Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Taxpayers money is not a personal piggy bank

Politicians often have the tendency to go overboard spending tax payers money like their own personal treasury like launching ill advised, vain glorious initiatives. In some rare cases like this, the Hon. Mu Ka decides to offer financial relief ex gratia. The Chindu reports this case here,
The case appears to be tragic where 2 women were killed by lightning and few other people were injured. However hypothetically lets say the families were in financial need, should the Govt. not offered the members some decent employment or other form of relief?
What prevents the amount to be "released into safe bureaucratic hands"?
The Chindu of course dutifully publishes this as a magnanimous act. It will be interesting to see if they take the next logical step and verify the facts.


Anonymous said...

Of course the government has the discretion to spend tax payers money the way it chooses. How do you think,
a. the 60,000 crore for farmers
b. the Govt. salaries raise
c. Bofors deal
any other similar deal gets approved.
There is no scope for audit for these.

Anonymous said...

A day after, the Raja of Chindu, publishes 4 lenghty letters condemning Guha, Tharoor and co for "misrepresenting facts".

Tibet issue

The letter by Ramachandra Guha and others on Tibet (April 10) appears to confuse the Tibet Autonomous Region, which was what Mao Zedong was referring to in his remark which they quote, with the regions in the neighbouring provinces of Qinghai, Yunnan, Sichuan and Gansu, where also ethnic Tibetans live. Many of these regions are also autonomous. It is in Tibet proper, the present Tibetan Autonomous Region, that the Tibetans are a majority (2.6 million out of 2.8 million by census-based data). The writers represent Qinghai as a Tibetan province, when in fact the region has been contested by different forces at least from the early 18th century. It has long been a multi-ethnic region, including Han Chinese, and so the claims of Hanisation that puts pressure on Tibetans appear very doubtful.

The writers are clearly lending support to claims to a “Greater Tibet.” Such claims have been made in the past in our own sub-continent, “Greater Tamil Nadu,” “Greater Asom” and “Greater Nagaland” being some examples. Are the writers suggesting that all such claims must be taken at face value?

If such claims are not taken seriously in India, for the good reason that they imply ethnic re-engineering or cleansing which would have disastrous consequences, then what reason do we have to insist that China must allow a “Greater Tibet” with equally reprehensible consequences?

In sum, the letter appears to provide a justification, based on highly problematic arguments, for the violence displayed by the Lhasa protesters and the ethnic chauvinism that lay behind it.

T. Jayaraman,


* * *

The writers assume that the Tibet problem is a religio-cultural problem and needs to be addressed at that level. They have missed the central argument in the editorial, “The question of Tibet” (March 26), exposing their bias towards Tibet. Nowhere in their letter have they mentioned the role of U.S. imperialism in the so-called Tibet uprising.

Tibet was a feudal society with a strong religious foundation built over the years by the Lamas and other leaders. It was land reforms initiated by China that met with armed resistance, culminating into the 1959 violent uprising solidly backed by CIA, a fact well documented in the book The CIA’s Secret War in Tibet by Morrison and Conboy, the latter a former CIA employee. China believes in class politics and tries to tackle the Tibet problem from that perspective. I am intrigued by the fact that Dilip Simeon, a votary of class politics, is peddling identity politics.

The central argument of the editorial was to get real with the Tibet issue. Targeting Han traders in Tibet seems comparable with Raj Thackeray targeting Bihari and U.P. traders in Maharashtra.

Tanvir Aeijaz,

New Delhi

* * *

The portrayal of the riots that resulted in arson, murder, and the lynching of innocent civilians as demonstrations by Ramachandra Guha and others is an atrocious misrepresentation of facts.

The reference by Mao Zedong could have only been to the Tibet Autonomous Region, which today has 92 per cent Tibetan population. This was the territory under the theocratic feudal control of the Dalai Lama. It definitely does not refer to the other autonomous neighbouring regions that have a considerable Tibetan population but have always been multi-ethnic and not part of TAR.

How can these be lumped together and mischievously passed off as Greater Tibet? What will be the resulting problems in India if demands for Greater Asom or Nagaland are raised? Or is it the selective application of ‘human rights’ for Tibet under the tutelage of the almighty power? Should the splitting of nations be engineered along the lines of what happened in Kosovo or when Israel was carved out of the Palestinian homeland? An in-depth introspection of all these issues will be in order before rushing into the Dalai Lama’s illegitimate embrace.

Kasim Sait,


* * *

It is difficult to understand the argument of the critics. They have stated that the Dalai Lama has been pursuing a just solution “within the framework of One China.” But why did the violent protests erupt in Lhasa and elsewhere in the first place? By now there are enough eyewitness accounts and audio-visual evidence to show the violent and brutal nature of the Tibetan protests, which included the cold-blooded murder of several persons belonging to the Han Chinese and Muslim communities by gangs of Tibetan protestors. The Chinese government had to act in order to quell these violent riots. The Hindu editorial has correctly pointed out that even the Dalai Lama had to publicly dissociate himself from such violence in order to maintain his credibility. The critics, however, far from condemning such mindless violence, have sought to provide indirect justification.

The editorial in The Hindu is fully consistent with the longstanding position of the Indian government, which is shared by a wide section of public opinion in India. Just as we would like other countries to keep off issues like Kashmir and leave it to the Indian government and the people to resolve it, similarly neither India nor any other country for that matter should interfere in the Tibetan issue. India should not subscribe to the hypocrisy of the Western powers led by the United States, who have no qualms in invading and occupying sovereign countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and violate human rights with impunity. We must beware of moves to disrupt India-China relations by the self-styled votaries of ‘Free Tibet.’

Albeena Shakil,

New Delhi