Pro China attitude of The Hindu Newspaper

AnotherEvidence

In an article written in Chinese, , “If China takes a little action, the so-called Great Indian Federation can be broken up,” was published in the new edition of the website of the China International Institute for Strategic Studies (CIISS), considered as an influential think tank that advises Beijing on global and strategic issues.

Many in Indian media quoted this article and commented considering that as an offensive news against India. However The Hindu reports this as an over reaction to anonymous post on an obscure Chinese web site. And cunningly the Hindu newspaper published an article in opinion column to argue for distancing China from the Chinese article. We can see the difference between the reporting of The Hindu from the rest of Media. The reason for such exhibition of total support to China is further revealed on seeing two more news items about Uyghur Muslims and construction of Port in Sri Lanka by China on the same day 17.08.2009.

NDTV: China should disintegrate India: Strategist

ZEE NEWS: ‘China should break India into 20-30 states’

REEDIFF.COM: China should break up India: Chinese strategist

TIMES OF INDIA: Break India, says China think-tank

THE HINDU: Does Beijing really want to “break up” India?

————————————————————————————————————

NDTV: China should disintegrate India: Strategist

http://www.ndtv.com/news/world/china_should_disintegrate_india_strategist.php

Indo-Asian News Service, Tuesday August 11, 2009, New Delhi

In an article likely to raise Indian hackles, a Chinese strategist contend that Beijing should break up India into 20-30 independent states with the help of “friendly countries” like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan. The publication of the article nearly coincided with the 13th round of India-China border talks that ended in New Delhi on Saturday on a positive note, with Beijing emphasizing the need to build strategic trust and elevate strategic partnership to a new level to include coordination on global issues. Written in Chinese, the article, “If China takes a little action, the so-called Great Indian Federation can be broken up,” is published in the new edition of the website of the China International Institute for Strategic Studies (CIISS), an influential think tank that advises Beijing on global and strategic issues.

According to D S Rajan, director of the Chennai Centre for China Studies, Chennai, Zhan Lue, the author of the article, argues that the “so-called” Indian nation cannot be considered as one having existed in history as it relies primarily on Hindu religion for unity.

The article says that India could only be termed a “Hindu religious state” that is based on caste exploitation and which is coming in the way of modernisation. The writer goes on to argue that with these caste cleavages in mind, China in its own interest and the progress of whole of Asia should join forces with “different nationalities” like Assamese, Tamils and Kashmiris and support them in establishing independent nation states of their own.

In particular, the article asks Beijing to support the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), a militant separatist group in the Indian northeast, to it achieve independence for Assam from India. Furthermore, the article suggests that China can give political support to Bangladesh to encourage ethnic Bengalis in India get rid of “Indian control” and unite with Bangladesh as one Bengali nation.

If this is not possible, the creation of at least another free Bengali nation state as a friendly neighbour of Bangladesh  would be desirable forthe purpose of weakening India’s expansion and threat aimed at forming a ”unified South Asia”, the article argues.

The article recommends India’s break up into 20-30 nation-states like in Europe and contends that if the consciousness of “nationalities” in India could be aroused, social reforms in South Asia can be achieved, the caste system can be eradicated and the region can march towards prosperity. The Chinese strategist suggests that to split India, China can seek support of friendly countries including Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan.

China should encourage Bangladesh to give a push to the independence of West Bengal and recover the 90,000 sq km territory in Arunachal Pradesh, which China calls southern Tibet, says Rajan who has analysed the article for the Chennai-based think tank.

“The write-up could not have been published without the permission of the Chinese authorities, but it is sure that Beijing will wash its hands out of this if the matter is taken up by New Delhi,” says Rajan.

“It has generally been seen that China is speaking in two voices — its diplomatic interlocutors have always shown understanding in their dealings with their Indian counterparts, but its media is pouring venom on India,” says Rajan. Which one to believe is a question confronting the public opinion and even policy makers in India, Rajan says, adding that ignoring such an article will “prove to be costly” for India.

ZEE News: ‘China should break India into 20-30 states’

http://www.zeenews.com/news554432.html

( from the same source of ndtv)

New Delhi: In an article likely to raise Indian hackles, a Chinese strategist contends that Beijing should break up India into 20-30 independent states with the help of “friendly countries” like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan. The publication of the article nearly coincided with the 13th round of India-China border talks that ended in New Delhi Saturday on a positive note, with Beijing emphasizing the need to build strategic trust and elevate strategic partnership to a new level to include coordination on global issues.

Written in Chinese, the article, “If China takes a little action, the so-called Great Indian Federation can be broken up,” is published in the new edition of the website of the China International Institute for Strategic Studies (CIISS), an influential think tank that advises Beijing on global and strategic issues.

According to DS Rajan, director of the Chennai Centre for China Studies, Chennai, Zhan Lue, the author of the article, argues that the “so-called” Indian nation cannot be considered as one having existed in history as it relies primarily on Hindu religion for unity.

The article says that India could only be termed a “Hindu religious state” that is based on caste exploitation and which is coming in the way of modernisation. The writer goes on to argue that with these caste cleavages in mind, China in its own interest and the progress of whole of Asia should join forces with “different nationalities” like Assamese, Tamils and Kashmiris and support them in establishing independent nation states of their own.

In particular, the article asks Beijing to support the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), a militant separatist group in the Indian northeast, to it achieve independence for Assam from India. Furthermore, the article suggests that China can give political support to Bangladesh to encourage ethnic Bengalis in India get rid of “Indian control” and unite with Bangladesh as one Bengali nation. If this is not possible, the creation of at least another free Bengali nation state as a friendly neighbour of Bangladesh would be desirable for the purpose of weakening India’s expansion and threat aimed at forming a ”unified South Asia”, the article argues. The article recommends India’s break up into 20-30 nation-states like in Europe and contends that if the consciousness of “nationalities” in India could be aroused, social reforms in South Asia can be achieved, the caste system can be eradicated and the region can march towards prosperity. The Chinese strategist suggests that to split India, China can seek support of friendly countries including Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan.

China should encourage Bangladesh to give a push to the independence of West Bengal and recover the 90,000 sq km territory in Arunachal Pradesh, which China calls Southern Tibet, says Rajan who has analysed the article for the Chennai-based think tank.

“The write-up could not have been published without the permission of the Chinese authorities, but it is sure that Beijing will wash its hands out of this if the matter is taken up by New Delhi,” says Rajan.

“It has generally been seen that China is speaking in two voices – its diplomatic interlocutors have always shown understanding in their dealings with their Indian counterparts, but its media is pouring venom on India,” says Rajan. Which one to believe is a question confronting the public opinion and even policy makers in India, Rajan says, adding that ignoring such an article will “prove to be costly” for India.

Govt downplays suggestion

The Indian Government however described as an “expression of individualopinion” comments by the Chinese analyst. At the same time, India emphasised that “opinions and assessment of the state of India-China relations should be expressed after careful judgement based on long-term interests of building a stable relationship between the two countries.”

External Affairs Ministry spokesman Vishnu Prakash said India and China have strategic and cooperative partnership, and the multi-sectoral engagement and the pace of bilateral exchanges have gained momentum in recent years.

“The article in question appears to be an expression of individual opinion and does not accord with the officially stated position of China on bilateral relations conveyed to us on several occasions, including at the highest level, most recently by the State Councillor Dai Bingguo during the visit to India last week,” he said, reacting to the analyst’s views.

“We continue to maintain that opinion and assessment on the state of India-China relations should be expressed after careful judgement based on long-term interests of building a stable relationship between the two countries,” Prakash said.

“The Chinese side has conveyed to us that in approaching India-China relations, China abides by the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence. One of these principles stresses respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty,” Prakash said.

IANS input

—————————————————————————-

REDIFF: China should break up India: Chinese strategist

http://news.rediff.com/special/2009/aug/10/china-should-break-up-india-suggests-chinese-strategist.htm

Almost coinciding with the 13th round of Sino-Indian border talks (New Delhi [ Images ], August 7-8, 2009), an article (in the Chinese language) has appeared in China captioned ‘If China takes a little action, the so-called Great Indian Federation can be broken up’ (Zhong Guo Zhan Lue Gang, www.iiss.cn, Chinese, August 8, 2009).

Interestingly, it has been reproduced in several other strategic and military Web sites of the country and by all means, targets the domestic audience. The authoritative host site is located in Beijing [ Images ] and is the new edition of one, which so far represented the China International Institute for Strategic Studies (www.chinaiiss.org).

Claiming that Beijing’s ‘China-Centric’ Asian strategy, provides for splitting India, the writer of the article, Zhan Lue (strategy), has found that New Delhi’s corresponding ‘India-Centric’ policy in Asia, is in reality a ‘Hindustan centric’ one. Stating that on the other hand ‘local centres’ exist in several of the country’s provinces (excepting for the UP and certain northern regions), Zhan Lue has felt that in the face of such local characteristics, the ‘so-called’ Indian nation cannot be considered as one having existed in history.

According to the article, if India today relies on any thing for unity, it is the Hindu religion. The partition of the country was based on religion. Stating that today nation states are the main current in the world, it has said that India could only be termed now as a ‘Hindu religious state’. Adding that Hinduism is a decadent religion as it allows caste exploitation and is unhelpful to the country’s modernisation, it described the Indian government as one in a dilemma with regard to eradication of the caste system as it realises that the process to do away with castes may shake the foundation of the consciousness of the Indian nation.

The writer has argued that in view of the above, China in its own interest and the progress of Asia, should join forces with different nationalities like the Assamese, Tamils, and Kashmiris and support the latter in establishing independent nation-States of their own, out of India. In particular, the ULFA (United Liberation Front of Asom) in Assam, a territory neighboring China, can be helped by China so that Assam realises its national independence. The article has also felt that for Bangladesh, the biggest threat is from India, which wants to develop a great Indian Federation extending from Afghanistan to Myanmar. India is also targeting China with support to Vietnam’s efforts to occupy Nansha (Spratly) group of islands in South China Sea. Hence the need for China’s consolidation of its alliance with Bangladesh, a country with which the US and Japan [ Images ] are also improving their relations to counter China.

It has pointed out that China can give political support to Bangladesh enabling the latter to encourage ethnic Bengalis in India to get rid of Indian control and unite with Bangladesh as one Bengali nation; if the same is not possible, creation of at least another free Bengali nation state as a friendly neighbour of Bangladesh, would be desirable, for the purpose of weakening India’s expansion and threat aimed at forming a ‘unified South Asia’. The punch line in the article has been that to split India, China can bring into its fold countries like Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan, support ULFA in attaining its goal for Assam’s independence, back aspirations of Indian nationalities like the Tamils and Nagas, encourage Bangladesh to give a push to the independence of West Bengal [ Images ] and lastly recover the 90,000 sq km territory in southern Tibet [ Images ].

Wishing for India’s break-up into 20 to 30 nation-States like in Europe, the article has concluded by saying that if the consciousness of nationalities in India could be aroused, social reforms in South Asia can be achieved, the caste system can be eradicated and the region can march along the road of prosperity.

The Chinese article in question will certainly outrage readers in India. Its suggestion that China can follow a strategy to dismember India, a country always with a tradition of unity in diversity, is atrocious, to say the least. The write-up could not have been published without the permission of the Chinese authorities, but it is sure that Beijing will wash its hands out of this if the matter is taken up with it by New Delhi. It has generally been seen that China is speaking in two voices — its diplomatic interlocutors have always shown understanding during their dealings with their Indian counterparts, but its selected media is pouring venom on India in their reporting. Which one to believe is a question confronting the public opinion and even policy makers in India. In any case, an approach of panic towards such outbursts will be a mistake, but also ignoring them will prove to be costly for India.

D S Rajan, is Director, Chennai

—————————————————————————-

Times Of India: Break India, says China think-tank

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Split-India-says-China-think-tank/articleshow/4883573.cms

TNN 12 August 2009, 02:21am IST

NEW DELHI: India may have survived doomsday predictions — once a favourite pastime of the West — of its balkanization but that does not seem to have deterred the Chinese. On Tuesday, New Delhi took exception to an article on a quasi-official Chinese website, which boasted that the “great Indian federation” was ripe for dismemberment if Beijing tried just a little.

Wake up! China wants to break up India

Posted on April 8 on the website iiss.cn (International Institute for Strategic Studies), the article detailed a roadmap for breaking up India. ”To split India, China can bring into its fold countries like Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan, support Ulfa in attaining its goal for Assam’s independence, back aspirations of Indian nationalities like Tamils and Nagas, encourage Bangladesh to give a push to the independence of West Bengal and lastly recover the 90,000 sq km territory in southern Tibet,” the write-up said. The article claimed that India as a nation never really existed in history. It was held together by “decadent” Hinduism which ”encouraged caste and exploitation”.

“…China in its own interest and the progress of whole Asia, should join forces with different nationalities like Assamese, Tamils, and Kashmiris and support the latter in establishing independent nation-states of their own, out of India,” the article said. The ardent hope has been sought to be justified by using the rhetoric of change. “Only after India has been broken up into 20-30 pieces will there be any real reform or social change in the country,” stressed the article meant for Chinese audience.

Hopes of a rebellion by Tamils may appear outlandish, but the article serves to corroborate fears in India about Beijing’s gameplan to encircle India in alliance with regimes in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal, of its support for Ulfa and other insurgent groups in northeast and its designs on Arunachal Pradesh which the Chinese insist on referring to as south Tibet. Not amused, India’s foreign ministry cautioned China, asking it to express opinions ”after careful judgments based on the long-term interests of building a stable relationship”.

Seeking to hold Beijing to its official statements, an MEA spoksperson said the article “appears to be an expression of  individual opinion and does notaccord with the officially stated position of China on India-China relations conveyed to us on several occasions, including at the highest level, most recently by state councillor Dai Bingguo during his visit to India last week”.

—————————————————————————-

The Hindu: Does Beijing really want to “break up” India?

http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3980.ece

17.08.2009

What the overreaction in India to an anonymous post on an obscure Chinese website calling for “splitting India” reveals about the challenges of understanding China’s changing information landscape.

Whoever the anonymous Internet user “Zhong Guo Zhuan Le Gang” (literally,”Chinese strategist”) is, he must be quite pleased with himself. Little more than a week ago, a post by him appeared on an obscure Chinese website calling for China to “break up” the “Hindu Religious State” of India for its own strategic gains. The post was translated and analysed, with some significant errors, by a Chennai-based think-tank, following which reports appeared in the Indian media expressing outrage that “Beijing” had a secret plan to divide India by supporting separatist movements in Kashmir and the Northeast.

Leave aside for a moment the contents of the post, which to most readers with even a little understanding of foreign policy reveals an inexperienced writer with poor understanding of India, far removed from a supposedly influential Chinese strategist. Also leave aside the question of whether having broken-up states on its borders with the troubled Xinjiang region and in north-east India even really suits Chinese interests. The real question to be asked here is why and how does an anonymous post by an insignificant Chinese blogger generate such attention and consternation in India? Part of the answer lies in the media reports that appeared last week, which made the following assumptions: an influential Chinese strategist must have been behind the suggestions; he must have had the tacit backing of Beijing since all opinion in China is controlled by the government; and that the website where this post appeared sounded influential enough for India to take notice and worry.

But in these assumptions are fundamental misperceptions. For one, there is a tendency to assume every view expressed by a Chinese strategist or newspaper - let alone an anonymous blogger — is inextricably linked to Beijing and the Chinese government’s views.

This tendency is located in the prevalence of the idea of a monolith China and “Chinese” view which dominates Indian perceptions. This was especially evident last week, when news reports in national newspapers, without exception, linked the claims made by the anonymous blogger to “what Beijing thinks”. This perception dates back to the 1970s and 1980s, when the only opinions coming out of China were voiced through one or two State-run organs, and often closely mirrored the Chinese government’s views. The last decade has seen the emergence of a completely different information landscape in China. Yet the manner in which this information is processed and interpreted in India remains rooted in the past. The nineties saw the emergence of dozens of new newspapers in China, a few dozen think-tanks in Beijing and a proliferation of voices expressed through the Internet.

Currently, there are four main avenues through which information emerges out of China. Their status and roles need spelling out, as understanding and evaluating the nature of this information is crucial for India to create a level of discourse that allows for a more layered analysis of China’s opportunities and threats.

Most significant is the official channel through China’s Foreign Ministry, which voices China’s official position on issues. the second, more complicated channel is print media. There are dozens of newspapers in Beijing, and most are State-owned. But each enjoys a unique relationship with both the government and the Communist Party (CPC), and consequently, their opinions need to be interpreted contextually. For instance, the People’s Daily, the CPC’s mouthpiece, often articulates the Party’s stand, which does not necessarily reflect the Chinese government’s official position. Recently, the paper ran a strong editorial aimed at India, crudely belittling India’s political status and calling for a stronger Chinese stand on the border dispute and other issues. This was interpreted in India as the

Chinese government changing its position.

While the Chinese government on occasion does use the newspaper to articulate its views, the newspaper is more often used by different factions within the CPC in internal debates and has less impact on actual policy. For instance, some groups within the CPC favour a more hawkish attitude to India, and others in the government a more conciliatory position. The distinction between Party and Government is not often clear even in China.

This poses a challenge for Indian observers to tease out what opinions really matter to the countries’ relationship, and what opinions are no more than postures adopted for the sake of internal party politics and are less relevant to the countries’ ties. The third category, also diverse, is think-tanks. In the last decade, dozens of think-tanks — many with similar sounding names, to add to the confusion — have emerged in China. The fourth and newest avenue of information is the Internet, through Chinese blogs and websites.

Confusion between the last two categories was at the heart of last week’s uproar. The post in question appeared on an important-sounding website calling itself the International Institute of Strategic Studies (which has no relation to the London-based think-tank of the same name). The Chennai Centre for China Studies, which first translated and analysed the post before it was circulated among the Indian media, assumed that this was a government-sponsored think-tank, and also wrongly claimed that this was linked to the China Institute for International Strategic Studies (CIISS), a Beijing think-tank. But a quick check revealed that the IISS website where the post appeared actually has no government ties, and is by no means an established Beijing think-tank — it’s just a website. Scholars at the CIISS and other institutes said they hadn’t even heard of it, and expressed amusement at the media circus that the obscure website had caused in India.

The website’s founder Kang Lingyi issued a clarification saying his website was independent and had no link to the government. What news reports did not mention was Mr. Kang, who is only in his twenties, represents a fringe firebrand nationalistic viewpoint that has in the past tried to stir public opinion against another neighbour of China’s — Japan. Mr. Kang’s views often reflect those of a section known in China as the “Fenqing” — it literally translates to “Angry Youth”, but when pronounced slightly differently describes such youth in a far less kind way, one that’s not fit to print. This reflects the position these views hold in the mainstream in China — and the error in assuming these fringe views mirror Beijing’s position. But even the nationalistic Mr. Kang distanced himself from the post and stressed that in no way did his website approve of its message.

News reports also claimed the write-up could not have been published without the permission of the Chinese authorities — another dubious claim tied to the simplistic notion that the Chinese government vets every opinion expressed on all of China’s hundreds of political websites. The Chinese government blocks and censors numerous websites that are politically sensitive, discussing subjects like the Tiananmen Square protests or the Falun Gong. But suggesting that the government controls and moderates debates and political opinions in blogs and newspapers is a stretch. It also belies a lack of understanding of the changing nature of China’s information landscape.  China has 338 million Internet users and more than 100 millionblogs and websites, such as the one where this post first appeared. It only takes a quick glance through half a dozen such sites – even “influential” ones – to look at the divergence of opinions and vibrancy of debates, with many voices even strongly criticising the Communist Party and its government. Yet the simplistic perception still endures in India that in authoritarian China, every analyst or writer must surely speak in the same voice. Interpreting information from these four avenues is further complicated by the fact that they are sometimes inter-linked. For instance, the Chinese government sometimes uses influential think-tanks to hint at changes in policy. Views and opinions from mainstream Chinese newspapers and think-tanks must indeed be taken seriously in India. But at the same time, a more nuanced understanding of China’s information landscape is needed to avoid shrill hyper-reactions to anonymous bloggers and irrelevant fringe groups. This is crucial to creating a level of discourse in India that allows for a deeper, more meaningful engagement with China’s opportunities and threats.

Turkey supports China on Xinjiang

http://www.hindu.com/2009/08/17/stories/2009081755291300.htm

17.08.2009

Ananth Krishnan

BEIJING: Turkey, the lone voice in the international community that strongly criticised China for its handling of July’s ethnic unrest in Xinjiang, now appears to have mended its fences with China.

Only a few weeks ago, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan described the events as “a kind of genocide”. Now, it appears to have considerably changed its tone. ”We have the confidence that those who caused the incident would be brought to transparent, fair and swift justice by the Chinese authorities,” said Turkish Ambassador to China Murat Salim Esenli on Friday, during a four-day visit to the troubled Muslim-majority Xinjiang region. Relations between the

two countries have been strained following the ethnic clashes between Han Chinese and minority Uighurs, an ethnic Turkic-speaking Muslim group, that broke out in Urumqi on July 5.

At least 197 people were killed in what was the biggest ethnic unrest in China’s recent history. Migrant community

Turkey has a large Uighur migrant community, which is viewed in the country as sharing a common pan-Turkish ethnic identity. Shortly after the violence, Mr. Erdogan said he would approach the United Nations to “discuss” the issue. Last month, Trade Minister Nihat Ergun also called on consumers to not buy Chinese goods. But Turkey has found itself isolated in the international community over its stance on Xinjiang. The country’s trade relationship with China has also grown close in recent years, and Mr. Erdogan’s government has found itself walking a tight-rope balancing economic and geo-political considerations with domestic public opinion that remains strongly against China.

Opposition parties in Turkey have also sought to gain political mileage out of the issue, and more than 10,000 people attended a recent protest rally criticising China’s handling of the unrest and calling for a strong response from the government. But now, the government appears to have softened its stance. Mr. Esenli for the first time toured Xinjiang last week, as part of a delegation of envoys from the U.S., Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Togo, Egypt, Turkey, Kuwait and Afghanistan. During the visit, Mr. Esenli praised the Chinese government for opening up the region to foreign media, and blamed the Western media’s “biased and prejudiced reporting” for influencing public opinion in Turkey, State media reported.

Economic ties

The trip, organised by the Chinese government, comprised a number of envoys from Muslim countries, many of whom enjoy close economic ties with China and have in recent weeks publicly voiced their support to the Chinese  governmenton the Xinjiang issue. Turkey has now joined that list.

Colombo clarifies on Chinese loan for port development

http://www.hindu.com/2009/08/17/stories/2009081756801000.htm

B. Muralidhar Reddy

COLOMBO: The Sri Lankan government has sought to put at rest doubts in some quarters in general and a section of the Indian establishment in particular on the latest agreement between Sri Lanka and Chinese Exim Bank for development of the Hambantota Port.

Ports Minister Chamal Rajpaksa said on Sunday: “We have been following the debate on the Chinese investment on the Hambantota Port project. Some people are under the impression that the project could adversely impact the geo-strategic interests of some countries in the region. It is not true. It is a development and commercial project and has nothing to do with military objectives.”

He said Sri Lanka began to `build the harbour with a special loan facility extended by the Chinese government’ and reiterated that `there are no other intentions.”

Mr. Rajpaksa was responding to a remark attributed in a section of the media to Indian Navy Chief Suresh Mehta that China was helping to build strategically located dependency ports in South Asia for military purposes to gain easy access to the Indian Ocean.

Last week Sri Lanka Treasury Secretary Sumith Abeysinghe signed two financing agreements relating to the construction of the Colombo-Katunayake Expressway and the Hambantota Bunkering Project with the Vice-President Zhu Xinqiang of the Exim Bank of China.

Separately, the Information Ministry said that over half a million devotees from all parts of the country thronged the Madhu Church in Mannar district on Saturday to pay homage at the feat of Our Lady of Madhu.

“This was a record crowd seen after three decades and the devotees were welcomed by the Archbishop of Colombo, Rt. Rev. Dr. Malcolm Rangith,” it said. Meanwhile, Government Agent Vavuniya PSM Charles said that 60 war displaced families in the temporary camps had to be temporarily moved to a higher location within the camp but now the situation was under control.

“This was an `unexpected downpour one month prior to the monsoon,” she said. Sudden heavy rains two days back in Northern Sri Lanka have caused water logging in certain areas of the relief camp, causing hardship to the internally displaced people living there.

Ms. Charles said that on the first day cooked meals were provided for 21,000 people because there were problems in community cooking. But on the very second day things were brought under control and cooked meals were given for only 500 people, as the community cooking had resumed.

The monsoon is about a month away and many aid groups have expressed concern that the temporary shelters may not be able to withstand the downpour.

Ms. Charles said contingency planning was already afoot for the rainy season. The camps are located on vast tracts of formerly forested land near the northern town of Vavuniya. As the ground on which many of the camps were made was cleared of trees recently, the soil is soft and porous.

On 22.06.2006 The Hindu published their editorial with a title “Katchatheevu is settled” propagating a lie as if they are announcing a foreign policy. Immediately it is republished in Sri Lanka with a title “Katchatheevu is settled, say Indian media “

The Hindu in the editorial has stated that there can be no question of India dishonouring the treaties on the IMBL, signed by the Prime Ministers of the two countries and laid before Parliament.

But a noted Parliamentarian Era. Sezhian, in his lengthy article about Katchatheevu in Dinamani dated 30.06.2009 has exposed the truth about this issue in details. He has pointed out that the Supreme court has earlier examined the issue of handing over an island to Pakistan and has given a verdict that such handing over a part of a country could be done only by amendment to the constitution. Era sezhian clearly has stated that agreements signed by the Prime minister in this issue has no legal sanctity.

The Hindu says that Katchatheevu is a wasteland of an island on the Sri Lankan side of the International Maritime Boundary Line but political parties in Tamil Nadu have made it the focus of a surrogate campaign for establishing fishing rights for Indian fishermen. The Hindu deliberately describes Katchatheeveu as a waste land to justify that it can be of no use to India and to project that handing over it to Sri Lanka is of no loss to India. This is a clear stand of Hindu in favour of Sri Lanka. The Tamil Nadu assembly or the political parties or the people are not in favour of handing
over the island to Sri Lanka. The matter is not settled. Hundreds of fishermen are shot dead and inaction of the Government of India is pointed out with anger by Patriotic Indians.

Therefore the Editorial of The Hindu declaring that Katchatheevu is settled, is mischievous, illegal, goes against the Sovereignty of India and amounts to contempt of court and legislature.

ANNEXURE OF EVIDENCES FROM THE INTERNET

A compilation report on the lies propagated by The Hindu News paper of Chennai, India

ANNEXURE OF EVIDENCES

22.06.2009 THE HINDU EDITORIAL

*Katchatheevu is settled *

Katchatheevu is a wasteland of an island on the Sri Lankan side of the International Maritime Boundary Line but political parties in Tamil Nadu have made it the focus of a surrogate campaign for establishing fishing  rights for Indian fishermen. The IMBL was amicably settled through two agreements between India and Sri Lanka. It was demarcated in the Palk Strait in 1974 and in the Gulf of Mannar and Bay of Bengal in 1976. As part of the settlement, Indian fishermen and pilgrims were allowed access to Katchatheevu “as hitherto,” and were not required by Sri Lanka to have travel documents or visas. Fishermen were thus free to visit the island for rest, for drying their nets, and for the annual St. Anthony’s festival. But fishing rights around the island were not specifically covered by the Palk Strait agreement. However, for Indian fishermen, the real issue is not fishing around Katchatheevu, where the catch has been dwindling as in Indian waters, but fishing well into Sri Lanka’s waters, which are known to be much richer in marine resources. But returns from such off-limits venturing came with a cost: the fishermen were shot at, sometimes by the Sri Lankan Navy,
at other times by the Sea Tigers. These incidents were exploited to inflame political passions in Tamil Nadu. Thus, while both India and Sri Lanka consider Katchatheevu a settled issue, regional parties in Tamil Nadu have fallen into the habit of demanding, from time to time, `retrieval’ of the island. Indian fishermen admit that their problems have little to do with Katchatheevu. What they are really after is an unrestricted right to fish in Sri Lankan waters. There is no question of a sovereign nation like Sri Lanka conceding such a right — or, for that matter, the Indian government asking for it.

For chauvinistic elements in Tamil Nadu, Katchatheevu is also an expression by proxy of bitter resentment against the elimination of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam as a military force. Whether it is Katchatheevu or the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project, these elements instinctively hew to a line they think can hurt Sri Lanka the most. There can be no question of India dishonouring the treaties on the IMBL, *signed by the Prime Ministers
of the two countries and laid before Parliament.* India and Sri Lanka have set up a Joint Working Group to go into issues relating to straying Indian fishermen, the prevention of use of force by the Sri Lankan Navy, and the
release of arrested fishermen and the return of confiscated boats. There must be a sincere attempt to make the JWG arrangement work. Whipping up emotions on proxy issues is surely no way to help either Indian fishermen or Sri Lankan Tamils.

http://srilankatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2999&Itemid=52

Katchatheevu is settled, say Indian media

Source : www.thehindu.com

—————————————————————————-
2. “The Hindu” acting in favour of China has become Unpatriotic and Anti National

THE PEOPLE’S DAILY OF CHENNAI

B.RAMAN

Tibet and Sichuan have seen some determined protests by the long-suppressed Tibetans since March 10. The protests were initially started by Tibetan monks, but subsequently a large number of students and other sections of the
general population joined in. The Chinese Army, which was taken by surprise, is in the process of putting down the protests ruthlessly.

2. There is no doubt they will ultimately succeed in ruthlessly crushing the protests, arresting those who participated and sending them to their own Gulags.

3.There can be different views on what the Government of India’s attitude to the protests should be—sympathise with it or disaprove of it or adopt an ambivalent attitude? A decision on this has to be taken by the Government after taking the national interests into consideration.

4. But there can be no different views on what should be the attitude of the media to the developments in Tibet and Sichuan, particularly of a newspaper which projects itself to be independent and objective, with no agenda of its own. It has to inform the public of the various versions of the developments—-the Tibetan, the Chinese, the Western etc— and leave it to the readers to decide which version to believe.

5. If it has any views as to which version is more credible, it can express those views in its editorial columns for the benefit of its readers.

6. But, when a newspaper censors the various versions, blacks out the Tibetan version and disseminates only the version as put out by the Government-owned Hsinhua news agency of China, one has reason to feel shocked—– and sad.

7. Read the report as carried by that newspaper on its front page on March 17,2008. At the bottom, its says “Hsinhua, PTI and Reuters” as if the entire report is based on the versions put out by these three agencies.

8. It is not so. The portion regarding the disturbances in Tibet is totally the version of the Hsinhua with no clarifications or additions as to what the Tibetans have had to say. The Dalai Lama held a press conference on March 16,2008. Truncated versions of the press conference as disseminated by the Reuters and the PTI have been added on to the main Hsinhua version.

9. The Dalai Lama made two important points in his press conference. He accused the Chinese of cultural genocide in Tibet and asked for an international enquiry into it. At the same time, he made it clear that he did not want the Beijing Olympics to be disrupted. In its headline , the paper played up only what he said on the Olympics and remained silent on what he had to say about the alleged cultural genocide.

10. A few years ago, the paper came under a new leadership of the same family. Since then one could see a change in its editorial policy towards China and Tibet—- no publicity to the statements and activities of the Dalai Lama, no dissemination of his pictures, no publicity to the views and hardships of the Tibetans, no negative comments on China, only the positive to be highlighted and not the negative about China. Beijing to be projected as an angel in a world of villains.

11. More and more Hsinhua despatches started finding their way into the columns of this paper. The readers were told what a wonderful country China was, what a wonderful people the Chinese were, how there is nothing for India to fear from the Chinese.

12.Its Washington office was closed and shifted to Beijing indicating where its heart lay.

13. A Chinese interlocutor recently mentioned to me the names of two persons from this paper—-one in its headquarters in Chennai and the other in its office in Beijing– and remarked that if only all journalists were like
these two, journalism must be the most beautiful profession in the world. I asked him why he thought so.

14. He replied that they write only positively about China. They never say anything negative.

15. All of us, who were born and brought up in Chennai, grew up on the mother’s milk of this daily. Whatever little we achieved in our life and career was due to what we imbibed from its columns.

17. What a great family it was! What great names it had in its staff in its headquarters and in its field offices!

18. When we travelled abroad and mentioned that Chennai was our home town, people would immediately say ” oh, the city of that famous newspaper”. Chennai was known as the city of the Music Festival and this newspaper.

19. I am 71—- well on the way to making my peace with My Maker. How cruel to see this daily with which I grew up reduced to its present status!

20. Its founding fathers and the giants who served in it must be shedding tears in heavens over the way their child has been reduced to being the ”People’s Daily” of Chennai.

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

Posted by B.RAMAN at 10:35 AM

12 comments:

Anand said…

This newspaper you mention was truly the last one that expected to take such a turn. It is unfortunate and most despicable. These people have shown they can sink to truly bottomless depths.

March 17, 2008 5:01 PM

SUNDAR said…

I grew up in Chennai but my grand father who spent his days in Kumbakonam used to love this newspaper. Lucky he is not alive today to see the deterioration in quality. The editor gives space to the left tinted news and views to far greater extent . Even a look at the ‘letters to the editor’ shows his choice. Thanks Mr. Raman for an excellent article on this
supposedly national newspaper.

March 18, 2008 7:50 AM

Ananya55 said…

Well said Mr Raman on the deteriorating standards of The Hindu. I am half your age and like many of my generation, I grew up with this newspaper, eagerly awaiting the arrival of this paper in the morning and fighting with other family members to get an early insight into the articles even with the little english I was familiar with. To see the paper that consistently preached and associtaed with the middle class virtues of honesty and integrity going downhill to become a mouthpiece of CPM is a sad reflection of N.Ram’s journalism. Even after this was brought to the attention of the
readers’ editior time and again by the readers, no satisfactory response has been given. I never got any of my letters published on various issues (particularly on the partial coverage of the paper on issues such as Hamas and Mugabe). Though this paper has an association with The Guardian (UK) and frequently reprints articles published in that paper, no article that is critical of the left’s pet issues (such as Hamas and colonialism, for example Robert Mugabe) has been published. Still Atun Aneja is talking about how Hamas/Hizbollah are challenging the might of Israeli army, he does not
mention the destruction of houses/lives caused by Israeli retaliation in Southern Lebanon and Gaza. While writting about the Palestine issue, he becomes a Hamas’ites to talk about how valiant they are and to forget that they are getting pounded day in day out. Even in the ‘letters to the editor’, you see mostly the letters that are appreciative of the articles
published in the papers and critical letters are censored.

Most of these letters are still referring to about anti- olonialism, US hegemony, US’s hidden design, etc. Still the first choice for N. Ram’s daughter to study was the den of global capitalism: US. No wonder we have people like Rajamohan leaving The Hindu to take up a dignified teaching position rather than selling his soul. He has been replaced with strategic affairs editor Siddhardh Varadarajan who is jack of ‘all trades and master of none’ (propably the only strategic affairs editor capable of writting on anything and everything: caste, reservation, affirmative action, politics, social mobility, godhra, communalism, communism, etc.).

His contributions are like the courseworks of undergraduate students consulting a couple of online articles and views and write something to scream about the US. There is nothing scholarly in his contributions. So much so for his strategic acumen that he did not write a single piece on his pet topic Kosovo, which he steadfastly opposed during the NATO intervention. When the region became an independent nation recently all we could hear from him was a “Big Bang of Silence”. With his chest-beating, anti-American and pro-socialist/communist scream, you might still be thinking that he is at the Hindu office in New Delhi or on sabbatical working on a project in Chavez or Castro’s dreamland.

But he is on sabbatical teaching (about journalism and not strategic affairs) in the craddle of global capitalism: US. The last I heard is that he is looking for a tenure in the US universities. What a hypocrisy of this paper and its crew. While you say, to my sadness, that you are in the process of making peace with My Maker, I get the delight of reading The
Hindu’s articles along with the articles of The Heritage Foundation to take my own view on extreme journalism. In these two lie the virtues of journalism buried and cemented deep under a concrete bunker.

Ananya

March 18, 2008 5:51 PM

Ananya55 said…

Well said Mr Raman on the deteriorating standards of The Hindu. I am half your age and like many of my generation, I grew up with this newspaper, eagerly awaiting the arrival of this paper in the morning and fighting with other family members to get an early insight into the articles even with the little english I was familiar with. To see the paper that consistently preached and associtaed with the middle class virtues of honesty and integrity going downhill to become a mouthpiece of CPM is a sad reflection of N.Ram’s journalism. Even after this was brought to the attention of the readers’ editior time and again by the readers, no satisfactory response has been given. I never got any of my letters published on various issues (particularly on the partial coverage of the paper on issues such as Hamas and Mugabe). Though this paper has an association with The Guardian (UK) and frequently reprints articles published in that paper, no article that is critical of the left’s pet issues (such as Hamas and colonialism, for example Robert Mugabe) has been published. Still Atun Aneja is talking about how Hamas/Hizbollah are challenging the might of Israeli army, he does not mention the destruction of houses/lives caused by Israeli retaliation in Southern Lebanon and Gaza. While writting about the Palestine issue, he becomes a Hamas’ites to talk about how valiant they are and to forget that they are getting pounded day in day out. Even in the ‘letters to the editor’, you see mostly the letters that are appreciative of the articles published in the papers and critical letters are censored. Most of these letters are still referring to about anti-colonialism, US hegemony, US’s hidden design, etc. Still the first choice for N. Ram’s daughter to study was the den of global capitalism: US. No wonder we have people like Rajamohan leaving The Hindu to take up a dignified teaching position rather than selling his soul. He has been replaced with strategic affairs editor Siddhardh Varadarajan who is jack of ‘all trades and master of none’ (propably the only strategic affairs editor capable of writting on anything
and everything: caste, reservation, affirmative action, politics, social mobility, godhra, communalism, communism, etc.). His contributions are like the courseworks of undergraduate students consulting a couple of online articles and views and write something to scream about the US. There is nothing scholarly in his contributions. So much so for his strategic acumen that he did not write a single piece on his pet topic Kosovo, which he steadfastly opposed during the NATO intervention. When the region became an independent nation recently all we could hear from him was a “Big Bang of Silence”. With his chest-beating, anti-American and pro-socialist/communist scream, you might still be thinking that he is at the Hindu office in New Delhi or on sabbatical working on a project in Chavez or Castro’s dreamland.
But he is on sabbatical teaching (about journalism and not strategic affairs) in the craddle of global capitalism: US. The  last I heard is that he is looking for a tenure in the US universities. What a hypocrisy of thispaper and its crew. While you say, to my sadness, that you are in the process of making peace with My Maker, I get the delight of reading The
Hindu’s articles along with the articles of The Heritage Foundation to take my own view on extreme journalism. In these two lie the virtues of journalism buried and cemented deep under a concrete bunker.

Ananya

March 18, 2008 5:53 PM

Dilip said…

The Hindu’s much touted association with the Guardian is really a disgrace to the Guardian. Though even that paper is alleged to have a leftist bias, it never censors coverage and it has many articles that cover the other side of a question – in that sense, it is certainly more thoughtful than ideological. Unfortunately, the Hindu, ananya55 points out here, is rapidly degenerating into a mouthpiece of the communists. The number of examples is simply too many to list but here are a few.

1. The recent Russian parliamentary and presidential elections were a sham with the media coverage completely monopolized by the government, opposition candidates disqualified or intimidated and voters coerced by the government to vote for the ruling party or risk losing their jobs. Yet you would never suspect any of this if you were to read the Hindu. According to its journalist in wonderland Vladimir Radyuchin, there was absolutely nothing wrong and the victory demonstrated how happy the people are with the government, how popular its leadership is and how well the system works.

2. The double talk over the nuclear deal – soon after pronouncing it as sound and honorable, the paper has been trying to backpedal as fast as it can under each and every guise it can find. Of course Ram defends it saying he is only pointing to the reality in Parliament, etc. but one never found the Hindu accepting the ‘reality’ of the BJP or its policies, so why this great deal of deference to reality here? No surprises for guessing.

3. Hardly any criticism of the genocide in darfur while criticizing Israeli policies no end. If this is not double standards, I don’t know what is.

4. The fawning treatment of K.R.Narayan compared to the indifferent treatment of Kalam. Narayan’s refusal to go along with the BJP-led government was hailed whereas the same thing with Kalam’s defiance of the UPA was criticized. Apparently the former signified high-minded principle, the latter was unwarranted interference (mind you, residential powers have not changed inbetween). Again, the difference was only with respect to who voted each person into office. No guesses for figuring out why the sudden change in attitude.

4. The kid-glove treatment of the entire Nandigram episode and the editorial which virtually exonerated the government for the events.

March 18, 2008 7:28 PM

Aano Bhadra said…

Very good post Mr. Raman. Thanks to Internet, *no one* on this earth believes Chindu’s version of the story!

Realising the pervert tactics of the “people’s daily”, youngsters have started actively exposing The Hindu and its dictator N Ram. For eg. see a popular blog:

http://cbcnn.blogspot.com

March 19, 2008 5:49 AM

Praada said…

Gireesh

19/03/2008 04:57:15 Take a Reality check

Mr Raman , You say that you grew up ‘on the Mother’s milk of this daily’. How touching ! Well, I have news for you. What you have been taking all these years has been adulterated stuff. I am surprised that this paper which is widely known as the unofficial organ of the CPM and its Chinese masters would be considered as a landmark symbol for Chennai. How could you expect a paper whose Editor in chief is the founder member of the SFI to be unbiased
when it comes to matters relating to China ? Each and every page of this paper since I remember ( I am 42 yrs old ) has its news slanted to suite the CPM and its transnational masters. And you did not get this drift ? This is the newspaper which condemned the Indian Air force when it shot down a Pakistani reconnaissance plane after the Kargil conflict.( Check the Chindu editorial on August 12 ’1999 ). Didn’t you think at that point of time that the milk you were taking had something nasty in it ?

March 19, 2008 6:23 AM

???? – JK said…

Dear Raman, Thanks for this article. I was a long time reader of the paper and have stopped my subscription to it due to its deteriorating basic journalistic standards, especially with respect to the coverage of Sri Lankan civil war and china-tibet issues. I am curious to know about your opinion on it’s coverage of Sri Lankan civil war.

March 19, 2008 10:54 AM

Jagadish said…

I hunted a lot, but I haven’t found a single published letter from a reader in “The Hindu’s” Letters to the editor section about the rioting in Tibet!

March 20, 2008 2:29 AM

cowboy said…

i am an52yr old,been reading THE HINDU for 35yrs and i agree with you,Sir.they not only support Communists,are biased against Hindus in general.

It has become a habit or else i would have stopped reading it a decade ago,on that cargil report,

DR.K.G.Bhat

Palace Road.

VITTAL,KARNATAKA

March 20, 2008 8:00 AM

Karthik said…

How true. The decline in the standards is palpable. I’ve been a longtime reader of The Hindu and the editorial page has turned into a joke. The praise of the recent electoral process in Russia, support of Hugo Chavez’s policies in Venezuela and the complete black-out of Tibet stands out. Does Ram not realise that a newspaper like the Hindu will not even exist in Putin’s Russia, Chavez’s Venezuela or in China?

What a fall.

March 24, 2008 12:48 AM

shiva said…

“It has to inform the public of the various versions of the developments—-the Tibetan, the Chinese, the Western etc— and leave it to the readers to decide which version to believe.”

I definitely believe that TOI is doing a far better job at this. For instance, there was an article about how Dalai Lama himself has settled for autonomy and it is to the disadvantage of tibetan struggle..

THE HINDU, after reading your analysis and some comments is definitely going from worse to worst!!

April 11, 2008 10:39 AM

“India had benefited immensely from bilateral trade with China
I advise that the Policy-makers should also take a more pro-active view to develop political ties, especially with the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation”

[The Hindu, Sep 19, 2008]

The statement was made when most analysts had a different opinion on the China – India relations. Mr. B.Raman Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt of India, and Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai., associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies, had analysed China India relations in Jan 2008 and has stated the following:

“Now, there is a greater flow of goods and services from China to India, than the other way round. The result: the balance of trade is increasingly tilting in favour of China.

While we are prepared to help the Chinese catch up with us in the IT sector, they are not prepared to help us catch up with them in the engineering sector. The Soviet Union did not look upon India as a potential rival. The Chinese do. That is the reality behind soothing statistics.

B) Mr B. Raman is not unaware of the hardline pro China propaganda by “The Hindu” group. He states the following in his blog:

“A Chinese interlocutor recently mentioned to me the names of two persons from this paper—-one in its headquarters in Chennai and the other in its office in Beijing– and remarked that if only all journalists were like these two, journalism must be the most beautiful profession in the world. I asked him why he thought so. He replied that they write only positively about China. They never say anything negative.”

“More and more Hsinhua despatches started finding their way into the columns of this paper. The readers were told what a wonderful country China was, what a wonderful people the Chinese were, how there is nothing for India to fear from the Chinese.”

“When a newspaper censors the various versions, blacks out the Tibetan version and disseminates only the version as put out by the Government-owned Hsinhua news agency of China, one has reason to feel shocked”

“Its founding fathers and the giants who served in it must be shedding tears in heavens over the way their child has been reduced to being the ‘People’s Daily’ of Chennai.”

C) Another analyst has observed the Pro China propaganda of “The Hindu” and has stated the following:

“The Hindu (News Paper) advocates a tough line against the Indo-U.S. civil nuclear deal. The daily says that the (Indian) government should not go ahead with the deal as it is loaded in favour of the U.S., the epitome of imperialism. It also says that the deal impinges on our national sovereignty.

All the while the newspaper maintains an eerie silence on China’s nuclear deal with the U.S. To get the deal, China agreed to all terms dictated by the U.S. To propel its fast-growing economy, China needs energy. So it got the deal, whatever be the conditions.

So what about India? Well, the daily says that India should rely on indigenous technology to get energy and also import such resources from untrustworthy nations like Iran (I will reserve this for some other day). China should progress, India should not. Why? – because China is communist!!”

ANNEXURE OF EVIDENCES FROM THE INTERNET

“The Hindu” acting in favour of China has become Unpatriotic and Anti National

Sulekha:
Are Manmohan Singh and the Congress Party Turning India into China’s Vassal?

Posted by: mehulkamdar on Jan 19 2008

There has to be something singularly hypocritical about a newspaper that supported the worst period in independent India’s history, The Emergency, right through, and then apologised for it in a front page editorial after Indira Gandhi’s defeat. Welcome India’s most successful yellow rag, “The Hindu”, a Communist rag that is owned by a multi millionaire whose daughter works for “Forbes”, a magazine that once took the fight to the former USSR by copyrighting the term, “Capitalist Tool.” These days, like in the days of Indira Gandhi’s experiment with fascism, the Hindu is in bed with the Congress Party, and especially with it’s chief ally, the CPM. N Ram’s band of lying propagandists have spared no effort over the past few years, ever since he took over as the Hindu’s Editor in Chief, to pretend that everything is great under the combined Congress-Communist rule over India. The poor farmers who were butchered by a combined force of West Bengal Police and CPM cadres armed with automatic weapons may well have been sent happily to Red Heaven if this rag is to be believed. And, there is a new Communist paradise coming up on earth, we are assured, with Chinese nuclear tech and investments, after the thugs in Kolkata and their drum-beater on Anna Salai fought valiantly against the very western influences that Ram finds absolutely indispensable for his own daughter, and in his younger days, for his own education.

Indeed, the Hindu’s lies on Manmohan Singh’s recent trip to China have been hilarious. Even a dyed-in-the-wool Congress pamphlet like Outlook, has been lukewarm to the results achieved through this trip. But whoever reads The Hindu must believe, like it did during the Emergency, that a vast majority of its readers actually believe its nonsense. We are told by Ram’s minions that China supports India’s nuclear ambitions and that it is willing to “co-operate” with India’s future nuclear power generation plans. Well, with plans to build 12 new nuclear powerplants, it is obvious that the Chinese want to get as much business as possible. And, that they know how to get it. It is clear that it was signals from Beijing through Kolkata that effectively scuttled India’s planned nuclear co-operation with the whole world bar China through blackmail and threats. Sonia Gandhi’s domestic servant at the best of times, and a mute one at that, Manmohan Singh has demonstrated through his recumbency that besides his mistress’ puppet strings, he has one more external locus of control over his actions – a red noose around his neck. And it is Ram’s propaganda that has helped the Chinese and their CPM vassals put this exactly where they want it to be.

Not since the first British “traders” came to the Mughal Courts has an impending colonization of India loomed so ominously on the horizon. The Chinese are working with their CPM sycophants on the one hand and with their Naxalite cancer which they have very successfully unleashed in Nepal and now, by extension, in much of North and Central India coming right down to Andhra Pradesh in the South. A weak and completely ineffective government like the current one is unlikely to do anything substantial to combat this gradual takeover of the country by these dual forces. Indeed, even if it wanted to, it would not be able to considering that it has to depend on its “allies” for survival. And the Chinese are moving fast. They have roads through the Karakoram into Pakistan and a huge holding in the new Pakistani port at Gwadar, right across a bay from Oman. On the other side, they have a sizeable number of their naval vessels in Burma. They continue to occupy 50,000 sq km of Indian territory lost under an earlier stupid Congress government led by Jawaharlal Nehru and betrayed by a Communist ally, V K Krishna Menon. They have a train going right up into Tibet which they could easily use to ferry troops into the region whenever required. They have forayed several times into Indian territory in recent months even destroying bunkers built by the Indian army, something that Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee considers routine and normal. China is a wealthy nation now, vastly more powerful than the nation that defeated India under a previous Congress government in 1962. And this time, the Chinese are coming – they are coming not just for India but for all of South Asia. With a sixth of the world’s iron ore reserves, a lot of coal and other minerals, India has a lot that the Chinese do not have and would like to grab. Pakistan has natural gas which they are slowly getting their hands on. Similarly Burma whose generals are as devoted to the Red Menace from Beijing as the rulers of West Bengal. The sad part is that Manmohan Singh and the party whose views and aims he represents are doing their best to ensure that just this happens

The Hindu:
Asia’s growth depends on India, China

Special Correspondent

India has benefited immensely from bilateral trade with China: N. Ram

Murray Harris (right), Counsellor (Political) and Head, Public Affairs, Australian High Commission, and Aminur Rahman, Australian Consul-General, Chennai, interact with students at a seminar held in Chennai on Thursday.

CHENNAI: Many analysts have called the coming century “Asia’s century,” but for that to come to pass, India and China, should co-operate strategically, speakers said here on Thursday.

At a seminar on “Sustaining Asia’s growth: challenges and opportunities,” organised by the Australian High Commission, Bambang Harymurti, corporate chief editor, Tempo, a Jakarta-based news magazine, said that Asia’s growth depended on India and China, which were posting respectable growth rates while the developed world was afraid of slipping into recession.

Prime contributors

He said that a Harvard study had predicted that Asia’s share of the world GDP would be 57 per cent by 2025, and India and China would figure as important contributors. But the same study suggested that both countries would have a per capita GDP of only 25 and 25-50 per cent respectively of the GDP per capita of the U.S. in 2025.

This suggested that there was still a lot of catching up to do for the world’s two most populous countries. And any development that led to the rise of the two economies would in turn benefit the whole world, he said.

Highlight basic problems

Delivering the keynote address, N. Ram, Editor-in-Chief, The Hindu, said that India had benefited immensely from bilateral trade with China, but there were many profound contradictions within the country. The “India Shining” campaign had bombed in the last elections, and basic problems needed to be highlighted, he said.

Policy-makers should also take a more pro-active view to develop political ties, especially with the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, Brazil, etc. In the unipolar setup of the current world, Indian foreign policy was going off the rails, he said.

Culture is important

Li Tao, executive director, Institute of South Asian Studies, Sichuan University, said that a multi-polar world was necessary to avoid an abuse of cultural hegemony. Culture was becoming an important component of international relations. Prof. Tao said that constructing a common Asian civilisation was necessary to counteract the western influence, and that increased India-China cultural exchanges would strengthen both nations.

Earlier, Aminur Rahman, Australian Consul-General in Chennai, said that Australia’s economy was linked to the rise of India and China. He said that the seminar, being held for the fourth year in succession, would provide an opportunity for journalists, students and academicians to discuss key issues relating to the region.

The two-day event would include panel discussions on energy security, the global food crisis, and the road ahead for Asian economic growth.

Sino-Indian trade: It’s helping only China

B Raman

January 28, 2008

A purely statistical analysis can be misleading.

The current euphoria over the expanding Sino-Indian economic relations, the galloping bilateral trade and the mushrooming analytical studies triggered off by this euphoria are coming in the way of an adequate focus on certain emerging characteristics of these relations, which have already started redounding more to the benefit of China than of India.

These characteristics could have positive as well as negative impact on the over-all Sino-Indian relations.

The first emerging characteristic is that China is increasingly the beneficiary of the expanding Sino-Indian economic relations during the last five years, just as it has been the major beneficiary of the expanding Sino-United States economic relations during the last two decades.

Initially, as India and China embarked on their policy of expanding bilateral trade, India benefited more than China because of growing Chinese demand for iron ore for its steel industry. Consequently, in the first four or five years after this expansion started, the balance of trade was in favour of India. This balance in favour of India quietened fears of a possible dumping of moderately-priced Chinese goods into the Indian market.

Now, there is a greater flow of goods and services from China to India, than the other way round. The result: the balance of tradeis increasingly tilting in favour of China. The large manufacturing base in China enables it to offer a large basket of manufactured goods to the Indian market. The inadequate development of the Indian manufacturing sector is coming in the way of expanding the basket of Indian exports to China, which continue to depend on raw materials — with iron ore constituting nearly 60 per cent of India’s exports.

The galloping bilateral trade — already touching US $40 billion and racing towards the newly-set target of US $60 billion — has already made China the second largest trading partner of India after the US. More importantly, in the coming five years, it is likely to make the Indian market the second largest market for Chinese consumer goods after the US market.

The continued prosperity of the Chinese manufacturing industries would depend on the continued availability of this market.

This would have a positive as well as a negative impact just as it has happened in the case of Sino-US economic relations. The dependence of Chinese manufacturing industries on the US market has introduced a certain moderation in Chinese policies towards the US in strategic areas due to the Chinese anxiety to avoid unnecessary tensions in its relations with the US in matters such as Taiwan, lest these tensions affect trade, which is overwhelmingly in favour of China.

How Chindia will impact the world economy

Similarly, the growing dependence of Chinese manufacturing industries on the Indian market could moderate Chinese policy-making towards India in non-economic fields. Unnecessary political tensions in Sino-Indian relations could affect the growing economic benefit to China arising from the vast Indian market.

As against this, a likely negative impact is that the dependence of the Indian market on Chinese manufactured goods and the fascination of the Indian consumers for Chinese goods could come in the way of our being able to develop our own manufacturing industries.

The flood of Chinese goods flowing into the US market is not triggering off any undue concerns — apart from some proforma expressions of concerns from time to time — because both the US and China are almost equal beneficiaries of the expanding economic relations.

Many of the Chinese consumer goods flooding the US market are manufactured by enterprises set up in China by American capital flows. If the Chinese are earning more money by flooding the US market with consumer goods, the Americans are earning more money by flooding China with American direct investment flows and getting high returns for them.

This has not been happening in the case of Sino-Indian economic relations. The trickle of Indian capital flow into China has been in the services sector– mainly information technology. There has been hardly any Indian investment in the sector of manufactured goods. Thus, the benefit to China from the flow of its manufactured goods into India has not been compensated by attractive returns for Indian investors.

The second emerging characteristic is in respect of the flow of skilled manpower. There is a greater flow of skilled Chinese manpower to India than the other way round. The over-fascination for the IT sector in India and the large salaries offered by IT companies have resulted in a distortion of our technical education system.

The IT rush is making Indian youth flock to IT training institutions and there has been a declining interest in joining engineering colleges to specialise in subjects unconnected with the IT sector — such as civil, mechanical and electrical engineering. The result: India has been producing a surplus of excellent quality IT experts, who are able to find jobs without a problem, either in India itself or abroad, but it is no longer able to produce the required number of good quality engineers even to meet its own needs.

This distortion in the technical education system has not yet occurred in China. China’s ever-increasing investments in the infrastructure sector and the increasing involvement of Chinese companies in foreign construction projects — particularly in Africa — have sustained a high demand for good quality engineers.

Chinese technical institutions have been producing all the good quality engineers it needs internally as well as externally.

The shortage of good quality engineers is going to be increasingly felt as we embark on a programme of improving our infrastructure. There has already been an increasing flow of Chinese engineers into India for the execution of the construction contracts won by them.

Wherever Chinese companies win construction contracts, they prefer to take their own engineers in view of the language problem and also because they have greater faith in the quality of their engineers.

In India, even if they want to employ local engineers, they say good quality Indian engineers are in short supply.

One has been seeing this second characteristic already in the power sector where many new plants are coming up in the private sector. Very often, the money is Indian, but the equipment and engineers used for the construction of these projects are Chinese. To quote from a report carried by rediff.com on January 21, 2008: “Who would have thought a few years ago that there would be a Chinese hand in the development of the Indian power sector? This is a reality today. Not only is Chinese equipment being deployed by quite a few power companies in the country, Chinese manpower from companies such as Dongfang Electric Corporation, Sichuan Machinery and Equipment Corporation, and Shandong Electric Power Construction Corporation is employed in large numbers in the country. . . Chinese companies want to get their own people because they know how to best handle the equipment and can do it faster. This also helps the Indian companies tide over the huge crunch in technical manpower in the country for engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contracts and operations and maintenance jobs. . . Since there’s already a huge shortage, they are not eating into anyone’s jobs. “It is not as if they are bringing blue-collared labourers to compete with the Indian labourers,” said a management expert. “They are bringing people at the supervisory and engineering levels.”

Has there been a reverse flow of Indian IT experts to China? No. At least, not yet.

Indian IT companies operating in China tend to recruit Chinese graduates in increasing numbers, bring them to India for improving their knowledge of English and IT skills and then employing them in their companies in China. Moreover, Indian IT companies in China are not yet getting as many contracts as Chinese engineering companies have been getting in India.

The contracts procured by the Indian IT companies are largely from Western multinationals in China, which value their English knowledge and IT skills.

The Chinese companies in India are not recruiting Indian students, taking them to China to learn the Chinese language and engineering skills, and then employing them for their projects in India. This is what the Russians used to do in the 1950s and 1960s, when companies of the Soviet Union were involved in construction projects in India.

While we are prepared to help the Chinese catch up with us in the IT sector, they are not prepared to help us catch up with them in the engineering sector. The Soviet Union did not look upon India as a potential rival. The Chinese do. That is the reality behind soothing statistics.

The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt of India, New Delhi; and, currently, Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com

The rupee rise benefits China

June 12, 2009

The China / India Trade Balance Shifts

Posted At : December 18, 2006 1:15 PM

According to The Times of India, for the first 10 months of this year, China “has notched up a trade surplus of $3 billion against India as compared to a trade deficit of $946 million that it suffered in the same period in 2005.” According to one source in the article, India is interested in exploiting cheaper labor in parts of China. Quoting a Beijing-based businessman, the article notes “Indian companies have been most aggressive in sourcing low-cost goods from China. Most of the businessmen visiting China are only looking for sourcing opportunities.”

Given the massive boom that both the Chinese and Indian economies are seeing — and the need for trade between both nations to fuel even further growth — it will be fascinating to watch how the balance of trade between both global economic powers unfolds in 2007. Incidentally, on the technology development side, I’ve personally observed that skilled IT labor is materially less expensive in China than India, although English skills are typically lacking in engineering and technical resources in the country.

- Jason Busch

Migrant Workers Suddenly Idle in China

But just days after Nath’s warning, India is being accused of raising trade tensions between the world’s two largest emerging economies by imposing a temporary ban on imports of Chinese-made toys. The six-month ban was announced Jan. 23 by the Indian Directorate-General of Foreign Trade, which issued a two-sentence notification saying the restriction was being made “in public interest.” Today, two weeks after the announcement, Nath finally spoke up on the matter, saying that India’s step is WTO-compatible, and has been taken to ensure public safety. “The decision to ban was taken on the grounds of public health and safety,” he said. “This is just a one-off issue, otherwise India-China trade is booming. Public health and safety should get priority over commerce.”

But China was swift to condemn the ban as protectionist. The China Daily, the official government newspaper, reported that Beijing may contest India’s measure by taking the matter to the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The newspaper cited WTO rules against “illegal trade barriers and punitive measures at a time when protectionism is growing amid the global economic recession.”

But Indian industry officials were just as quick to deny India was violating the international fair-trade standards. “There is nothing protectionist about it,” says Anjan Roy, economic affairs advisor at the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. Roy pointed to a spate of scandals in 2007 over the safety of Chinese-made toys. In August 2007, Mattel, the U.S.’s leading toy company, was forced to recall 9 million of its products made in Chinese factories due to high lead levels in paint and other safety issues. “If it is a very harmful product, India has a right to ban it,” Roy says. That sentiment was echoed by Toys Association of India president Raj Kumar, who denied that his industry group lobbied the government to protect Indian toymakers facing competition from the cheaper and wider range of Chinese toys. “There is a public interest litigation filed by an NGO in the Mumbai High Court questioning the safety of Chinese toys,” Kumar says. “The court is expected to rule that safety norms be implemented,” he added, saying this prompted the government’s move.

China and India at Odds Over Toys

More than $330 million worth of Chinese toys are imported by India annually, which accounts for over 60% of the total sold by Indian retailers. D.S. Rawat, secretary-general of the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry, says the ban is necessary not for safety reasons, but to guard against Chinese toymakers flooding the market with its products. “We have already been warning the government against dumping by China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand,” he says.

Fears over Chinese imports are rife in India even though, or perhaps because, bilateral trade between the two countries is burgeoning at nearly 50% a year and the balance of trade is widening in China’s favor. In 2004, when bilateral trade was $13.4 billion, the trade balance was in India’s favor to the tune of $1.7 billion. But by 2006, India’s trade balance had swung to a deficit of $4.12 billion, which grew to $16 billion last year. China is India’s largest trading partner.

India’s toy industry, which employs some 2 million people, has been complaining of unfair competition since China joined the WTO in 2001. “Plenty of people lost their livelihoods when the Chinese swamped the market,” says Subhash Gorwaney of Khazana, which manufactures wooden educational toys, “They offered similar products, more variety, unbelievably low prices, but also lower quality.” He added that the competition has not been without benefit. Indian manufacturers “have changed their methods, introduced innovations, and overall the bar has been raised.”

China over the past seven months has been at the receiving end of adverse trade measures by other major trading partners. In December, the E.U. imposed anti-dumping duties on Chinese screws and bolts. In June, the U.S. imposed anti-dumping duties on four Chinese product categories including steel pipes, a move that prompted China to lodge a complaint with the WTO. But according to Vineet Aneja, partner at Delhi-based corporate law firm FoxMandal Little, India may have difficulty defending its case in any WTO action. “The WTO may not uphold the ban since not enough reason has been given,” Aneja says. Officials at the Directorate-General of Foreign Trade were not available for comment.

In the past, India and China have often worked together at the WTO on issues of common interest such as seeking an end to agricultural subsidies and non-tariff barriers in developed countries’ markets. But the current trade dispute may be divisive partly due to the dire straits of China’s toy industry. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce last month announced that nearly 1,000 Chinese toy exporting companies in its Guangdong province had closed in 2008.

Friday, April 4, 2008

Lies, Distortions, & The Hindu [http://nocabbagesbj.blogspot.com/2008/04/lies-distortions-hindu.html]

An independent press is one of the four pillars of democracy, a genuine one at that. The press in India is free, well largely, of government control. But is it free from prejudice?

The Indian Express is largely anti-establishment while The Times of India is pro-whatever increases its bottom-line.

Even regional newspapers have their own axe to grind. Take for example, the Hyderabad-based Deccan Chronicle which is pro-Congress while the vernacular daily, Eenadu, is pro-TDP and vehemently anti-Congress.

Not that I care about these newspapers. Newspapers tell us what they want to tell us.

When it comes to reflecting bias and a deep prejudice, one newspaper, which calls itself India’s only national newspaper, takes the cake. No marks for guessing the name of the newspaper. Yes, I am referring to The Hindu.

The Hindu is owned, managed, and edited by hardcore communists. Run like a family enterprise, The Hindu is unabashedly pro-Communism, pro-China, anti-Hinduism, anti-BJP, anti-America, and anti-Capitalism.

Never mind, the “liberal and secular” intellectuals would have us believe otherwise.

Let me cite a couple of examples. The Hindu advocates a tough line against the Indo-U.S. civil nuclear deal. The daily says that the government should not go ahead with the deal as it is loaded in favour of the U.S., the epitome of imperialism. It also says that the deal impinges on our national sovereignty.

All the while the newspaper maintains an eerie silence on China’s nuclear deal with the U.S. To get the deal, China agreed to all terms dictated by the U.S. To propel its fast-growing economy, China needs energy. So it got the deal, whatever be the conditions.

So what about India? Well, the daily says that India should rely on indigenous technology to get energy and also import such resources from untrustworthy nations like Iran (I will reserve this for some other day). China should progress, India should not. Why? Because China is communist!!

Just look at what’s happening in Tibet. While the unrest, riots, and consequent repressive measures unleashed by the Chinese authorities made headlines across the world, The Hindu didn’t carry any major news story on the explosive situation. The commie mouthpiece simply toed the Chinese government’s line, copied reports from the Chinese official media agency and published them in its pages.

Like the Chinese government, The Hindu has called the Dalai Lama a liar and a subversive element. In fact, in an op-ed in the edition dated April 3, 2008, The Hindu had this to say about the Dalai Lama:

“What those urging China to negotiate with the Dalai Lama fail to recognise is the fact that Beijing’s main constituency is not the international community but its own domestic public. For Beijing to appear ‘soft’ on the Dalai Lama would be as politically unpalatable domestically asit would be in the United States were Washington to decide to engage in dialogue with Osama bin Laden.”

Just look at the comparison: the Dalai Lama is like Osama bin Laden!! One of the greatest pacifists of our time is being equated with the most dangerous terrorist the world has ever seen. A bankrupt ideology (read Communism) has coloured the way The Hindu reports the truth.

Think. Think hard.

Posted by nocabbages at Friday, April 04, 2008

Labels: Communism, Media

sai said…

Seriously, those are the thoughts which keep coming to my mind when ever I read articles in that paper. I am a bit puzzled over why the newspaper continues to do so without having any fear of losing the single most important thing any newspaper should strive for – “truthful reporting and unbiased analysis”. Does it think that the readers will not be able to make it out or is it an open endorsement of communism?

April 6, 2008 10:28 PM

Chaitanya said…

I always thought Hindu was the best paper around. But, recently began to notice some spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes in the Hindu. Your article has given a new perspective in this direction.

April 7, 2008 5:51 PM

bala subrahmanyam said…

Hi

I agrees with your thughts regarding “The Hindu”. I read that op-ed and confused a bit of the facts. I found that “The Hindu” is inclined towards china. I also read some other articles wrote by “pallavi ayyar” and iam always suspicious of the content. Now after reading your article i confirmed my feelings regarding ‘The Hindu’. Thanks

April 8, 2008 10:15 AM

krishna said…

I was deeply hurt when i read the feedback over the movie ‘jalsa’ in the Hindu, where the writer says that the movie was lacking a story, choreography was poor and that the director had not done his job perfectly..But, point to be noted is a feedback over a movie is perfectly a personal issue, because what u feel may not be the same for the other!! And when one uses a newspaper to express ones personal feelings one should be circumlocutory.. Believe me when u go through that feedback u will clearly understand that the writer had a clear intention to mislead the movie-watchers,which a newspaper is not ought to do! Really this paper lacks originality!!

April 10, 2008 8:23 AM

Anonymous said…

I agree with you. The Hindu offers very good quality of language & relevant stories but it is a left leaning newspaper. This article is not something ‘out of the box’. It may act as an eye-opener for some who have not noticed or heard of this established fact. But the post indeed throws light on “the hindu” being controlled by people who are pro-communist. In the past, present & future they have a dream of a Left oriented India. But Leftism & Communism is a dead ideology & the same model cannot work in a country such as ours. Communism which leads to Naxalism is the biggest threat to internal security to our country.

April 12, 2008 6:12 PM

Binu Sankar said…

hai

I totally agree to this. I think the paper is too biased towards the communists.

May 27, 2008 5:20 PM

Anonymous said…

I suppose it is clear that Mr N Ram has sold himself to China. I am almost certain that he is in receipt of doles from

China either in the form of gifts, awards or plain cash. He has been in receipt of felicitations and awards from the Chinese Government for outstanding work that obviously supports the Chinese world view and its quest for strategic leverage in India. And Mr N Ram does all this with an air of straight jacketed patriotism about him. His support for Muslims and effort to paint the Islamist’s Jehad as a fight for justice in an unbalanced World order, is there for all to see. Alas, N Ram and his ilk are among those who misuse democratic India by working against this very country, much like the way the Islamists and the Communists do.

May 14, 2009 4:20 PM

SD Rajan said…

Dear Readers,

Mr N Rams credentials as an editor have been sullied by his lack of objectivity and pronounced bias towards Left, Muslims and the Communist China. He appears to love China more than India. His position on the Sri Lankan ethnic crisis and clear anti Tamil stand are also all too evident in the articles and editorials that appear in The Hindu. We need more people like him to ensure that this Kalyug doesn’t last long, for after all this is the last age before dissolution. Long live Mr N Ram.

Sulekha Forum Discussion:

hN. RAM OF HINDU AND SUSAN RAM PIMPING FOR COMMUNIST CHINA

Started by Kalidass Ghosh 4 mnths ago

The Hindu is a great newspaper and N. Ram spoils it. He and his wife Susan love Communist China, a brutal backward state more than they love India. Tibet will be liberated.

Tibet on road of rapid uplift: N. Ram

N. RAM OF HINDU AND SUSAN RAM PIMPING FOR COMMUNIST CHINA

Vaidyanathan Pushpagiri posted Re: N. RAM OF HINDU AND SUSAN RAM PIMPING FOR COMMUNIST CHINA

Who is Taiwan? What relation he / she has with N.Ram and Susan N.Ram of the Hindu? Why are you bringing such irrelevant things into a serious discussion? Please hellsangel do not provoke Kalidass Ghosh. A sleeping dog is always better than an awakened dog. So let the sleeping dogs lie. What sayeth thou?

Vaidyanathan Pushpagiri posted Re:N. RAM OF HINDU AND SUSAN RAM PIMPING FOR COMMUNIST CHINA

Kalida, what a Hothobagha you are? Have you not heard, that Susan is no more Mrs. N. Ram of the Hindu? He is now married to a Chinese and they have begotten an Indo-Chinese ofspring? A half brahmin and a half Melechcha mulatto? In a few years time, he, I mean the junior N.Ram would introduce Mandarin in the Hindu Establishment and all of us will have to learn Chinese. These Chinese are diabolical. Very soon, Tamilnadu will become a vassal of China and poor Kayal Vizhi will lose her only prop in Hindia.

• “A necessary determination” – [The Hindu, July 6, 2002]
• “Signal against terror” – [The Hindu, July 13, 2002]
• “Selective use of POTA” – [The Hindu, April 1, 2003]

However, in December 2003, the editorials severly criticized POTA and started to oppose the same. The following editorials are some references:

• “POTA reinterpreted” – [The Hindu, December 18, 2003]
• “Withdraw the Cases” – [The Hindu, April 10, 2004]
• “VAIKO’s Saga” – [The Hindu, May 10, 2004]

The reason for this shift in the stand of “The Hindu” can be attributed to the legal action taken by Ms. Jayalalitha (See references below) on “The Hindu” establishment during year 2003.

A change in opinion based on new developments in the national/regional politics or social and cultural aspects of the people is common and acceptable. However compromise on National Security for personal benefits or circumstances cannot be fair journalism.

Editorials are generaaly written based on current events. However, “The Hindu” editorials have manipulated the truth in those events to suit its own need. Due to “The Hindu”‘s manipulative journalism, we are unable to determine which of “The Hindu”‘s editorials were based on truth.

ANNEXURE OF EVIDENCES FROM THE INTERNET

Deceptive stand of “The Hindu” on POTA

http://www.sangam.org/articles/view2/?uid=487

Exposing the shameless somersault on the POTA issue by The Hindu editorialist

by Sachi Sri Kantha

Why does the Hindu newspaper establishment of Chennai spew venom on Eelam Tamil nationalism since 1983? How about the following answers? (1) By tradition, The Hindu is conservative, and places India’s interests in its head; [which means, they think supporting separatism in a neighboring country creates separatist tendencies among various Indian tribes.] (2) Being owned by the Tamil-speaking brahmins, in spirit, The Hindu cannot offend Sanskrit and thus by deduction has to profess an anti-Tamil stance; (3) It is good business to attack the LTTE and Pirabhakaran relentlessly and thereby please the Sinhalese, and wield some power in peddling back-door diplomacy; (4) Subscribing to the motto: ‘To hell with Tamil society; nothing is important for success in business other than selfishness and practising weather-vane politics’; (5) All of the above.

While checking the past editorials published in The Hindu newspaper on the LTTE-relevant theme, I came across six humorous editorials. These six editorials, which appeared between July 6, 2002 and May 10, 2004, relating to implementation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), are clear proof that answer number 4 cited above is closest to the truth. One has to read the complete texts of the six editorials to believe the irony. Editorials 1, 2 and 3 were written with bile on LTTE and Pirabhakaran and were pro-POTA. These were captioned as follows:

A necessary determination [The Hindu, July 6, 2002]; Signal against terror [The Hindu, July 13, 2002]; Selective use of POTA [The Hindu, April 1, 2003]

However, editorials 4, 5 and 6 were shameless somersaults from the pro-POTA stance, and The Hindu editorialist fumed with an anti-POTA stance. These were captioned as follows:

POTA reinterpreted [The Hindu, December 18, 2003]; Withdraw the Cases [The Hindu, April 10, 2004]; VAIKO’s Saga [The Hindu, May 10, 2004]

The central theme in the enacted POTA drama of mid 2002 was Tamil Nadu politician Vaiko’s [V.Gopalswamy, the leader of the MDMK] verbal offering of support to the LTTE and Pirabhakaran, which ruffled the feathers of his opponent, Jayalalitha, the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister. The Hindu editorialist initially endorsed the action of Jayalalitha whole-heartedly by stating, “Given the brazenness with which Mr. Vaiko has flaunted his support for the banned terrorist organisation, the LTTE, and has expressed his readiness to face any law, however stringent, on that account, the Tamil Nadu Government has no real choice but to act firmly against such dangerous defiance. In fact, the track record of Mr. Vaiko right from his days in the DMK has always had a strong and rather fanatically pro-LTTE streak, with its chief, Velupillai Prabakaran, being glorified as an unparalleled leader.” [The Hindu editorial of July 6, 2002]

Nearly 22 months later, the same Hindu’s editorialist somersaulted into an anti-POTA agitator and concluded – The Vaiko case is a shocking illustration of how the `rule of law’ has been and can continue to be misused to settle political scores in `Shining India’. It is emblematic of the inherent danger and mischief of POTA and a compelling argument for sending it to the dustbin of history.” [The Hindu, May 10, 2004]

Reason for N.Ram’s somersault on POTA

Why this somersault in 22 months? Not that The Hindu establishment became a fan of Vaiko’s politics or felt good about his verbal support to the LTTE. The somersault was only because the ever-unpredictable Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalitha turned into a wolf and tried to bite The Hindu establishment with those same POTA teeth in late 2003. When Jeyalalitha turned against The Hindu establishment, N.Ram [the current chief editor of The Hindu newspaper] converted himself into an anti-POTA activist. He let the cat out of his bag in his interview to Shoba Warrier of Rediff.Com on November 19, 2003 . Here are the excerpts:

Warrier: ‘Did you have an inkling, even before the Tamil Nadu police descended on The Hindu office, of the things to come? I ask this question because all the journalists wanted by the police had disappeared by then.’

Ram: In the morning, a friend heard from an inside source that the (Tamil Nadu assembly) privileges committee was to recommend some punishment. Then, the source said, (state chief minister) Jayalalithaa would intervene and magnanimously say, since I am involved, there is no need to go further. This was what we expected. Half of what we heard happened. The committee recommended seven days simple imprisonment, and Jayalalitha intervened, as expected, and said it was not needed as she was involved. So, the information was true. What came as a surprise was the other part which was on the editorial. The committee recommended 14 days imprisonment, and she kept quiet which means, go ahead. It was cunningly planned for a weekend. We had to take care of the liberty of our people.’

Warrier: ‘Why did you decide to hide them? Why didn’t they come out in the open and face the police?’

Ram: ‘Nobody decided to hide them. We saw it as unconstitutional and illegal. Otherwise, tomorrow, a legislature may say sentence somebody to death or whip him or cut his hands off like in Saudi Arabia, do you expect me to say, go and face it? There is nothing that prevents them from saying so. It is only a question of degree. We don’t know how they will treat (executive editor) Malini (Parthasarthy). Rumours were they would rough her up. My uncle (publisher S) Rangarajan is 67 and has had two angioplasty surgeries.

If you say no court can look into it, what will happen tomorrow? The whole Constitution goes for a six. We argued in court, in fact, what is to prevent the speaker of the legislative assembly finding somebody guilty and sentencing (the person) to death and immediately ordering execution through a warrant by the speaker? What is to prevent it? You can say, right to life. The same thing is involved here. We don’t know what they will do. Who knows whether Rangarajan would survive the way the police behaved in Bangalore.’

Warrier: ‘You don’t have much trust in the state government machinery and the police?’

Ram: ‘To put it mildly, yes. The answer is, yes.’

Warrier: ‘Are you outraged by the behaviour of the police, or do you feel sympathy towards the police who had to execute such orders?’

Ram: ‘I have no sympathy for the police

By Golly! Ram has no sympathy for the Tamil Nadu police, and Ram has no trust in the [Tamil Nadu] state government machinery and the police. The answers are falling from the horse’s mouth. The same horse was the one which has been neighing about the authenticity of the Rajiv Gandhi assassination trial conducted in Tamil Nadu in the 1990s, and shouting from the rooftop that Pirabhakaran is a “prime accused in the Rajiv Gandhi murder case.” [see below, editorials 1 and 2] Can any sane person expect some consistency from this loud mouth, Narasimhan Ram? If Ram – a patriotic Indian citizen, to boot – himself doesn’t trust the Tamil Nadu police, how could one expect the LTTE leader Pirabhakaran – a non-citizen of India – to trust the same Tamil Nadu police?

What is further irritating is the fact that in both anti-POTA editorials published in April 10, 2004 and May 10, 2004, The Hindu didn’t apologize to its readers for its erroneous, gung-ho, pro-POTO stance presented in July 6, 2002 and July 13, 2002. But, isn’t it too much to expect apology from the scums of selfish journalism? For the record, I provide the six editorials in chronological order.

Editorial 1: A necessary determination [The Hindu, July 6, 2002]

The current police crackdown on pro-LTTE elements in Tamil Nadu, the highpoint of which is the registering of a criminal case under the Prevention Of Terrorism Act against the MDMK’s supremo, Vaiko, reflects a commendable alacrity and determination on the part of the Jayalalithaa regime to go all out in rooting out such extremist subversive forces from the State. It was at Ms. Jayalalithaa’s instance that the Centre recently clamped a ban under POTA on two homegrown Tamil chauvinist outfits — the Tamil Nadu Liberation Army (TNLA) and the Tamil Nadu Retrieval Troops (TNRT). Given the brazenness with which Mr. Vaiko has flaunted his support for the banned terrorist organisation, the LTTE, and has expressed his readiness to face any law, however stringent, on that account, the Tamil Nadu Government has no real choice but to act firmly against such dangerous defiance. In fact, the track record of Mr. Vaiko right from his days in the DMK has always had a strong and rather fanatically pro-LTTE streak, with its chief, Velupillai Prabakaran, being glorified as an unparalleled leader. This is something neither he nor his MDMK has ever tried to conceal even after the `Tigers’ had perpetrated the treacherous and most heinous act on Indian soil of assassinating Rajiv Gandhi, India’s former Prime Minister.

Critics of this move against Mr. Vaiko have alleged a partisan motive in applying to his case the special law that contains some admittedly stringent provisions. Certainly, there have been some genuine apprehensions and serious reservations about POTA and its enforcement. Most of them have stemmed from the experience of the infamous TADA; its draconian provisions were directed singularly against the minority communities. In a way, the record of the Vajpayee regime in invoking POTA so far has been hardly reassuring or likely to remove misgivings on this score, given its palpable reluctance to move against communal outfits of the majoritarian persuasion that have indulged in blatantly disruptive and violent activity. The LTTE is an unabashed practitioner of political terrorism of the most treacherous variety in the name of `ideology’ and its subversive potential vis-a-vis India has showed up in the brutal murder of Rajiv Gandhi and its continuing threat of destabilising India’s security. As such, the rationale for invoking POTA against the LTTE and its backers and campaigners is not difficult to appreciate. If ever there was a case for the invoking of POTA, there can be little doubt that the present case must surely be the one. It must be said to Ms. Jayalalithaa’s credit that she has been unequivocal and forthright in her condemnation of the LTTE post-Rajiv Gandhi assassination. Her unambiguousness on this score reflected in her getting the State Assembly to pass a resolution urging the Centre to seek the extradition of Mr. Prabakaran, the prime accused in the Rajiv Gandhi murder case.

What remains a major cause for worry is the Vajpayee regime’s strikingly non-serious approach to the matter of containing the LTTE. For a start, of course, there is its ambivalence about applying real pressure on Sri Lanka to extradite Mr. Prabakaran to face trial here, which is in contrast to its doggedness in pursuing its demands of Pakistan for the handing over of 20 terrorists wanted in criminal cases. Now, with the Tamil Nadu Government’s determination to move against the pro-LTTE elements, the ruling National Democratic Alliance’s reluctance to endorse this approach will reveal its double standards in its professed battle against terrorism. The prevarication of the Vajpayee regime of course has much to do with the fact that pro-LTTE parties such as the MDMK are part of the NDA. That such a patently anomalous partnership has prevailed for so long can be explained only in terms of the crass opportunism that has been the defining `principle’ of the NDA from the very beginning. It is time the ruling coalition condemns such attempts to glorify terrorist organizations such as the LTTE. An unambiguous message must go out to the supporters and promoters of the LTTE in Tamil Nadu. The least that is expected of the Vajpayee regime is not to do anything that would scuttle or derail the Jayalalithaa administration’s spirited effort towards that objective.

Editorial 2: Signal against terror [The Hindu, July 13, 2002]

The arrest of the MDMK chief, Vaiko, under the newly-enacted Prevention of Terrorism Act for his manifestly defiant and provocative pro-LTTE speeches has shown that the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, meant business when she wrote to the Prime Minister about her Government’s intention, after clearly spelling out the rationale for moving against him. The buildup to Mr. Vaiko’s arrest and the manner in which it was effected, as he landed at the Chennai airport after a trip abroad, presented a striking contrast to the way a similar task was executed against the DMK chief and former Chief Minister, M. Karunanidhi, just over a year ago; it was a nocturnal operation carried out in an obnoxiously crude and unconscionably intrusive manner. In Mr. Vaiko’s case, the action has been extraordinarily transparent and procedurally meticulous. No Chief Minister is obliged to tell the Prime Minister about an intended legal action in what lies in the State Government’s exclusive constitutional domain. Not only did Ms. Jayalalithaa resort to this unusual, and presumably well considered course but ensured that everything – the proposed action under POTA, the grounds for it and so on became public knowledge by publicising her letter to Atal Behari Vajpayee. Whatever the reason, the fact remained that this time around, the action taken by the Jayalalithaa administration is virtually free from the sort of infirmities that rendered it vulnerable to Central intervention on the earlier occasion.

As for the invoking of POTA, there can be little doubt that the tone and substance of Mr. Vaiko’s speech in question (the one made at a public meeting to mark his party’s anniversary) does attract the special anti-terror law’s provisions. In fact, Mr. Vaiko has been an inveterate supporter of the LTTE not just the cause of the Sri Lankan Tamils’ struggle for `nationhood’— long before he broke away from the DMK to start his own outfit, MDMK. Neither he nor his organisation has ever fought shy of proclaiming their hero-worship of the LTTE’s terrorist chief, Velupillai Prabakaran, the main accused in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, India’s former Prime Minister. If the LTTE remains outlawed since its involvement in Rajiv Gandhi’s murder (first under the erstwhile TADA, now under POTA), it is because the outfit continues to be a serious threat to India’s stability and security. Given this context, there can be absolutely no question of allowing anyone to indulge in anything that seeks to support or promote the LTTE’s cause or project its image. It is imperative that powerful and unambiguous signals from both the State Government and the Centre go out to the backers and campaigners of the LTTE that the law of the land would be invoked unsparingly and this goes as well for the various Tamil chauvinist and subnationalist groups operating in Tamil Nadu. In this sense, the spirit behind the State Government’s determined action against Mr. Vaiko (along with some of his party men) and a couple of Tamil extremist outfits should be sustained and carried forward so that the rest of the breed of subversives are also brought to book.

In the wake of Mr. Vaiko’s arrest under POTA, something the ruling coalition did not perhaps bargain for when it pushed the law through Parliament despite genuine reservations about some of its provisions, the Vajpayee regime can no longer maintain its hollow pretensions that it is determined to root out terrorism of all hues and, at the same time, continue to have proclaimed LTTE-backers (such as the MDMK and the PMK) as partners in the ruling establishment. As long as the National Democratic Alliance has on board these outfits, the impression that when the BJP-headed coalition regime talks of fighting terrorism it means only `Islamic terrorism’ is bound to be reinforced. Indeed, the track record of the Government so far does lend credence to such a construction.

Editorial 3: Selective use of POTA [The Hindu, April 1, 2003]

By first submitting to the Supreme Court that the MDMK general secretary, Vaiko, attracted the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and then offering to file a fresh, corrective, affidavit on the issue after coming under pressure from allies, the National Democratic Alliance Government is guilty of endorsing selective use of the anti-terrorism law. The distinction sought to be made by the Centre between the “use” and the “misuse” of POTA appears to be driven by political expediency and not any legal argument. Apparently, the difficulty for the BJP, which heads the NDA, is to help the leader of an allied party, Mr. Vaiko, out of the case slapped on him by the Tamil Nadu Government for supporting the banned Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, without, however, diluting the provisions of the POTA. In short, the Centre, while maintaining the need for a draconian law such as POTA to deal with cross-border terrorism, does not want the same to be used by State Governments, whether in Tamil Nadu or Uttar Pradesh, against political opponents. Especially if these political opponents are friends of the BJP. Although there is no denying that some of the provisions of POTA are harsh, what is disconcerting is that the Centre, which rode roughshod over Opposition criticism of the Act, seems to have woken up to the danger of misuse of the legislation only after the BJP’s political friends were put in the dock.

Even before the faux pas in the Government affidavit in the Supreme Court, which the Attorney-General, Soli Sorabjee, attributed to juniors, the Centre had decided to constitute a review committee to check misuse of POTA. The Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani, had stated that the review committee would ensure that the law would not be used against ordinary criminals or persons who were not terrorists. In the eyes of the BJP, the cases of Mr. Vaiko, and the independent Uttar Pradesh MLA, Raja Bhaiya, did not warrant the use of POTA. But, irrespective of the political motives of the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, or the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, Mayawati, in putting their electoral rivals behind bars, the fact remains that they have gone by the book in invoking POTA and more justifiably in the case of the manifest support for the LTTE. Truly, it is impossible for the Centre to ensure that the law is used only for the reasons originally envisaged: cross-border terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and destabilisation plans of Pakistan’s ISI. Ironically, while the Jammu and Kashmir Government is not implementing POTA, other State Governments have become alive to the possibility of using POTA to deal with law and order problems and political rivals.

In Tamil Nadu, the Centre’s attitude on POTA is irrevocably tied to the BJP’s choice of allies. Any support of the State Government’s use of the anti-terrorism law against Mr. Vaiko would have effectively ended the alliance with the DMK and the MDMK. The DMK president, M. Karunanidhi, has actually called for the repeal of the law, going a step further than even the MDMK which, being a junior ally in the NDA, has to be necessarily more circumspect before taking on the BJP. As the next general election is at least a year away, the BJP, for its part, would not like to displease the DMK when any tie-up with the AIADMK is yet to be formalised. The AIADMK and the BJP have moved closer to each other in the last one year, but it is still too early to talk of a political realignment. Indeed, the options-open policy of the BJP in Tamil Nadu seems to have resulted in the Centre’s ambivalence on the Vaiko issue. If there is a point to be made against the political use of POTA by the State Government, then it holds true for the Centre too. Support or opposition from the Centre to particular cases of use of POTA is seemingly dictated by the political situation in a State. Without doubt, the Centre’s plea against the misuse of POTA lacks credibility.

Editorial 4: POTA reinterpreted [The Hindu, December 18, 2003]

While upholding the constitutional validity of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), the Supreme Court has sanitised what is easily the most contentious and loosely worded Section in this controversial piece of legislation. In doing so, the Court has tempered the disappointment that might have arisen out of its disinclination to review the provisions of this draconian law in a more comprehensive manner. It has been clear for some time now that Section 21 of POTA, which deals with offences relating to the support given to terrorist organisations, is cast in a manner that virtually invites gross abuse. On a plain reading, the Section makes no distinction between mere expressions of sympathy or verbal support for terrorist organisations and acting with the intent of inviting support for them or their activities. It was the failure to make this vital distinction that provided the Tamil Nadu Government the legal handle to book MDMK leader Vaiko under POTA for statements made in favour of the LTTE. For a while, Union Minister M. Kannappan was threatened with a similar fate after certain statements he made were interpreted as being pro-LTTE.

The credit for arguing, and repeatedly, that Section 21 must be attracted only in cases where there is a criminal intention to further or encourage terrorist activity must go squarely to Attorney General Soli Sorabjee. The Supreme Court has essentially concurred with Mr. Sorabjee’s interpretation of Section 21, thus building in a safeguard that will go a long way towards preventing the kind of political misuse POTA was put to in Mr. Vaiko’s case. It is true that the Supreme Court rejected Mr. Vaiko’s contentions in his writ petition and steered clear of expressing any view on the facts connected to his case. However, the judgment is still something of a victory for the MDMK leader. The Court’s strict construal of Section 21 has, in effect, knocked the legal bottom out of the Tamil Nadu Government’s case against Mr. Vaiko” one in which the evidence against him is entirely based on certain “pro-LTTE statements” he is said to have made. Moreover, the Court upheld the contention that under POTA, those detained for over one year may avail themselves of the bail provisions under ordinary law.

Mr. Vaiko, who has been in detention for 17 months, did not choose to seek bail on a matter of principle. But he must fancy his chances of an early release from jail given the POTA trial court’s likely reassessment of the case in the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment. The Central Review Committee, which has been constituted to examine and review specific cases of the misuse of POTA, is also seized of his case. The Committee’s recommendations are now binding on State Governments, a power it acquired from last month’s ordinance, which was passed in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday as the POTA Amendment Bill. That the Centre has been forced to empower a non-judicial committee to review the application of specific cases booked under POTA is a clear admission that the legislation is flawed and has been prone to wanton misuse. Even if one ignores the larger legal issues related to granting this Committee the power to review ongoing criminal cases, the very setting up of such a mechanism constitutes a powerful indictment of POTA. The Supreme Court’s task was to consider the constitutionality of this extraordinary legislation and not, as it observed, to examine whether the country really needs it. And here lies the rub. The Court’s upholding of POTA does nothing to detract from the argument that — for reasons moral, political and commonsensical” POTA must go.

Editorial 5: Withdraw the Cases [The Hindu, April 10, 2004]

There was always only one rational conclusion with respect to the flagrantly unjust and politically motivated cases slapped on Vaiko, the general secretary of the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, and eight other partymen under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Thankfully, the Central POTA Review Committee, which was recently given the legal teeth to check the misuse of the draconian anti-terrorism legislation, has arrived at just this. At one level, the Review Committee’s finding that there is no prima facie case against Mr. Vaiko and eight others emerges from the obvious” the lack of even an iota of evidence to show that they were engaged in terrorist activity or for that matter any form of illegality. At another level, the Committee’s conclusion flows naturally from the Supreme Court’s ruling in December 2003. In that judgment, the Court, while upholding the constitutional validity of POTA, sanitised what was possibly the most controversial and dangerous provision in the law, by making a vital distinction between merely expressing verbal sympathy for a banned terrorist organisation and acting in a manner that invites support for its activities. Once the Court held that Section 21 of POTA will be attracted only when there is a criminal intention of furthering terrorist activity, the cases against Mr. Vaiko and eight of his partymen, who were booked for making allegedly pro-LTTE speeches, had no legal leg to stand on.

The Central Review Committee’s finding that there is no prima facie case against the nine is binding on the Tamil Nadu Government. The anti-terrorism law was amended last year with the main purpose of giving the Central and State Review Committees, which enjoyed hardly any powers under the unamended Act, the authority to determine whether POTA has been misused in a particular case and, where warranted, direct a State Government to withdraw it. The new powers granted to the Review Committees were upheld by the Madras High Court, which ruled that if such a Committee came to the conclusion that a case “is fit to be withdrawn from prosecution, it can address the State Government which, in turn, has to instruct the public prosecutor” to withdraw the case. The Court added the caveat that it was then up to the public prosecutor to “apply his mind independently” and for the special court trying the case to decide whether the plea for withdrawal “is acceptable or not.”

Having pursued the cases against Mr. Vaiko and his partymen in the face of grave misgivings and serious legal doubt, the Jayalalithaa Government must show the good sense to have them withdrawn quickly. The outrageous injustice done to Mr. Vaiko, who spent 19 months in detention before being released on bail, is incalculable and impossible to redress. The MDMK leader would be fully justified in seeking exemplary compensation for the manner in which his liberty was curtailed, for reasons that smack of political vendetta and through the (mis)use of a draconian provision in a bad law. The Central Review Committee’s findings on the MDMK cases must be welcomed. At the same time, the very fact that such Committees are needed to review specific POTA cases constitutes a damning indictment of the anti-terrorism law, a shocking admission of the wanton misuse it has been and can be put to. It is only a matter of time before the cases against Mr. Vaiko and his partymen are formally brought to a close. But POTA — the legal basis for the agony they were made to undergo — remains on the statute book. For the sake of liberty and democracy, the campaign for scrapping the indefensible law must continue unabated.

Editorial 6: VAIKO’s Saga [The Hindu, May 10, 2004]

The wheels of justice may grind slowly, but grind they do. There may be some way to go before Vaiko, the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam leader, is freed from the case slapped on him under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. But in his long and courageous quest to absolve himself” a period that saw him spend 19 months in jail and have his passport impounded” Mr. Vaiko seems to be on the home stretch. The Supreme Court has stayed his trial, as well as that of eight other MDMK partymen, in the special POTA court. The Tamil Nadu Government has been legally obliged, following the Madras High Court’s recent ruling, to instruct the public prosecutor to withdraw the cases against them. The High Court held that the Central POTA Review Committee’s April 2004 order holding that the cases against the nine persons had no leg to stand on and must therefore be withdrawn “was binding on the Tamil Nadu Government.” It also declined the State Government’s plea to quash the order of the Review Committee.

Does the Tamil Nadu Government’s instruction to the public prosecutor mean the cases are, in effect, withdrawn? Not quite. In an earlier ruling the Madras High Court held that even after such an instruction was issued, it was up to the public prosecutor “to apply his mind independently” and it was eventually for the trial court to decide whether the plea for withdrawal was acceptable or not. This circuitous and problematical ruling, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court, was based, first, on the ground that the independence of the public prosecutor (supposed to be secured by Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) must be safeguarded. The problem with this reasoning is that in politically sensitive cases the independence of the public or special prosecutor is a myth, as the Supreme Court discovered before ordering the transfer of the Jayalalithaa wealth cases and the Best Bakery Case to another State. The other issue involved in the Madras High Court’s ruling was the perceived need to insulate an ongoing case in a judicial forum from the direct influence of executive or quasi-judicial authorities. It remains to be seen how Tamil Nadu’s public prosecutor, who only recently adopted the strident position that there was “no question of withdrawing the case,” reacts to the official withdrawal instruction. Another issue relates to the current status of the June 30 deadline set by the Madras High Court for the completion of the trial. All democrats must hope these questions have become academic after the Supreme Court issued an interim stay on the trial of Vaiko and the eight others in the special court.

The legal ground beneath the Tamil Nadu Government’s infamous case against Mr. Vaiko collapsed when the Supreme Court held that POTA could not be used against those who merely expressed sympathy or verbal support for proscribed terrorist organisations. Accepting the contentions of Attorney General Soli Sorabjee, the Court held that POTA’s Section 21 was attracted only in cases where there existed a criminal intention to further terrorist activity. The cases against Mr. Vaiko and his eight colleagues were built entirely around certain general speeches they made in support of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Eelam demand. There was not a quark of evidence to link them to any terrorist activity. The Vaiko case is a shocking illustration of how the `rule of law’ has been” and can continue to be” misused to settle political scores in `Shining India’. It is emblematic of the inherent danger and mischief of POTA and a compelling argument for sending it to the dustbin of history.

Dalai Lama – the respected spiritual leader of the Tibet Government in Exile based in Dharmasala – India, has been working through peaceful ways for the cultural and religious rights of the people of Tibet. His services are well recognized by the International community and Religious fraternity. Dalai Lama has been awarded Nobel price for peace.

But N. Ram of the The Hindu group has described Dalai Lama as “Separatist”, “Revanchist” and “Backward-looking”. N. Ram further advised:

“the wise future course for India’s policy on China’s Tibet will be to rein in the Dalai Lama, expel the Dharmasala-based ‘government of Tibet in exile’ from Indian soil, and do the best to promote the return of the Dalai Lama, many of his followers, and thousands of Tibetan refugees to their homeland on a voluntary, but principled basis – by abandoning the pipedream of separating Tibet from China.”

The reports of The Hindu on Tibet have been in sharp contrast to that from the rest of the Media in India. There is ample evidence to believe that The Hindu is part of the Chinese propaganda machinery publishing reports fed by the Chinese government.

“Friends of Tibet” an organization based in Mumbai, conducted a campaign named “Save Hindu” and exposed the dubious activities of The Hindu journalists colluding with official Chinese news agency to plant stories about Tibet in favour of Chinese Government. Friends of Tibet have documented what they call cookedup stories by The Hindu about Tibet.

[http://friendsoftibet.org/save/]

Mr .N.Ram of The Hindu described the campaign of Friends of Tibet as defamatory and threatened to take legal action. He was pointing out to the Friends of Tibet that their campaign was out of line with Indian official policy on Tibet.

While Mr N. Ram of The Hindu holds liberal views on most current issues, the selective conservative views on issues such as Tibet raises concerns about the hidden agenda of The Hindu group.

Chinese Propoganda:
Mr. N Ram of The Hindu said the following on the South Indian actress Kushboo’s statement on pre-marital sex for which a defamation cases was filed on the actress in the Tamil Nadu state.

“Whether or not one agreed with Khushboo, ‘the intelligent and experienced actress’s forward-looking views needed to be respected”

While viewing actress Kushboo as “forward looking”, The Hindu considers Dalai Lama a “Backward-looking” only reveals their hidden agenda to be China’s propaganda machine in India.

The suspected China relation of The Hindu poses a security threat to our nation. With the rise of Maoist extremists in several parts of our nation and China making claims to our territories in the North East, it becomes a necessity to launch an official inquiry in to the existence of any established relationship between The Hindu group and any Chinese agencies – both official and otherwise. If such association is revealed, the group should be banned to operate from India.

The modus operandi of Chinese Intelligence Agencies:
The PLA (Peoples Liberation Army) General Political Department (GPD) maintains the Communist Party of China structure that exists at every level of the PLA. It is responsible for overseeing the political education, indoctrination and discipline that is a prerequisite for advancement within the PLA.

The International Liaison Department of the General Political Department is publicly known as the China Association for International Friendly Contacts. The department prepares political and economic information for the reference of the Political Bureau. The department conducts ideological and political work on foreign armies. The department also works to disintegrate enemy armies by dampening their morale. It is also tasked with instigating rebellions within foreign armies.

The Liaison Office is known to have dispatched agents to infiltrate Chinese-funded companies and private institutions out side China. Their mission is counter-espionage, keeping watch on their own agents, and preventing foreign agents buying off Chinese personnel.

Sources and Resources

• “Communist China’s Intelligence, External Affairs Research Organs” by Tan Po CHENG MING, [Hong Kong] 1 Sep 96 No 227, pp 28-31 (PRC: Analysis of CPC Intelligence, Other Organs FBIS-CHI-96-196 1 Sep 1996)
• “Red Agents Infiltrate Celebrity Circles” by Chen Pei-chiung in Washington, Ho Yung-hsiung in Hong Kong, and Yu Hui-hsin in Beijing YI CHOU KAN [Hong Kong] No 255, 27 Jan 95 pp 48-50, 52, 54-55 [Article Views Intelligence Work in Hong Kong FBIS-CHI-95-046 27 Jan 1995]

ANNEXURE OF EVIDENCES FROM THE INTERNET

Save The Hindu’ Campaign [Source :http://friendsoftibet.org/save/]

‘Save The Hindu’ Poster

The Hindu, one of the most credible and trusted newspapers in the country has many things to its credit. Chief among them is the appointment of an Ombudsman or a Readers’ Editor in a newspaper for the first time in the history of Indian journalism. This 127-year-old newspaper with 3.8 million readers has a different story to tell ever since N Ram, who describes himself as “An Indian who has no sympathy for the Dalai Lama’s separatist and backward looking agenda”, took charge as the editor-in-chief of the newspaper on July 1, 2003. * N Ram (Editor-in-Chief, The Hindu)

Friends of Tibet has learned that the editorial board of The Hindu led by N Ram has instructed their centres not to carry any ‘Tibet’, ‘Dalai Lama’ and ‘Falun Gong’ stories criticising the policies of the Chinese government. Instead of depending on reliable news agencies like PTI, UNI, IANS, Reuters, AP and AFP, The Hindu has found a Beijing-based news-agency to fetch stories – The Xinhua – world’s biggest propaganda agency belonging to the Chinese Communist Party. Probably The Hindu is the only newspaper in the country to reproduce Xinhua reports. Today The Hindu has virtually become a mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party.

Perhaps unique in the world because of its role, size, and reach, Xinhua reports directly to the Chinese Communist Party’s Propaganda Department and employs more than 10,000 people. The head of the Xinhua has the rank of a minister. Successor to the agency, Red China that was founded by Mao Zedong, Xinhua adopted its current name in January 1937. Since October 1949, this state-run news-agency has been completely subordinate to the Chinese Communist Party and remains the voice of the sole party.

A card-holding member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) who had been to China and occupied-Tibet at least fifteen times in junkets mostly arranged by the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi, N Ram is also the mastermind behind ‘India-China Association of Journalists’, an embassy-sponsored organization specialising in arranging pleasure trips for Indian journalists. This new strategy of Beijing has already won the hearts of some of our best journalists. Ironically it is only when the Tamil Nadu Police entered The Hindu office premises in Chennai, N Ram who calls the killing of a million Tibetans by China’s occupying forces ‘a myth’, got enlightened about freedom.

We believe that it is immoral from the side of an Editor to drag some of the eminent journalists to do ethically-wrong reporting for The Hindu and Frontline and also to use a democratic forum – freedom of the press – to advance the cause of an autocratic regime.

July 31, 2007, Chennai: Chairperson of Tamil Nadu Friends of Tibet Dr MR Hubert (speaking) and Dr Ramu Manivannan of Friends of Tibet join activists of Tibetan Students Association of Madras (TSAM) during a protest in front of the Frontline/The Hindu office. The gathering of local Tibetans and Tibet supporters were protesting the misleading articles written by N Ram in Frontline/The Hindu after his Chinese Embassy-sponsored trip to occupied-Tibet in 2007.

‘Save The Hindu’ Campaign is an attempt to save the newspaper and also to expose Xinhua – Chinese government’s propaganda agency to its readers. Let us use the opportunity to write to the newly-appointed Readers’ Editor about our concerns on The Hindu policies on various issues including Tibet.

Petition to be submitted to the newly-appointed Readers’ Editor of The Hindu.)

* K Narayanan (Readers’ Editor, The Hindu):

On the eve of the 56th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China on October 1, 2005, Reporters Without Borders released a report of an investigation into the role of the news agency Xinhua News Agency in the system of propaganda and censorship put in place by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Perhaps unique in the world because of its role, size, and reach, Xinhua reports directly to the Chinese Communist Party’s Propaganda Department; employs more than 10,000 people.

With less than three years to go before the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, the worldwide press freedom organization called on the Chinese government to reform the state-run media. Although it is more and more regularly cited as a credible source – nearly one third of the news reports on China selected by Google News originate from the agency – Xinhua, the head of which has the rank of minister, is the linchpin of control of the Chinese media.

Successor to the agency, Red China that was founded by Mao Zedong, Xinhua adopted its current name in January 1937. Since October 1949, this state-run news agency has been completely subordinate to the CCP. The Reporters Without Borders’ report includes accounts from several Xinhua journalists who agreed, on condition of anonymity, to explain how the control imposed by the CCP’s Propaganda Department operates on a daily basis. With the help of former French journalist on Xinhua, Reporters Without Borders exposed the distortion of facts, hatred for its enemies and its support, through the treatment of international news, for the world’s worst regimes.

Despite a certain economic liberalisation of the media sector, Xinhua remains the voice of the sole party. Hand-picked journalists, who are regularly indoctrinated, produce reports for the Chinese media that give the official point of view and others – classified “internal reference” for the country’s leaders. After being criticised for its lack of transparency, particularly during the Sars epidemic, Xinhua has for last few months been putting out news reports embarrassing to the government, but they are designed to fool the international community, since they are not published in Chinese.

The Hindu-Xinhua Nexus

N Ram, Editor-in-Chief of The Hindu and Frontline

“Freedom of the press is important. So is its social responsibility, which must begin with interaction with and accountability to readers. For a daily newspaper this must happen on a daily basis.”

(N Ram while appointing the Readers’ Editor for The Hindu)

Friends of Tibet spoke to journalists working with various centres of The Hindu in India and we’ve learned that a good number of them are ignorant about what Xinhua is all about. They carry Xinhua stories simply because they are asked to do so. They are even instructed not to touch ‘sensitive’ stories on Tibet, Dalai Lama and Falun Gong criticising the policies of the Chinese government. Today The Hindu becomes the only newspaper in India to reproduce Xinhua stories.

In July 2000, N Ram, the ‘editor’ of Frontline visited occupied-Tibet for five days in a trip organised by the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi. His regurgitation of Chinese communist propaganda was splashed over 36 pages of the September 15, 2000 edition of the Frontline. Unusually for a professional Indian journalist, N Ram makes his bias clear right from the first paragraph.

Excerpts from N Ram’s article titled ‘Tibet: A Reality Check’:

ï‚· “The sky is turquoise, the sun is golden, The Dalai Lama is away from the Potala, Making trouble in the west. Yet Tibet’s on the move.” For an Indian in Tibet who has no sympathy whatsoever for the Dalai Lama’s separatist, revanchist and backward-looking agenda, this passable adaptation of an old Tibetan song seems to fit contemporary realities.

ï‚· “As the pre-eminent Tibetan Buddhist leader, ‘His Holiness’ has a hold among the faithful and a wider influence that must not be underestimated. But, as the Chinese official view makes clear, given the protracted experience of dealing with him, he cannot be treated merely, or even primarily, as a religious leader. He is a consummate politician leading a movement that seeks to take ‘Greater Tibet’ away from China – an anti-communist and separatist political figure masquerading as a compassionate man of religion and ‘art of happiness’ guru.”

ï‚· In 1989, as anti-Chinese political feelings intensified on the world stage, the Dalai Lama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize by a politically-minded Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee.

ï‚· If the Dalai Lama were not an extremist, not a separatist, and not a revanchist in his political agenda, but a genuine upholder of the ‘middle path’, he would have no problem working within Tibet’s regional autonomy framework and space. But time does not appear to be on the side of Tibet’s former ‘god-king’.

ï‚· The wise future course for India’s policy on China’s Tibet will be to rein in the Dalai Lama, expel the Dharmasala-based ‘government of Tibet in exile’ from Indian soil, and do its best to promote the return of the Dalai Lama, many of his followers, and thousands of Tibetan refugees to their homeland on a voluntary, but principled basis – by abandoning the pipedream of separating Tibet from China.

Above ‘observations’ by N Ram on HH the XIV Dalai Lama, the spiritual and temporal leader of six million Tibetans are enough to know who N Ram is and how is won over and influenced by Beijing.

The Hindu Website

Xinhua Propaganda: An Example
Let us have a look at a classic example of how a Xinhua story is being prepared favouring the Chinese government and distributed internationally.

Image 1: ”China Parades ‘Panchen Lama’ at Religious Meet” (Times of India, April 13, 2006)

“China Parades ‘Panchen Lama’ at Religious Meet” is a story published by the Times of India edition dated April 13, 2006 on the five-day-long World Buddhist Forum which was held in China (See: Image 1). Here the Times of India editorial team compares reports filed by various news-agencies for authenticity and finally comes out with a story based on facts. The story talks about China’s rejection of the Gendun Choekyi Nyima, the 11th Panchen Lama chosen by HH the XIV Dalai Lama. The term ‘Panchen Lama’ is highlighted as most Tibetans inside and in exile refer the Chinese-appointed Panchen Lama as ‘Panchen Zuma’ or ‘the fake Panchen’.

On the same day, The Hindu reproduced an unedited Xinhua news-item with the headline: “Panchen Lama Calls for Harmony” (See: Image 2). The Xinhua story projects Chinese Govt-appointed Gyancain Norbu as the 11th Panchen Lama and talks nothing about the real Panchen Lama and his mysterious disappearance on May 17, 1995.

A reader is easily fooled and denied right to information.

Image 2: “Panchen Lama Calls for Harmony” (The Hindu, April 13, 2006)

How Xinhua Exaggerates - Let us see how a Xinhua exaggerates a story.

Image 3: “10.2pc GDP Growth in First Quarter: Hu Jintao” (The Hindu, April 16, 2006)

Here a Xinhua story reproduced by The Hindu edition dated April 16, 2006 (See Image: 3) says that China’s economy has grown by 10.2 percent. This report was greeted with skepticism as to respond to the release of GDP figures from China with doubt and uncertainty. It is impossible to calculate true GDP expansion without complete access to growth statistics across the entire country in a wide variety of segments – especially in a country like China.

National Statistical Bureau of China has been struggling over the past many years to upgrade its system of calculating growth. While annual GDP figures normally rely on a combination of figures such as consumption plus government spending plus investment plus net trade, China arrives at its numbers only by gathering statistics on production from local managers. And it is a routine in which local officials set their production targets at the beginning of the year and falsify figures at the end to misinform Beijing that they have met their goals.

Many economists believe that China’s economy boom is more hype than reality.

Image 3a: “Party Memebership Grows to 71million in China” (The Hindu, June 20, 2006)

“How The Hindu Stories Overshadow the Real Ones”
Let us see how trade-centric stories of The Hindu divert a reader’s attention from the real issues around.

Image 4: “I’m A Friend of Microsoft: Hu” (The Hindu, April 19, 2006)

The Hindu edition dated April 19, 2006 (See Image: 4) carries a story on Hu Jintao’s visit to Microsoft Headquarters in Redmod, Washington and his meeting with Bill Gates, world’s richest man. No one else carried this report as they found it irrelevant to the readers in the Indian subcontinent. Pallavi Aiyar’s story on ’2.6 Million Square Meter-Long Yiwu Market in Southern China’ on April 15, 2006 and the ‘Top Rating of the Three Gorges Dam’ of China were among the top international stories The Hindu carried that week.

Interestingly, there were two important reports The Hindu didn’t want their readers to know: 1) British Transplantation Society’s findings on the organ harvesting of thousands of executed prisoners from China and the horrific news of removing organs from living Falun Gong practitioners in jails 2) AFP/AP/Reuters report based on the 2005 Amnesty International Annual Report accusing China for the majority of executions in the world. According to the report, about 1,770 executions were reported in China although Amnesty said it suspected that the real figure was higher. (See Image: 5 & 6)

The purpose of carrying trade-centric stories is to divert the attention of 3.8 million readers of The Hindu from the real issues around.

Image 5: “China Executed Most People in 2005″ (AFP, April 20, 2006)
Image 6: “China Harvesting Prisoners’ Organs for Transplant” (Reuters, April 19, 2006)

“The Hindu-Chini-Bhai-Bhai”
Gone were the days when a KGB agent delivers a suitcase at your New Delhi residence for ‘planting’ stories in a newspaper. Let us see how The Hindu gets rewarded for publishing pro-Chinese government reports.

Image 7: “The Return of the Hong Tou A-San” (The Hindu, May 03, 2006)

In one of the travelogues by Pallavi Aiyar (Beijing Correspondent of The Hindu) titled ‘The Return of Hong Tao A-San’ published by The Hindu edition dated May 03, 2006 (See Image: 7), she reports that the Sikhs, known for their red turbans are back in China since the Indo-China war. For about a month, she continues to file colourful stories on both China and occupied Tibet.

Exactly after three weeks Prof Qui Yonghui, Secretary General of Chinese Association of South Asian Studies writes an article in The Hindu edition dated on June 6, 2006 (See Image: 8). In his article, Prof Yonghui ‘discovers’ that “the quality of media coverage in both India and China has improved.”

Excerpts from Prof Yonghui’s article titled “Seeing India and China through fresh eyes”:

“We used to read all the boring reports, most of them covering catastrophes, road accidents, conflicts and so on for whatever reasons they might have been. Later on, we could only read the arguments and talks concerning the Sino-Indian border conflict of 1962, which were later followed by news stories perhaps on the doubts about the reforms and opening up in both countries. In one word, we really did not know what was happening in our neighbourhoods. In The Hindu, only recently in May 2006, in their reports both Pallavi Aiyar and Harish Khare have commented on almost all aspects of the leading developing country in the world. Their stories covered different places in China: the sandstorm-suffering capital; the shops on Huai Hai Road in the commercial city Shanghai; a huge market in a small town called Yiwu in Zhejiang; a Buddhist Temple called Shaolin in Henan. They even commented on the Indians working in China (“The Return of the Hong Tou A-San” – the Sikhs with their red turbans – and “Made in China-Indian Doctors”). It’s really a wonderful experience having seen these two Indian journalists covering lots of interesting topics. As far as I am concerned, such Indian newspaper reports have undoubtedly enriched my discovering of India.”

Image 8: “Seeing India and China through fresh eyes” (The Hindu, June 06, 2006)

“Indian Contribution to the Chinese Propaganda”

Pallavi Aiyer, China Correspondent of The Hindu, married to a Spanish diplomat is the Indian contribution to the Xinhua-Hindu propaganda network. In the last six months Pallavi Aiyer filed a number Tibet ‘stories’ for The Hindu. Let us examine her new ‘story’ on Qinhai-Lhasa railway project:

Image 9: “To the roof of the world, by Train” (The Hindu, July 01, 2006)

On July 1, 2006 The Hindu publishes a story by Pallavi Aiyer titled: “To the roof of the world, by Train” – a story about the newly opened Qinhai-Lhasa railway project. The story was written days before she boarded the inaugural train from Beijing West Railway Station on July 1, 2006. She begins by saying: “This is a railway that both supporters and critics agree will bring about a historic transformation of what was hitherto one of the world’s most remote and inaccessible areas – Tibet. The roof of the world will from now on be connected by rail to several of China’s larger cities; connections that bring in wake myriad economic opportunities for a region that has so far been left behind by China’s economic boom.” The reporter also speaks on the behalf of the Government of China: “The Chinese authorities have made suitable arrangements to protect the environment – some $192million for environmental protection projects – while dismissing the Dalai Lama’s critiques as propaganda.”

Pallavi Aiyer’s story on the much-criticised railroad to Lhasa ends with a warning: “The ultimate effect of the railway line will be a matter of history to judge.”

Not everyone seems to be celebrating an engineering marvel and reproducing data provided to them by the Chinese officials. On June 30, 2006, Taipei Times reports: “many fear the completion of the rail link will lead to a new influx of Chinese migrants into Tibet, diluting the native population and speeding up the erosion of its unique culture, which has been under constant attack in the 56 years since the communists first occupied the region. The arrival of the railway will only help the Chinese authorities further tighten their grip on Tibet. Travel outside of Lhasa and one cannot help but feel one is in a police state – army bases and police stations dot the countryside and even the smallest country town comes complete with a military outpost or two. The railway will make it much easier for the communist government to move troops and police into the region in the event of any future unrest.”

“Big Brother Fascination”
By Ramachandra Guha (Historian and Columnist)

In 1980, the respected left-wing editor, Nikhil Chakravartty, made a trip to Afghanistan. He was invited by the Soviets, who, the previous year, had invaded that unhappy country. On his return, Chakravartty wrote a multi-part essay in the journal he founded and edited, Mainstream. The burden of that essay was that the progressive communists were bringing the fruits of modernity and science to a backward and feudal land.

Twenty years later, another senior left-wing editor has provided a willing whitewash of a totalitarian regime. The cover story in the latest issue of the Chennai fortnightly, Frontline, written by N Ram, provides an extended and lavishly illustrated brief for the Chinese occupation of that country. The Chinese, claims Ram, have brought hospitals, roads and schools to a previously deprived land. He minimizes the attacks on Tibetan cultural institutions and religious beliefs that the Chinese have so demonstrably carried out.

He also dismisses the reports by others of a demographic shift in Tibet. Relying on official Chinese census data, he rejects independent evidence of the largescale settlement of the region by the Han people. In any case, Ram has little sympathy for pre-colonial Tibet. He thinks that before the Chinese came the land was a reactionary backwater. The dalai lama, revered by the Tibetans and regarded also by millions of non-Tibetans as a leader of dignity and courage, is characterized by Ram as a man with a “separatist, revanchist and backward-looking agenda”. The editor ends his essay with a message from the Chinese government to the Indian government, asking it to “put an end to the Dalai Lama’s virulently anti-Chinese, separatist, and revanchist political activities in India”.

Ram’s case is made with complete confidence, on the basis of a stay of five days. It is safe to say that the editor’s movements in those five days were closely monitored by his host, the Communist Party of China. For, as is always the case in authorized travels to totalitarian countries, the visitor is only allowed to see or talk to what the rulers want him to see or talk to. It is in keeping with what we know of how and why Ram’s article was written that it carries the Orwellian title: “Tibet: a reality check”.

The curious thing about Nikhil Chakravartty and N. Ram is that at home they have been vigorous defenders of political and intellectual freedom. In 1975, five years before he visited Soviet-ruled Afghanistan, Chakravartty closed down Mainstream rather than subject it to the censorship imposed during the Emergency by Indira Gandhi. And Ram’s Frontline has sometimes championed unfashionable causes. For instance, it refused to join the super-patriotic acclaim for the nuclear blasts in the summer of 1998. What then explains these double standards? Why would these champions of freedom at home so energetically support brutal dictatorships abroad?

An answer of a kind is provided in a classic work by the British writer and historian David Caute. Called The Fellow Travellers, it was first published in 1975, and reappeared in an expanded edition 12 years later. The book is a superb history of Western apologists for communist regimes. It starts with the authors and scholars who supported Joseph Stalin, such as the American writer, Lincoln Steffens – who famously said, after a week in Russia, that “I have seen the future and it works” – and The New York Timescorrespondent in Moscow, Walter Duranty, who consciously suppressed, in his reports, the evidence of millions of deaths caused by collectivization.

But, as Caute shows, American leftists have had a monopoly on deceit and credulity. All the great British Fabians, including George Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells, lined up to support Stalin and his ilk. Sidney and Beatrice Webb even wrote an 800-page book with the wonderful title, Soviet Russia: A New Civilization? That apologetic question mark was, however, removed in the second printing. The one and sterling exception to this shameful trend was Bertrand Russell, who very early saw Soviet communism for the monstrosity it was. Russell has never been given proper credit for his 1918 book, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, the first serious exposé of Leninist politics.

After the Fifties, it was no longer possible to defend Soviet Russia. So the Western writers went in search of a substitute Utopia. One group settled on China, a second on Vietnam, a third on Cuba. But, as Caute remarks, these intellectuals would not, of course, trade their own life in a free country for life under the boot. His explanation of this paradox was two-fold. On the one hand, these men practised an unconscious racism: they believed the British needed democracy, but not the backward Georgians or Chinese. On the other hand, they displayed the intellectual’s endemic love of power. The commisars, aware of their propaganda value, would shamelessly flatter them. Thus the Webbs or Wells would get an audience with Stalin, and Edgar Snow an audience with Mao, while being denied an interview with Roosevelt or Churchill. Naturally, they would be disposed to writing well about their foreign hosts.

Caute’s book can also help explain why Indian Marxists have so zealously supported foreign communist regimes. Fortunately, they do not have the field all to themselves. Thus N. Ram’s account of Chinese rule in Tibet must be contrasted with the account provided by another Indian writer, Vikram Seth. Unlike Ram, Seth speaks fluent Chinese; and unlike him again, he hiked and hitchhiked through Tibet rather than whizzing through the country by official car and aeroplane. In his book, From Heaven Lake, Seth provides chilling details of the destruction and degradation of Tibet at the hands of the Chinese. With his linguistic gifts and a novelist’s empathy, he was able to obtain from ordinary Tibetans a direct, unmediated account of what they thought of their rulers. If Ram at all spoke to Tibetans it would have been through interpreters, and with Chinese colonial officials standing by.

The Indian Marxists’s admiration of foreign dictators is a curious thing indeed. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) is the only party in the world which still worships Stalin, putting up his portrait alongside those of Marx, Engels and Lenin in their annual congresses. Yet the party has long ago abandoned armed struggle, and is happy enough to participate in the routine processes of Indian democracy.

Admittedly, hypocrisy of another kind is practised by parties of the Indian right. The founders of what is now the Bharatiya Janata Party were fervent admirers of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. And Bal Thackeray admires those fellows still.

This writer is just about old enough to recall a time when Indian politics and intellectual life were both dominated by men who were consistently unwavering in their support to freedom and democracy. I was interested to read in the obituaries of the recently deceased Congressman, S Nijalingappa, that he and Indira Gandhi parted ways over the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. As president of the Congress, Nijalingappa wanted our government to condemn the invasion, but as prime minister, Indira Gandhi refused to do so. Nijalingappa was reared in the tradition of MK Gandhi and C. Rajagopalachari, who loathed Hitler as much as they loathed Stalin, whose life’s work was the winning of democratic freedoms for their people, and who would not be so arrogant as to deny other people those same freedoms.

N Ram Threatens Friends of Tibet
An Email we received from N Ram, Editor of The Hindu

————————————————————————–
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 18:27:42 +0530
From: N. RAM < nram@thehindu.co.in >
To: “Friends of Tibet (India)” < friendsoftibet.india@gmail.com >
Subject: Notice to “Friends of Tibet Campaign”
————————————————————————–
Notice to ‘Friends of Tibet (India)’ Campaign
I find that several of the communications sent to me and others in your so-called ‘Save the Hindu Campaign’ relating to Tibet are highly defamatory against me and The Hindu. You are liable for both criminal and civil defamation. You will be hearing from our lawyers soon about the legal action we are taking. Be on notice that will be required to provide the full coordinates and other relevant particulars about the Indian parties behind your campaign and all those liable for defamatory action that we are planning to take.

Aside from that, you will note that your campaign is out of line with Indian official policy by advocating secessionism for Tibet. Be aware that Indian participation in `the Global Movement for an Independent Tibet” is comparable to participation in international campaigns that advocate secessionism for Kashmir. It is also well established that the Dalai Lama and his Tibetan supporters have been allowed to stay in India on condition that they do not indulge in political activities, including pro-’independence’ activities, on Indian soil.
N. Ram
Editor-in-Chief The Hindu

“How The Hindu Readers React”
Comments from some of The Hindu readers participated in this campaign:

“This is outrageous and quite unbecoming of one of the most revered and prestigious newspapers of India. I had sensed that when Mr N Ram wrote that long article in Frontline a few years back defending China’s policy on Tibet. My suspicion on Hindu’s editorial judgement, as far as issue of Tibet was concerned, further proved to be true when I read the stories filed by Mr Amit Barua who happened to be an embedded journalist of the Chinese communist regime on a guided tour to Tibet organized for the “friendly” Indian media. Truely the respect that I had for the newspaper has recieved a big jolt. It’s disgusting.”
(Rajender Singh, New Delhi)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“I would like to express my support to the campaign of taking up the issue of The Hindu’s black out of any news about Tibet and the Dalai Lama in its paper. Please put me down as a signatory to your campaign to the Reader’s Editor of The Hindu.”
(Jaya Jaitly, New Delhi)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“Various sources for news are healthy whether from China or from elsewhere. Single sources do not imply freedom of the press or information. The Hindu has a great tradition. Let’s not lose it! Tibetan voices are as valid as other voices. Hear them!”
(Leeya Mehta, Georgetown University, Washington)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“I feel ashamed that one of the most respected newspapers of India is being hijacked by a totalitarian and colonial regime of Peoples Republic of China. Unfortunately this is happening only because the leadership of this newspaper has shifted from a highly respected chain of editors to Mr. N. Ram who as no shame in presenting himself as a stooge of the Chinese communist rulers than a self-respecting Indian, or a self-respecting Indian journalist.”
(Vijay Kranti, Journalist, Delhi)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“If it is true that N Ram has so decreed it is nothing short of scandalous.”
(Jerry Pinto, Bombay)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“The Hindu is becoming a disgusting yellow pulp, it is not a newspaper which reports the “news” but a rag celebrating the small mindedness of its irrational, imbecilic owners and editors.”
(Dr A Iyengar, Metropolitan College of New York, USA)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“How can a monopolist party controlled agency with low credibility be relied upon, while closing one’s eyes and ears to other reports? Does the Hindu want to be a handmaiden of Xinhua in rewriting history to portray the victims of military invasion and violent subjugation as some kind of regressive untouchables? This smacks of expedience shamelessly trampling over truth.”
(Bharat Mansata, Bombay)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“I have no quarrel with N Ram being a Communist, but to blindly print Chinese propaganda is against the norms of good journalism. Hindu is fast losing its credibility with its current policy.”
(Yatindra Bhatnagar, www.internationalopinion.com)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“It is ironical that the editor of the Marxist fundamentalist The Hindu must always come from the same Iyengar family; the same hypocrisy marks this alleged progressive’s love for a genocidal regime like the Chinese government.”
(Pradyumna Kumar, Bangalore)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“Having worked at The Hindu as a copy editor in the 1980s I am aghast at how Mr N Ram has brought his extreme left-wing views to bear upon the newspaper. It is time that this limousine Marxist gets out of the newspaper business, and for The Hindu to reflect real Hindu ideals and vision. Mr N Ram’s truck with the Chinese totalitarian regime is a shameful reflection of the vulgar Indian leftist politics.”
(Ramesh N Rao, Longwood University)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“It is sad that The Hindu has become the mouthpiece of a Chinese propaganda agency. Tibetans are entitled to human rights. Media should not be blindly partisan, especially in its news columns.”
(Prof B Ramesh Babu, Hyderabad)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“As a daily reader of The Hindu, I am aghast to hear that ‘The Hindu’ is allowing itself to be exploited by the Chinese propaganda machine – ‘Xinhua’. Kindly revert to standard international news-wires for Tibet stories.”
(Manu Gopalan, EartHauz: Architecture & Design)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“The Hindu’s love of truth is a myth. This newspaper hasn’t been honest and truthful in the last 15 years. The other papers ply frivolousness, sleaze and scandal, The Hindu doesn’t. Let us not confuse that with respect for objectivity and truth.”
(Sikhivahan Gundu, Bangalore)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“Only 60 years ago, an Indian was capable to practice his culture from Afghanistan to Tibet to Burma to Sri Lanka. Today the culture is not ‘divided’ but effectively wiped out of half the area and the process is going on. Tibet, to me, is a case to witness the slow and sudden death of India’s culture and its cultural siblings. In internal Politics of the country, left, right, or goalkeeper doesn’t bother me. But you certainly cannot be more loyal to your enemies than to yourself. Sold out souls are a pity, their parents and children should feel the shame.”
(Gyanendra Bartaria, New Delhi)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“It is shocking to note that a newspaper like the Hindu which has had the image of ethical, conservative journalism has misplaced its integrity and is selling its voice of conscience for some economic inducements. Hope it will wake up from its stupor and sever its connections with the CCP controlled news agency and make amends!”
(Suren Rao, Independent Film maker)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“I am a reader of the Hindu for the last 44 years. I feel sad to see its new avatar as ‘Mount Road Marx’. It has become a mouthpiece for the Marxists.”
(SR Ramanujan, Hyderabad)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“It’s time for Ram to learn the meaning of Refugee. It means a person fleeing for fear of life. According to international law they deserve respect and support. That’s why UNHCR has taken the responsibility to grant that status to Tibetans risking their lives and crossing the border from China to Nepal/India. Insulting refugees is highly condemnable. It is inhuman. And also disrespectful to the internationally accepted norms and laws. Definitely not an ethic of objective reporting. Least of all, not Tamil culture.”
(Senthil, India/Australia)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“As an aspiring journalist I think it is repulsive and deplorable for journalism and its policy of truth and ethical perspective of all that it addresses to be abused in this manner. This is where the press must draw the line between what is right and what is negligible.”
(Samira Obeid, Chennai)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“As a reader who thinks the Hindu is the best newspaper in India, I am very concerned about the China tilt. Even before I saw this petition I was concerned about the generally adulatory and pro-Chinese govt slant in the frequent stories that have been appearing in the Hindu. I was quite appalled by the comments of N. Ram about the Dalai Lama. They were ill-informed. Would like to see a more balanced and better nuanced editorial policy towards China, Tibet and the Tibetans in India.”
(Shakti Maira, New Delhi)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“N Ram is entitled to his personal views on the Tibet issue. But it is wrong to impose his personal views on his newspaper and its readers. What is Ram afraid of? “Let a hundred flowers bloom”, let the independent news agencies write their stories and let contrary views be heard. I personally believe that for India to abandon Tibet will do deep harm to Indian civilization.”
(Rusi Engineer, Bombay)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“As a reader of The Hindu, and a supporter of the cause of Tibet and an admirer of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, I had been noticing the biases in The Hindu’s news reports. I switched to The Hindu because I appreciate its ethical journalism and value-based reporting. Thus this support to the autocratic and repressive measures of the Chinese regime by what I consider to be the last bastion of honest journalism in the English medium press in India is indeed sad and unfortunate. I request the Ombudsman of the Hindu to take immediate action in this regard.”
(Swati Chopra, New Delhi)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Friends of Tibet, PO Box 16674, Bombay 400050, India.

Friends of Tibet is a people’s movement to keep alive the issue of Tibet through direct action. Our activities are aimed at ending China’s occupation of Tibet and the suffering of the Tibetan people. Friends of Tibet supports the continued struggle of the Tibetan people for independence.

Official Website of CCP’s Xinhua

What is Xinhua?

http://stepstosecondpartition.blogspot.com/2009/03/hindu-tibet-and-n-ram.html

Friday, March 20, 2009

Hindu ,tibet and N Ram

Tibet: divergent reporting

The Hindu’s stories of any incident related to Tibet and China stand out in stark contrast to similar stories filed in other dailies, India or foreign. DIPU SHAW documents the contrast.

Posted Sunday, Mar 15 18:36:10, 2009

A few days ago, The Hindu carried a news item wherein N. Ram, the editor-in- chief of the newspaper wrote, “The reality is that Tibet is on the road of rapid economic development and the atmosphere there is relaxed, not tense at all.”

Contrast this, with a BBC report a day later (Feb 28) that carried the headline, “Tibetan monk ‘shot’ while on fire.”

“A Tibetan monk has been shot after setting fire to himself during a protest at Beijing’s rule, reports say. ….The protest began after more than 1,000 Tibetan Buddhist monks gathered at a temple in the town to celebrate the third day of the Tibetan New Year. Chinese officials had earlier banned the gathering. After the incident, news agencies reported a heavy police presence on the streets of the town.”

March 10 marked the 50th anniversary of the failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule that had sent the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, into exile in India. The Hindu interestingly calls it the day marking 50 years of Tibet’s “democratic reform”, echoing the Chinese definition of the ‘Peaceful Liberation of Tibet’.

Almost all the national dailies had reports about the Tibetan uprising on the day that marked the Dalai Lama’s fifty years of living in exile. The Indian Express carried the headline, “The anatomy of an uprising”. Hindustan Times had a report about the Dalai Lama’s speech, in Dharamsala on Monday and a review of Tibetan groups based there. The Times of India’s focus was on, “Tibet’s 50 years of being too patient?”

The Hindu did not deem it necessary to mark the anniversary with any news report or editorial. The newspaper reported about the 50th anniversary of the “Tibetan uprising” on the next day. In a report, “Pilgrims flock to Lhasa”, filed from the Tibetan capital city, The Hindu emphasised how life in the holy city of Lhasa was quiet and peaceful even, “on the day marking 50 years of Tibet’s democratic reform.” Yet another article had the headline, “Dalai Lama’s comments are lies: Beijing”. The newspaper it seems does not have any correspondents in India to report on events in Tibet, and except for a brief mention of Dharamsala, in northern India, where the exiled Tibetan leader lives, where it was stated that the Dalai Lama had “not announced any successor”, there have been no stories filed from within the country. These recent stories on Tibet in The Hindu betray an attempt on the part of this national daily not to report issues impartially.

Mr. Ram’s adulatory comments in his articles on the development in Tibet came after he concluded a three-day visit to southwest China’s Tibet Autonomous Region, his third visit since 2000. The headline of the signed article read, “Tibet on road of rapid uplift: N. Ram” The editor-in-chief wrote, “The contrast between the old and the new is very powerful, demonstrating what the Chinese government and the system have done for Tibet.”

The other Indian dailies, including The Indian Express and The Times Of India, as well as the international newspapers, reported extensively on the Dalai Lama’s most stinging condemnation of the Chinese regime. The headlines in The Indian Express, BBC News, New York Times, rediff news etc. quoted the Tibetan leader’s strong criticism, “China has created hell on earth in Tibet”. Dalai Lama said this addressing a gathering in Dharamsala on the eve of the 50th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising against the Chinese rule.

The above-mentioned BBC report too further points out, “It is extremely difficult to independently confirm any information coming out of Tibetan areas. China’s authorities have restricted access to the region.” According to this report, more than 200 Tibetans are thought to have been killed in a Chinese crackdown in the region.

On March 4th, the New York Times confirmed this in an article with the headline: “50 years after revolt, clampdown on Tibetans”.

“…Now, the authorities have imposed an unofficial state of martial law on the vast highlands where ethnic Tibetans live, with thousands of troops occupying areas they fear could erupt in renewed rioting on a momentous anniversary next week. And Beijing is determined to keep foreigners from seeing the mass deployment.”

One may wonder if N. Ram was one of these foreigners.

The news item continues, “…the Tibetan regions, a sprawling, lightly-populated swath of western China that measures about one-quarter of the country’s total territory, have become militarized zones. Sandbag outposts have been set up in the middle of towns, army convoys rumble along highways, and paramilitary officers search civilian cars. A curfew has been imposed on Lhasa, the Tibetan capital.”

In the national press too news of this crackdown is substantiated. On March 9, in The Indian Express a correspondent filed the following news report from Daofu, a town in Sichuan province under the headline, “Beijing clamps down ahead of 50th anniversary of Tibetan uprising”:

“…Armoured troop carriers and tour buses packed with police roll along the winding mountain roads. Internet service is dead in some places. Military camps fortified with sandbags sit amid Tibetan communities, where strings of prayer flags flutter in the wind.”

The Hindu’s stories of any incident related to Tibet and China stand out in stark contrast to similar stories filed in other news dailies, whether in India or the West. One is forced to speculate on the credibility of the newspaper.

Each and every newspaper’s online version has a comments section, but not The Hindu. Why? Is there a fear?

Posted by arohan at 1:25 PM

Labels: china, communists, dalai lama, media, media bias, news, red melons, the hindu, Tibet

[Grievous blow to Sri Lankan media
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7817793.stm]

While Sri Lanka stood accused by several national and international organizations as “deadly” for journalists for several  years, Mr. N Ram of The Hindu received “Sinhala Ratna” award from the Sri Lankan government and continues to function as a mouth piece for the Sri Lankan government openly.

[At least four international non-governmental organisations monitoring the media - the Committee to Protect Journalists, the International Press Institute, Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF) and the International Federation of Journalists - have singled out Sri Lanka as "deadly" for journalists.]

The Hindu was very aggressive in projecting all Sri Lankan Tamil rebel groups as terrorists and manipulated all reporting from Sri Lanka to suit the needs of the Sri Lankan government. Several news reports and editorials triggered spontaneous protests from the people especially from Perairist activists. At many places in Tamil Nadu the copies of the News paper were burnt. There are serious allegations by people in the internet that this media organization is paid for their reports on China and Sri Lanka.

The Chief Justice of Sri Lanka Mr Sarath N. Silva in a public meeting that followed the ceremonial opening of a court complex at Marawila in Negombo district refered to the IDP Camps (Internment Camps for the Internally Displaced Person from the war) as follows:

“Vanni IDPs sheltered in transit centres in Cheddiku’lam cannot expect justice under the Sri Lanka’s law. Law of the country does not show any interest on these IDPs. I openly say this. The authorities can penalize me for telling this,”

Several NGO’s and international organizations highlighted the poor living conditions and lack of accountability for the atrocities committed on the civilians in these IDP’s. However Mr. N. Ram of The Hindu had the following comments on the IDP after a Sri Lankan government sponsored visit by him to Sri Lanka
[The Hindu - 4^th July, 2009
http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/04/stories/2009070457542000.htm]
International concern has been expressed over the present condition and the future of these Tamil civilians, who include a large number of children, women, and senior citizens.

Following a three-hour conversation, including a recorded interview, with President Mahinda Rajapaksa at ‘Temple Trees’ in Colombo, I had, at his suggestion and thanks to the helicopter and other facilities provided by the Defence Ministry, the opportunity of seeing for myself how the Tamil IDPs were being sheltered and cared for in the camps. It was an uplifting experience

In the past The Hindu through its manipulative news reporting has continuously stood against much public opinion to protect the interests of successive Sri Lankan governments. It continues to do so even today.

The leader of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam Mr V. Prabakaran was reported dead on May 11^th 2009 by most media across the world. However, The Hindu has reported the death of Mr. V. Prabakaran several times earlier.

• 29^th July, 1989: Pirabakaran killed in LTTE shoot out -Pirabakaran killed in a confrontation with Mahthiah – another LTTE leader.
• 9^th Jan, 2005 – Is Prabakaran dead or alive? - Tamil Tiger chief, Velupillai Prabakaran, and his intelligence chief, Pottu Amman were among the dead or missing after the December 26 tsunami disaster.

Kumaran Pathmanathan who was appointed as the Internatioal Relations representative of the LTTE in late 2008 was reported by The Hindu as arrested by Thailand police. (which has been proved as false now)

Most readers who follow the Sri Lanka crisis in South India have come to not trust The Hindu in its Sri Lanka coverage. While Sri Lanka has allowed Chinese installations in its southern territory, The Hindu plays a pivotal role in protecting Sri Lanka’s reputation in India to avoid the exposure of the potential Chinese build up in the Southern borders of our nation. The Hindu continues to ignore Indian (and Tamil) interests in the region and has taken an extremist view by propogating Chinese and Sri Lanka provided propaganda information in South India.