rediff.com
rediff.com
News
      HOME | NEWS | COLUMNISTS | VARSHA BHOSLE
September 18, 2000

NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff


Rediff Shopping
Shop & gift from thousands of products!
  Books     Music    
  Apparel   Jewellery
  Flowers   More..     

Safe Shopping

E-Mail this column to a friend Varsha Bhosle

Differences in perception

Hehehehehe... The European Union has lifted the sanctions it had imposed 7 months ago against Austria when Joerg Haider's "far-right" Freedom Party was awarded a spot in the coalition government. The party had campaigned against immigration and EU expansion and finished second among the six political parties -- sparking concern across Europe, concern that the stooopid people didn't know what was good for them.

So, the EU donned its leathers and did some disciplining: Austria's partners broke off bilateral political contacts, restricted the promotion of Austrians at the EU HQ in Brussels, and snubbed ministers attending meetings. Diplomatic measures included boycotts of cultural exchanges, military exercises and even school trips. What it got your favourite psycho was an honourable mention on one of the anti-Nazi websites.

Whites are far more clever than the rest: The EU didn't ease up on Austrians because it suddenly began to respect their right to determine their own government, no. It was only after an investigating committee concluded that maintaining sanctions would stoke the very nationalism they were aimed at curbing that the EU retreated. The sanctions triggered a backlash amongst the Austrian public, which considered them an affront to the nation; they "triggered nationalistic feelings in Austria."

Both parties, being White, have brains and balls: The self-respecting Austrians reacted with anger, and the smart EU backed off to prevent a backlash. Now think of Hindus and the permanent communal-divisive-fundamentalist tag...

*****
Last Tuesday, The Indian Express carried a report titled "If at all, our dead bodies will return to Pak - Migrant Hindus" on the plight of seven Hindu families who arrived in Haryana from Leyya in Pakistan. The gist of their woes is summed up by: "If we go back, they will force us to convert to Islam... We've come on the pretext of meeting our relatives, but actually, we're saving our lives."

For those under the spell of the Pakistan-India People's Forum for Peace and Democracy (members: Teesta Setalvad, Dilip D'Souza), here are some of the facts revealed by the "Migrant Hindus": The Hindu dead have to be buried according to Muslim customs. Women and young girls have been abducted, forced to convert and then married off to Muslims. Hindu women are not allowed to touch water taps, and children are beaten up for playing with Muslim neighbours. The Hindu temple was destroyed. Forty of the 60 Hindu families in Leyya traded their religion in the hope of a better life, after which the conversion threats from maulvis *and* commoners alike increased for the remaining Hindus. They were never allowed to celebrate any Hindu festival, except at night and only at home. The Hindu life in Pakistan is so wretched that one "migrant" said, " Ab to sirf hamari lashen jayengi Pakistan."

As is my wont, I stripped the report and filed it away under the title "Hindu refugees from Pak speak out." And then I did a double-take... I had automatically tagged them as "refugees" - persons taking refuge, especially in a foreign country from war or persecution or natural disaster. But the news report mentioned "migrant" - a person who moves from one place of abode to another, especially to a different country. What a difference in perception! At no point did The Indian Express see these Hindus, who fled death at the hands of Islamic Pakistan, as refugees! Instead, the report pointed out that Siddhuram, "doesn't hesitate to indulge in his own bit of Muslim-bashing. 'I hate all Muslims now, even those in India,' he says." The man was shown as being communalistic...

Do I think that the reporter had no sympathy for the refugees? No. Otherwise the report wouldn't be so detailed, if it existed at all. The point I've been making ever since I started writing is this: It has been *ingrained* into the "secular" Press to always, always, discount Hindu feelings and trivialise the Hindu's predicament. The Press uses the limp and colourless "migrant" even for Kashmiri Pandits - who are, in fact, refugees from Islamic fundamentalism. These "migrants" haven't just changed locations of their own free will! They've been *forced* to migrate.

It's high time that Indians - especially Hindus - understand the nature of evil, of Islamic fundamentalism. India should be taking the issue of the ill-treatment of Hindu minorities in Pakistan to the UN and every other international body. Instead, just about everybody is on our case for the supposedly organised attacks on minorities. While Pakistan cries itself hoarse over the maltreatment of Kashmiri Muslims, India hasn't even once raised the all-too-real issue of human rights abuses by Pakistani Muslims against the Hindu minority. But then, which Bandar would step forward for such a cause...?

*****
On Thursday, the NY-based Human Rights Watch released a briefing which described extensive HR problems in India and included specific questions to be put to President Clinton and PM Hajpayee at a joint press conference. The suggested questions included:

  • Several prominent members of your party [BJP] have openly defended the actions of people who are accused of killing members of religious minorities, such as Christians and Muslims. Would you care to comment?
  • Why has the US government been silent on the Hindu-nationalist policies of the BJP and the BJP's close relations with extreme nationalist organizations which openly promote the creation of a Hindu nation?
  • Are you satisfied that the Indian government is doing enough to investigate and prosecute those responsible for attacks on Christians, Dalits, and other minorities?

    Try as I did, I could find no mention of Hindus killed at the hands of Christians and Muslims. Take the BBC's report of August 28, "Hindu preacher killed by Tripura rebels." The title should've been "Hindu preacher killed by Christian terrorists." Swami Shantikali Maharaj was killed by ten guerrillas of the National Liberation Front of Tripura who broke into his ashram and riddled him with bullets. The NLFT itself had declared that it would convert all tribes people of Tripura to Christianity. The majority of tribals are Hindus or Buddhists.

    Then there's the case of Abhilash, a popular RSS pracharak of Pandalgudi village in Tamil Nadu. Father Arulanandam, Jayaseelan and Victor promised Abhilash all the riches if he converted. On his refusal, Fr Arulanandam and 20 Christians thrashed him in the village market in full daylight. Then they took him to the police station and complained that Abhilash had brought a bomb to the church. The police conducted inquiries and released Abhilash. Hindu leaders - and the public - went to the police station to file an FIR against Fr Arulanandam and his gang. The sub-inspector lodged the complaint only after intervention from higher authorities (FIR No. 71/2000, dated 18-7-2000). So far, four Christians have been arrested. Abhilash is under treatment at the Madurai Government Hospital. Fr Arulanandam, Jayaseelan and Victor are absconding.

    Then there's the case of Father Victor Crasta who was gunned down by the NLFT at Bhalukcherra in North Tripura on July 25. Eh...? Uff, no, it's not a mistake. You see, Crasta was a Roman Catholic. The NLFT are Baptists. The principle is the same: Religious persecution.

    The HRW is oblivious when it comes to Hindus, but it's even more stringent when it comes to India. Last year, it called upon the five permanent members of the UN Security Council as well as India's trading partners to suspend all military aid and sales to India unless it provides greater accountability of HR abuses in Kashmir. Its report recommended that in the annual World Bank-sponsored donors meeting on India, the participant countries should publicly state that continued economic support for India should not be seen as support for India's policies.

    But on Pakistan's proxy war, the report called upon "the groups fighting security forces" to abide by HR norms. Apparently, "These groups should desist from using anti-personnel landmines." Now tell me, why does HRW advise "the groups fighting security forces" to shun only landmines??

    The HRW's October 1999 report was even worse. Written by an Indian dramatist (I did not make this up), it said that "India embarked on a policy of ethnic cleansing" and maintained that Delhi must prohibit surveys by district administrations to assess the activities and whereabouts of minority community members and leaders! Hunh? We may as well pass over the Lok Sabha to these dipweeds and bend over and open up.

    Now, I've got the low-down on HRW from an American of East European descent: "Despite its influence, HRW is not an impartial advocate. It often collects or adapts 'information' to suit its objectives. Its researchers aren't confused about India - they are deliberately presenting falsehoods and exaggerations - as they have done in other cases, like Kosovo. HRW itself is part of that elite, which includes government departments, foundations, NGOs and academics. It is not a association of 'concerned private citizens.' HRW board members include present and past government employees, and overlapping directorates link it to the major foreign policy lobbies in the US. Cynically summarised, it is a joint venture of George Soros and the State Department.

    "HRW is a tool of US/NATO. They helped destroy Yugoslavia and justified NATO intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo by demonizing the Serbs and ignoring terrorism by KLA (Muslim narcoterrorists), Bosnian Muslims, and Croats. HRW has circulated false stories about massacres that never happened or mass graves that turned up empty. HRW helped manufacture the war in Kosovo. Now we have two Islamic states - Bosnia and Kosovo - being established in Europe."

    One ethical tradition has become associated with the US, that includes the universal rights set out in its Constitution. In a sense, the US was "designed" as an interventionist power: interventionist HR orgs are a logical result. They express the belief of most US citizens, that their values are superior to all others. To maintain that character, HRW operates a number of discriminatory exclusions: Firstly, it is linguistically racist; although it publishes material in foreign languages to promote its views, the org itself is English-only. Secondly, the org discriminates on grounds of nationality. Its list of functionaries makes clear that non-Americans are excluded at board level. Thirdly, the org discriminates on grounds of social class. Again, the list makes clear that board members are recruited from the upper class and upper-middle class.

    Paul Treanor, who has extensively researched the org, writes: "HRW can therefore claim no ethical superiority. It is itself involved in practices it condemns elsewhere, such as discrimination in employment, and exclusion from social structures. It can also claim no neutrality. An organisation which will not allow a Serb or Somali to be a board member, can give no neutral assessment of a Serbian or Somali state. It would probably be impossible for an all-American, English-only elite organisation, to be anything else but paternalistic."

    Perceptions... perceptions... Dig deep enough and the truth will out. But, why would the Indian stooges of these dorks care...?

    Varsha Bhosle

  • Tell us what you think of this column
    HOME | NEWS | CRICKET | MONEY | SPORTS | MOVIES | CHAT | BROADBAND | TRAVEL
    ASTROLOGY | NEWSLINKS | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | GIFT SHOP | HOTEL BOOKINGS
    AIR/RAIL | WEDDING | ROMANCE | WEATHER | WOMEN | E-CARDS | EDUCATION
    HOMEPAGES | FREE MESSENGER | FREE EMAIL | CONTESTS | FEEDBACK