India, with a population of over one
billion souls, has obviously some fools, some big-mouths and even some
intolerant individuals. But in my 41 years in this country, I always
experienced a very, very tolerant country
In India, one debate follows
another; the latest is about ‘tolerance’. I never really understood what this
‘tolerance’ issue was about. It appeared rather to be a new ideology for
settling political scores, but after it culminated in a ‘national’ debate
in Parliament, I became more curious.
The dictionary says that it is “a
fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, beliefs,
practices, racial or ethnic origins, etc., differ from one’s own.” It also
means “the act or capacity of enduring”.
There is, however, something strange
in the current wave. A bunch of ‘eminent intellectuals’ started returning
national awards. It is odd because these type of awards are usually given by a
state (specifically India in this case) for meritorious actions or behaviour;
they are not presented by a particular political party (they are usually given
by the President of India at the Rashtrapati Bhavan); so, why return an award
to the state simply because one is not happy with the present Government? It
does not make sense. The only explanation is that these ‘eminent intellectuals’
were not aware that it was not the present-day Government which honoured them,
but the nation.
In my country of origin, France, The
Legion d’Honneur is conferred by the President of the French Republic, who is
the Grand Master of the Order. It is said that this highest award should not be
asked for, should not be refused and should not be returned. For a Cartesian
mind, it seems logical; but it is probably not so for the ‘eminent’ Indian
intellectuals. However, it does not mean that ‘intolerance’ does not exist in
India and elsewhere in the world. However, in any such debate, it is important
to avoid double standards. Today, we are witnessing this, particularly when it
concerns China.
Take a recent post on the UN
official Weibo account in China: The UN Committee Against Torture questioned
China insistently over issues such as judicial independence and the use of
‘black jails’.
Responding to the post, Xu Xin, a
professor in the law school at the Beijing Institute of Technology, affirmed:
“So, what punishment should the United Nations get for improperly discussing
China’s legal system?”
A lawyer, Yang Junfeng, added: “My
solemn advice is that we detain and interrogate the UN Secretary General for
having the impudence to improperly discuss the policies of the Central Party.”
Does this happen in India? No. The
China Media Project, an organisation based in Hong Kong, says that it
“symbolises the Communist Party’s intolerant attitude toward dissenting views
under the leadership of President Xi Jinping”. The term ‘improper discussion of
the policies of the Party’, after being included in the Party’s new
Disciplinary Regulations released on October 21, triggered a short-lived debate
in China, before being ‘deleted’.
According to Article 46 of the
Regulations, “Improper discussion of the fundamental policies of the Central
Party authorities, causing damage to the centralism and unity of the Party,
will in serious cases result in expulsion from the Party.” A number of other
‘improper discussions’ are cited.
Now take Anastasia Lin, the winner
of Miss World Canada; she was barred from boarding her flight from Hong Kong to
Hainan, to participate in this year's Miss World contest. Why? Simply because
Lin had dared to speak about China’s human rights abuses. After her ban, she
told The New York Times that she was not entirely surprised. “I have every
right to be at that event. It’s kind of sad. …What could they possibly be so
afraid of?”
The Chinese Embassy in Ottawa
explained: “China welcomes all lawful activities organised in China by
international organisations or agencies, including the Miss World pageant. But
China does not allow any persona non grata to come to China.” Nobody protested.
A report (in Chinese) from Studies
in Ideological Education, a publication of China’s Education Ministry, recently
suggested that “big data” could be used to track the political views of
university students. Prepared by the propaganda department of a university in
Chengdu, it advocated creating a “political ideology database” that pulls data
from library records, surveys, social media, and other sources to collect
“quantifiable, accurate, and personalised information” and “improve the
effectiveness of ideological education”.
The report further reveals:
“Collecting and analysing data on ideological behavior, can reveal trends in
students’ thinking and values, as well as the social issues they are paying
attention to.” Earlier, Big Brother used the flawed logic of experience and
intuition. Now it is scientifically done! Have you heard any intellectual
protesting?
Their ideological leanings perhaps
make them look at China as a great example for India to follow.
A couple of days ago, Reuters
reported that, according to Chinese officials, the Barkhor area in Lhasa, which
witnessed serious unrest in Spring 2008, has become “one of the safest places
in China”, though an official explains that it is thanks to a sophisticated
on-the-ground surveillance network.
Reuters gave some details: “Guard
posts erected among shops and in courtyards around the Jokhang Temple in Lhasa
watch the comings and goings of residents. The posts are manned by locals who
are selected by the residents’ management committee [of the party], though some
appeared to
be unstaffed.” A year ago, the
Chinese Government has set up a ‘grid management surveillance system’ using
Tibetans to watch fellow Tibetans; it explains that Beijing is now able to
manage the Tibetans “without gaps, without blind spots, without blanks”.
Choedrak, the Lhasa Party Secretary
confirmed: “This is a Chinese specialty, where the masses participate in
managing and controlling society and they also enjoy the results of managing
their society.” Examples could be multiplied. It is not only the
‘intellectuals’ who should be blamed. Phunchog Stobdan, a former Indian
Ambassador and scholar, wrote a piece in the Sunday Guardian entitled, ‘World
is ditching the Dalai Lama’: “The global political scenario is amazingly
changing in China’s favour. Nowhere is this so symptomatic than the way Beijing
is able to win the war against its arch-enemy the Dalai Lama. It appears
Beijing has finally managed to pin the Tibetan leader down by deploying every
political prowess and economic arsenal to constrict his global outreach. …The
leaders in the West …are abandoning him one by one.” In today’s world, when
China is concerned, tolerance has become everybody’s mantra. This is the real
tragedy.
India, with a population of over one
billion souls, has obviously some fools, some big-mouths and even some
intolerant individuals, but in my 41 years in this country, I always
experienced a very, very tolerant country, only a bit too tolerant to
corruption and dirt.
No comments:
Post a Comment