|
Selected Writings by
Sachi Sri Kantha
What Narasimhan Ram Should Understand
11 July 2006
This commentary is a response to the head editorial which appeared in the
Chennai Hindu
newspaper of June 29th 2006, under the caption ‘What Balasingham should
understand’. If delivering political spin is the preoccupation of American mass
media, and if providing entertainment by ‘yarase’ [staged events] to the
gullible Japanese is the norm of Japanese TV, I’d unhesitatingly say that kink
dancing is the speciality of Indian mass media. I should know since I have been
an observer of Indian print and visual media for 45 years and counting.
My desk dictionary defines the noun kink in four projections; (1) an abrupt
bend, curl, loop, or tangle in a line, wire, hair, etc. (2) a mental quirk (3) a
bizarre practice or preference, esp.sexual (4) a painful muscular spasm. The
recent pedantic wailing in the Indian media about the ‘regret’ extended by LTTE
idealogue Anton Balasingham relating to Rajiv Gandhi assassination of 1991 is a
good example of kink dancing by Indian journalists which demonstrates the four
projections of the noun kink. I’ll dissect the wailing message published in the
Hindu editorial of June 29th.
That the editorialist (in all probabilities, Narasimhan Ram) of the Hindu
newspaper has a kinky fetish to LTTE is unchallenged. That he twists and
exaggerates Balasingham’s use of the word ‘regret’ relating to Rajiv Gandhi
assassination as a ‘confession’ beyond imagination is also markedly noticeable.
Either the editorialist is ignorant of how the word ‘regret’ had been used in
diplomatese English or (in his kinky wishful thinking), is merely engaged in the
back-scratching role of pleasing the current leader of the Congress Party, Sonia
Gandhi (Rajiv Gandhi’s widow). That Narasimhan Ram once aimed his arrows at
Rajiv Gandhi (the naïve Indian prime minister of 1984-1989), only to deflate his
braggadocio for the sake of his House of Hindu publishing empire is a good tale
of journalistic turn-coatism. See the appendix below for a brief report on
blackmailing and symbiosis between the Indian politicians and print media.
On the use of ‘regret’ in political diplomacy
The recent use of ‘regret’ word by Anton Balasingham should be understood in
it proper context. What is despicable is the kinking of Balasingham’s use of the
‘regret’ word for political mischief by the Indian media and its appendages like
the Asian Tribune blog sites. From my archives, I have culled and provide below
five past examples of the use of ‘regret’ word in incidents relating to Indo-Sri
Lankan incidents and events.
The killing of Indian pilgrim S.Dhanabathy in Sri Lanka in 1981
“An Indian was killed by an unknown assailant while he was on his way
back to Colombo on Sunday along with 42 others after a pilgrimage to the
holy shrine of Kataragama. The victim, S.Dhanabathy, of Madras was
reportedly hacked to death while he was sitting in a barber’s chair at
Tissamaharama for a shave…Th President J.R.Jayewardene, telephoned the High
Commissioner, Mr.Thomas Abraham, to convey his condolences. The Foreign
Minister, Mr.Shahul Hameed, also telephoned Delhi and spoke to the External
Affairs Minister, Mr.P.V.Narasimha Rao, to express his regret…” [‘Indian
pilgrim murdered in Lanka’, Indian Express, Aug.25, 1981, p.1]
Does this mean that Shahul Hameed made a ‘confession’ about Sinhalese
atrocity on a Tamil Nadu pilgrim?
J.R.Jayewardene’s purported regret in 1981
“He [Jayewardene] said: ‘I regret that some members of my party have
spoken both in and out of Parliament words that encourage violence. How many
of our party leaders have spoken against the recent acts of violence? What
is the example we, as members of governing party, are setting to our
followers and to the rest of the country men?” [‘Jayewardene threatens to
quit’, The Hindu, Sept.6, 1981, p.1]
Does this mean that the then President Jayewardene sincerely made a
confession to the Eelam Tamils on the weakness of some members of his party to
encourage violence?
J.R.Jayewardene’s much delayed radio address in 1983
“…It was [President Junius] Jayewardene’s first major [nationwide radio]
address since violence erupted last Saturday when Tamil terorists ambushed
and killed 3 soldiers in Jaffna. At least 58 other people have been killed
around the country since then, mostly in retaliatory attacks by Sinhalese
against Tamils. Jayewardene said he was speaking with ‘deep regret and
sorrow’, and was very distressed over the ‘deep mistrust and suspicions’
between the two communities…” [‘Sri Lankan president moves to ban the Tamil
separatist party’, Asahi Evening News, Tokyo, July 29, 1983, p.2]
Did the then President Jayewardene really make a confession with his ‘deep
regret and sorrow’?
The diplomatic row between New Delhi and Colombo in 1984 within weeks of
Rajiv Gandhi’s ascent to prime ministership
“…Although he has dismissed as ‘ridiculous’ suggestions that an Indian
invasion was planned, [Rajiv] Gandhi accused Sri Lankan troops of
‘indiscriminate killings’ and said that there had been ‘heavy losses of
innocent lives in the North and the East’. He added that Indian fishermen
too, had been under attack in the narrow Palk Strait separating the two
countries.
Colombo, embittered by the conviction that the northern terrorism has
assumed its current frightening proportions because of the sympathy and
support the terrorist guerillas receive from the Indian state of Tamil Nadu,
18 miles across the water from the island’s northern tip, responded angrily
to the Indian prime minister’s statement. Foreign Minister Shahul Hameed
expressed Sri Lanka’s ‘regret and dismay’ over the Gandhi statement, saying:
‘Its language, toneand substance can only encourage the terrorists and their
supporters both in India and in Sri Lanka to further pursue their nefarious
activities’…[‘A package for peace’, Far Eastern Economic Review, Dec.27,
1984, pp.24-25]
This was when, Rajiv Gandhi as a neophyte to his role as the Indian prime
minister pissed off the Sri Lankan government and Shahul Hameed had to express
‘regret and dismay’. What is the meaning of ‘regret’ in this context? The
problem with Rajiv Gandhi was that he later allowed himself to be manipulated by
India’s lousy bureaucrats. journalist fakers of diplomacy like N.Ram, inept
military advisors and intelligence gumshoes, who were too clever by half in
cross-country diplomacy.
India’s turn to drivel in ‘regret’ in 1985
“India today conveyed its regret to Sri Lanka that the President
J.R.Jayewardene, should have again leveled charges about the existence of
terrorist training camps in Tamil Nadu despite repeated denials by New
Delhi. This was stated by a spokesman of the External Affairs Ministry when
his attention was drawn to the charges made in the Sri Lankan parliament
yesterday…” [‘JRJ charge: India conveys regret’, Times of India, Feb.22,
1985]
By N.Ram’s recent interpretation of the word ‘regret’, did India apologise to
Sri Lanka in 1985 for RAW-sponsored the training camps in Tamil Nadu?
On India’s role and Hindu newspaper’s sclerosis
As per Ram’s assertion on June 26th, “Given the circumstances, India cannot
play any direct role in Sri Lanka’s peace process.” On the face value, I’d state
that this is a denial of political reality. Even after Rajiv Gandhi’s
assassination in 1991, India has been playing a direct role in Sri Lanka’s peace
process, via its gumshoes who manipulate its Tamil puppets who have lost
currency among the Eelam Tamils. Can Ram deny this? Even if Ram pretends to turn
a blind-eye, the Sinhalese media who are antagonistic to LTTE’s interests have
consistently highlighted the destabilising role played by India’s gumshoes.
Ram also has gloated that “It can be added that The Hindu has, over the past
half century, shared this perspective and consistently championed the cause of
the Tamils of the island within this just and anti-secessionist framework.” This
only shows, how much sclerosis had infested the nervous system of the Hindu
newspaper. The geography maps of 1950s and 1960s have become outdated now.
Bangladesh was born in 1971 and Ram should remember who played the midwife role
in its birth. Soviet Union had splintered in early 1990s. The federated state of
Yugoslavia had disappeared in early 2000s. And only the senile dimwits who
manage the Hindu newspaper think that what was good for the Eelam Tamils in the
1950s should prevail in the 2000s.
Appendix: Gandhi’s Watergate?
[courtesy: Newsweek magazine, October 23, 1989, p.42]
This time, Rajiv Gandhi may be in real trouble. His problem is an arms-sale
scandal that first came to light in 1987, when it was alleged that a Swedish
manufacturer, Bofors, had bribed Indian politicians and government officials
in order to obtain a $1.4 billion contract for field artillery. Back then,
the Indian prime minister hunkered down and rode out the storm, as he had
done in previous scandals. But last week an independent Indian newspaper,
The Hindu, began to print documents suggesting that Gandhi’s administration
and Bofors had engaged in an extensive cover-up to conceal the identities of
some bribe-takers. With a national election due before the end of the year,
many Indians are referring to the scandal as Rajiv Gandhi’s Watergate.
After publishing its first instalment on the new charges, The Hindu suddenly
dropped the subject. The paper’s associate editor, Narasimhan Ram, 45,
walked out of the building and accused the editor, his uncle, of spiking
subsequent stories in response to government pressure, including personal
requests to drop the story and the withdrawal of official advertising. The
uncle denied the charge. But Ram showed the suppressed documents containing
cover-up details to other Indian newspapers as well as to Newsweek.
Previously, Gandhi insisted that he never asked Bofors to act through
middlemen or pay commissions on the arms deal. The Hindu’s documents show
that Bofors did pay kickbacks, most of them through a Swiss-registered
company called Moresco. Ram said the documents would help Indian
investigators trace the people behind Moresco. There is a widespread belief
in the Indian press that those people may include relatives of Gandhi.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the government’s apparent cloaking of the
scandal can only hurt Gandhi with the voters.
|
