Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Ram's Lecture on Wonderful Human Rights in Tibet

Ram apparently is now lecturing people on human rights in Tibet. So what does he have to say?
Tibet’s all-round development over some years has raised the living standards of its people, which by itself constituted progress in human rights...He said the per capita net income of the Tibetan people had maintained double-digit growth in each of the past five years, and stood at 2,788 yuan ($398) last year.

...He observed that the railway line may have had some negative impact on the region’s environment and wildlife, but that some accounts on this aspect were exaggerated. Besides, the central government was working for the protection of the region’s environment with an allocation of 1.5 billion yuan. The money was intended to be used for garbage and sewage treatment and to build 33 special passages for Tibetan antelopes and other wild animals.

Has it not been said by philosophers galore that money alone does not bring happiness? If money was all that mattered, there would have been no Osama Bin Laden for why would someone born with a silver spoon give it all up and shuttle between caves under the cover of darkness all to wage war against a far superior enemy? For the same reason. People are more than money-making robots. They are living entities with aspirations, dreams and fond hopes. Of the many things they seek, the freedom to speak freely and practice their beliefs without persecution has been a paramount one throughout the length of history. Indeed, experience has shown that people who do not have to worry about their basic requirements such as daily bread, clothing and shelter take more, not less interest in such abstract considerations. For people enjoying prosperity, moral and emotional security replaces material security as their primary concern. If Ram believes that building better garbage treatment plants will address popular anger, he could not be more eggheaded about this issue.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Please note here that N.Ram's comments in Beijing were published by Hindu but the original article was from Xinhua. So Chief cannot say the same thing to his own journos?

Anonymous said...

During Indira Gandhi's emergency period the same thing was about the opposition party prisoners. They are well taken care of in the jail, fed well etc. and there was nothing to complain about.

Whether Tibet is underdeveloped, stuck up in a feudal age etc., it is for the Tibetans to think about and take a suitable direction and not for comrade Ram and his Chinese masters to worry about.

Anonymous said...

"Mr. Ram added that it was a good example for India to follow". First step towards IAR (India Autonomous Region).

pilid said...

haha!:) Ram is showing his everlasting allegiance to his Chinese benefactors and hosts. And that has been the policy of his paper as well (no surprises there). The one change that seems to have come about from the all the bad press is that op-eds by Pallavi Aiyer and others now talk about how the Chinese view the problem - no word on what is wrong with how they see it or what ought to be done about it (those things are all reserved for the US).

Dirt Digger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dirt Digger said...

Pilid,
The irony in the article is that Ram shoots himself in his own foot.

Mr. Ram, who has visited Tibet twice in the past seven years and written about his visits, said the villages he had visited provided vivid proof of the region’s economic development.

How can one pass judgment based on just 2 trips of a few days? This is akin to the fake factories the communist workers built when Mao and Chou en Lai used to travel the countryside. To build an aura of communist success they will stoop to any levels to provide false information. Of course any objective person will question the facts presented to him/her, but someone who has ulterior motives would not care about that.

pilid said...

Dirt digger, the aim of those visits was not so much to understand conditions in Tibet to decide impartially. I am sure he had already decided to provide a favorable review even before his visit and the purpose was only to gain evidence in favor of his thesis - it is less about trying to be objective and more about wanting to be perceived as such.
After the first visit, he would of course write only about the good things and ignore the bad aspects (it is another matter whether the Chinese would even trust him sufficiently to show him things he would in any case probably not want to see). In the second visit, he could go over the bad ones again and then write about how they are 'improving'. These are standard tricks that his paper has been using for a while now.

Anonymous said...

Would be interesting to have the Chief defend/praise his masters in his alma mater (Columbia School of Journalism) before a discerning international audience and also narrate his guided adventures in Tibet.

Sinnaraja said...

I think this is an unfair attack. We should see the full text of Mr Ram speech.

pilid said...

Sinnaraja,

I may have been more willing to agree had Ram shown even a slight inclination of evenhandedness on this question at any point. Unfortunately, that is not the case. He has written full length op-eds in both the Hindu and Frontline and the full text of those is utterly one-sided. So I am inclined to believe that the published paragraphs pretty much capture the essence of his talk. Besides, he was talking in the Beijing Forum where he would have been even less likely to be critical of his hosts.

Sinnaraja said...

peeled/hindo undametalisth - But you cannot make personal attacks wihout seeing what it is he said. This is basic standard of objectivity that YOU fault Chindoo of violating. Pot calling ketal black...

pilid said...

Sinnaraja,

Are you disputing the words he was reported to have said? The words certainly looked like they were taken straight out of the talk.
The only question is whether he said other things not reported that would change the perspective, i.e. whether these words in a different context could mean something else (if that is what you allege). My view is that it does not, something I tried to clarify in my previous comment.

Anonymous said...

Comrade Ram has been relentlessly attacking Dalai Lama (for several years now) as if the latter has staked claims over Kasturi Building!

Since Comrade Ram talks about "benevolent" occuaption, what if some proletariat forcibly occupies Kasturi Building and then allow Comrade Ram to take tea and biscuits (or whatever that is Chief's favourite stuff) in the office canteen?

Sinnaraja said...

This whole blog might be more worthwhile if it not desend to name calling and such like tpically bombastic Indian political methods. I am noticing comments and posts are heavy on personal insults and low on analysis.

Anonymous said...

Comrade Ram specialises in name calling, calling Dalai Lama "splittist", "feudal" etc. If only he can just stick to decent analysis and not sermonise, and does not indulge in vituperaive attacks on Tibetans.