dr. Evans Wentz.