where guha, mukul keshavan-like hypocrites/kkkangressis/communists are involved, i doubt if there is any sincerity. this is a publicity ploy, and they surely don't disagree with n ram.
as for shashi tharoor, i am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
From: GP
Split in the secular camp over Tibet.The Hindu is under attack by its own MFW (most prefered writers) who were earlier promoted by the news paper- that includes, a Deputy Editor, an ex-Secretary General to UN, and a book writer.--------------------------------------------------------------------------Tibet issue
The Hindu's bias in favour of the Chinese Government in its editorial on Tibet (March 28, 2008) is dismaying. The reasons behind the recent demonstrations by Tibetans are transparent. You speak of sustained growth, omitting the fact that Han Chinese control the economy, party and government. Impartial observers have documented the onslaught on natural resources, the repression of Buddhism, the enforced denunciations of the Dalai Lama. The subjugation of Tibet is most evident in re-settlement policy.
In 1952, Chairman Mao complained that there were "hardly any Han in Tibet." By 1953, there were 100,000 Chinese in the province of Qinghai, the renamed eastern Tibetan province of Amdo. In 1985, there were 2.5 million Chinese and 750,000 Tibetans in Qinghai. By the 2000 census, only 20 per cent of Qinghai's population was Tibetan.
This demographic engineering undermines the comparison you draw between Tibet and Kashmir. Right-wing groups in India have long demanded the re-settlement of the Kashmir Valley. However, Article 370 disallows non-state subjects from buying land; and it is to allay Kashmiri anxieties that New Delhi has not granted autonomy or separate statehood for Ladakh and Jammu.
Beijing's abusive denunciations of the Dalai Lama and its stonewalling of his proposals make it difficult to accept their sincerity. A just solution "within the framework of one China" is precisely what the Dalai Lama has pursued.
Sonia Jabbar, Ramachandra Guha, Mukul Kesavan, Madhu Sarin, Jyotirmaya Sharma, Dilip Simeon, Tenzin Sonam, & Shashi Tharoor
8 comments:
It was a brilliant move by Chindu. Go read today's letters to editor and it will be clear. They've people from all over the country supporting Chindu's stand on the issue as a response to yesterday's letter by Guha, Tharoor et al.
Why would you give Tharoor the benefit of the doubt Rajeev -- because he is a Mallu? I think you need to stop this Mallu-Mallu brotherhood thing right now and judge based on the facts.
Tharoor is now in the pay of some mohammedan company, after his failed UN bid.
He recently wrote a dhimmified article about how engineers become terrorists, while ignoring that all of them were mohammedans.
So, he remains a good hindu in that he does not bite the hand that feeds.
However the hand that feeds has now changed and hence Tharoor cannot be counted on any more.
Funny how remaining dharmic in an adharmic world can hurt you!
My last comment on approving the brotherhoods and confirming Shashi Tharoor as secular - but possibly not a full time pervert - has disappeared. I post through a twisted process because of a separate id.
Does any body see how the obama people and republicans are bypassing a lot of mainstream media through innovative use of internet. I think the same process is an oppurtinity before the leftists do that ... to thrash these sickularists. The concept is similar to this blog, but better represented. Any body got extra money to expand the concept of this blog ?
Of this motley crew of dissidents the only one with a conscience to speak of is Ram Guha, although he too is not beyond taking communal potshots now and then. Jyotirmaya Sharma is the worst and a hardened dhimmified bigot. Mukul Kesavan is neither here not there. Note how this bunch actually endorses the Indian dhimmi law of Art.370?
mukul kesavan? 100% grade A USDA certified dhimmi. he works for jamia millia. in his book 'through the glass darkly' or whatever, he has some scenes set during the moplah rebellion, the usual rapes, murders, forced conversions etc. of course, in his version, the hindu woman is mighty thrilled to be raped by the virile mohammedan. apparently it liberated her from the oppression she suffered as a hindu. of course as a converted 'war trophy' mohammedan baby-machine, she will be un-oppressed.
guha is a first-class fart. the perfect middlebrow person. hard to take him seriously, as he is a chronicler of both cricket and the bowel movements of dynasty.
tharoor i give the benefit of the doubt not because he is a malayali (so is mukul kesavan btw, and in any case i bitterly criticize malayalis all the time) but because i know him personally. someone mentioned he wrote about engineers == terrorists, i haven't seen that. i wrote about 'fear of engineering' years ago, and i guess i stand vindicated. yes, tharoor is tied up with some arab to start some ventures. they have all the money.
Tharoor the neo-dhimmi.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/S_Tharoor_Engineers_and_terrorism/a
rticleshow/2910478.cms
SHASHI ON SUNDAY
Why some engineers become terrorists
30 Mar 2008, 0000 hrs IST,Shashi Tharoor
An IIT graduate â€" so the story goes â€" is walking near a pond one day
when a frog speaks to him. "Kiss me," it says, "and i will turn into
a beautiful princess." The IITian does a double-take, turns back to
check if he has heard right, and sure enough, the frog repeats
itself: "Kiss me and i will turn into a beautiful princess." He looks
thoughtfully at the frog, picks it up and puts it into his pocket. A
plaintive wail soon emerges: "Kiss me and i will turn into a
beautiful princess." He ignores it and walks on. Soon the frog
asks, "Aren't you going to kiss me?" The IIT guy stops, pulls the
frog out of his pocket, and replies matter-of-factly: "I'm an
engineer. I don't have time for a girlfriend. But a talking frog is
cool."
No prizes for guessing what a literature graduate would have done in
the same situation! Such is the self-image of the engineer in India:
rational, hard-working, self-disciplined, steady, focused on the
results of his work. Parents pray for the smartest of their kids to
become engineers. Any child with better than average marks in science
at school is pushed towards the profession, sustained by peer
pressure that convinces him there could be no higher aspiration.
And no doubt for some there isn't. But that clearly isn't the whole
story. Disturbing new research at Oxford University by sociologists
Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog points to an intriguing â€" one might
say worrying â€" correlation between engineering and terrorism.
If that doesn't raise eyebrows at the IITs, nothing will. But
consider the evidence: Osama bin Laden was a student of engineering.
So were the star 9/11 kamikaze pilot Mohammed Atta, the alleged
mastermind of that plot, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and their all-but-
forgotten predecessor, the chief plotter of the 1993 World Trade
Center bombing, Ramzi Yousef.
The Oxford scholars, after putting together educational biographies
for some 300 known members of violent Islamist groups from 30
countries, concluded that a majority of these Islamist terrorists
were not just highly educated, but a startling number of them are
engineers. Indeed, according to Gambetta and Hertog, nearly half had
studied engineering. A summary of their research in Foreign Policy
magazine remarked that "across the Middle East and Southeast Asia,
the share of engineers in violent Islamist groups was found to be at
least nine times greater than what one might expect, given their
proportion of the working male population."
Is there something about engineering that makes its most proficient
graduates vulnerable to the temptations of violent extremism?
Gambetta and Hertog seem to think so. They have no patience for the
more conventional possible explanation â€" that engineers might be
sought after by terrorist groups for their technical expertise in
making and blowing up things. Instead, they argue that the reason
there are so many terrorist engineers is that the subject helps
produce a mindset that makes one prone to radicalisation.
Engineers consider themselves problem solvers, and when the world
seems to present a problem, they look to engineering-type solutions
to solve it. Engineering, Gambetta and Hertog suggest, predisposes
its votaries to absolute and non-negotiable principles, and therefore
to fundamentalism; it is a short step from appreciating the
predictable laws of engineering to following an ideology or a creed
that is infused with its own immutable laws. It is easy for engineers
to become radicalised, the researchers argue, because they are
attracted by the "intellectually clean, unambiguous, and all-
encompassing" solutions that both the laws of engineering and radical
Islam provide. According to Gambetta and Hertog, surveys in Canada,
Egypt, and the US have proved over the years that engineers tend to
be more devout, and more politically conservative, than the rest of
the population.
I'm not suggesting one should buy wholesale the conclusions of the
Oxford researchers; I know a few engineers who wouldn't harm a fly,
so i'd be wary of making any sweeping generalisations about an entire
profession. But the study does seem to me to open the door to make a
nowadays unfashionable case: the argument in favour of studying the
humanities. I have always believed that the well-formed mind is
preferable to the well-filled one, and it takes a knowledge of
history and an appreciation of literature to form a mind that is
capable of grappling with the diversity of human experience in a
world devoid of certitudes.
If terrorism is to be tackled and ended, we will have to deal with
fear, rage and incomprehension that animates it. We will have to know
each other better, learn to see ourselves as others see us, learn to
recognise hatred and deal with its causes, learn to dispel fear, and
above all just learn about each other. It is not the engineering
mindset that facilitates such learning, but the vision of the
humanities student. The mind is like a parachute â€" it functions best
when it is open. It takes reading and learning about other peoples
and cultures to open (and broaden) minds.
Ignorance and lack of imagination remain the handmaidens of violence.
Without extending our imagination, we cannot understand how peoples
of other races, religions or languages share the same dreams, the
same hopes. Without reading widely and broadening our minds, we
cannot understand the myriad manifestations of the human condition,
nor fully appreciate the universality of human aims and aspirations.
Without the humanities, we cannot recognise that there is more than
one side to a story, and more than one answer to a question.
That, of course, is never true in engineering. Perhaps the solution
lies in making it compulsory for every engineering student to take at
least 20% of his courses in the humanities. Maybe then he might even
kiss the frog.
The issue is that Tharoors mind is ignorant. His imagination is no way superior to imagination of a poor christian. ( I used the christist to make my case stronger). In fact his Neheruvian imagination of history is all fraud. It is so predictably sickular.
Engineers used to read sutlers beauties than those history that Tharoor has read. But I fear, the useless economists - prime recipients of the money and power in sickular dispension will challenge the engineers to some extent. That will be the consolation of Tharoor, though he will not understand those imaginations, and hence will never criticize Amartya Sen.
Post a Comment