Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Aiyer's Lead Article

See today's lead article by Pallavi Aiyer. The heading reads:

"How China sees the Dalai Lama and his cause"

You obviously get the idea what this is going to be. Reading it gave me the impression that it has been carefully edited. The contents certainly ring true - everyone knows that with heavy censorship of news about the Dalai Lama, most Chinese kids are not even aware of the Tibetan issue at all. Yet a paper that routinely loves to castigate America and provide unsolicited advice to the government has not a single word of advice of any kind to the Chinese government. I would have thought that the article would have at least had a word about the benefit of dialogue with the Dalai Lama but no, it instead seeks to provide justification for current Chinese government policy saying that public opinion is against it. Has the Chindu ever cited adverse public opinion when indicating its views on matters where it directly contradicted popular opinion? What about the case when it recommended reducing Mohammed Afzal's death sentence to life? Did it ever say that the government should defer to public opinion and execute him? What about Nandigram? Did the Chindu ever say that the CPM was wrong because popular opinion said so? My point is not whether the Afzal judgment is right or wrong but how, for the Chindu, popular opinion is only valuable when it goes along with its view. The claim to have the public on its side is in fact an unconcealed effort to bring the public to its side, exactly as political parties do. For a party, that is however its job - generating support around a stance but the media, the job is to report on it and analyze the pros and cons of it, not to advocate it blindly with the passion of an ideologue. The Chindu obviously has its roles confused.
The Chinese government cannot negotiate with the Dalai lama because its people will not allow it. Oh , poor thing. How convenient. Should the Chindu not do the same thing then and advice the Indian Central and State governments not to negotiate with any insurgent movements - after all, popular opinion is against negotiating with Maoists, naxalites, Kashmiri ultras and you name it.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Again Chindu and Pallavi prove that they are more pro china than the Chinese. A crooked comparison made to equate Dalai Lama with Osama Bin Laden. Only Pallavi is aware how such comparison works but sure that this will please their masters.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Pallavi, your article has really alerted a lot of Tibetians to the fact that they are second class citizens in their own country.
Of course anything cannot be changed in China because the people dont want that to happen. Since when did that happen in the Chinese dictatorship?
People who don't have rights to change the fact that they cannot have more than one kid will decide on giving independence to a province which has been illegally occupied.
While you are at it, could you also sell me a noose to go hang myself?
Whats with you and the other N.Ram chelas? Does he pick people out straight from Kilpauk Mental hospital or what?

Arun said...

Really the comparison to Osama was a stretch even for chindu i don't get how a mainstream newspaper can be seeped in ideology it's worse than Fox News

Thyagarajan said...

Any lay reader would see the apparent contradiction in the following paras touted by Palvali iyer. On the one hand she wants us to believe that majority of Chinese are hostile to the Chinese administration and have lashed out at them for their leniency (yes, after all they are only beating up the Tibetans, mercilessly, but not killing them- As palvali would assume). Immediately she checks herself lest she incurs the displeasure of Yuan Ram and says that most Chinese are not aware of the Tibet problem at all.

"Revealingly, many Chinese have even lashed out at the authorities for their ostensible leniency in dealing with the protests, in sharp contradistinction to the ‘repressive crackdown’ most commentators abroad have criticised Beijing for.

The majority of Chinese have little awareness that there is a Tibet problem at all. Although a relatively high-profile issue abroad, thanks in part to the efforts of Hollywood, within China Tibet is usually far less prominent in the consciousness of the average Chinese than Taiwan."
S.Thyagarajan

R said...

Try comparing this article with Aiyar's asia times article here on Tibet:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/JC19Ad01.html

You can see the "Ram" effect.
Ram has denied freedom for Pallavi to write what she would write otherwise.

Note Pallvi's advice in the asiatimes article

"Looking ahead to the Olympics and beyond, China would in fact do well to look to India, the neighbor it usually scorns as poor and chaotic, to understand the strength that acknowledging differences can provide. "

Will Ram allow such a sentence in Pallavi's Chindu article ?

Poor Pallavi, she is working like a slave, writing whatever Ram orders!

Anonymous said...

The Cheif, who employs many slave-writers, like Aiyer, should be called "Ravan" and not Ram!

Anonymous said...

Its astounding the Chindu is so out of touch with reality. Especially in a matter where the events and circumstances run counter to their deep-seated biases. This kind of writing/journalism is worse than despicable - Its seriously delusional.
The only cure for this malaise is to leave them to their delusional thinking. Boycott The Hindu ! , and by all means, Boycott the Olympics !

Dilip said...

Good job r! That Asia Times article really shows how the Chindu's editorial scissors have completely sanitized this piece.

Pilid said...

Great comments folks. I have not read Pallavi Aiyer's book, so I don't know where her sympathies lie. What I have seen tells me that the Chindu is more to blame than her for this.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for PA's asia times reference. I dont give a damn what Pallavi Poiyer writes in other forums. Only upto a limit an editor can alter the article. In my view , Pallavi, must be having a several version of China stories and sells them depending on the takers. This further reinforces that she may not have any consistent view and no factual references.

//Asia times article : Your correspondent is thus a Delhite, an English speaker, half a Brahmin, half a Tamilian, a Hindu culturally, an atheist by choice, a Muslim by heritage//
The profile is close match with LiC, no wonder LiC favours her. About "Half Brahmin+Half Tamilian" proclamation - What nonsense is this. Does it mean Brahmin are not tamils?