I was perplexed at reading the recent article by N. Ram, “The Hindu” Editor-in-chief regarding Tibet’s status under China. I do understand that Ram is a committed communist and that every individual has his right for expression (I wonder whether I can say the same under communist China). But for me it is hard to buy his view that Tibet is much better under Communist China rather than to be a sovereign nation. Mr. Ram puts forth couple of argument
1.Tibet has prospered under China
2.Tibet is secluded from China that it still holds its distinctiveness and that normal Chinese don’t want to move to Tibet.
Well, it looks like Mr. Ram has taken leaf from British imperialism. The British sincerely believed that by ruling countries like India and China they were doing a favor to natives. What Australian government has done for Aborigines and what the Canadian did to Indians in their land are similar to what Mr. Ram is proposing. Quoting economical prosperities successive government has kidnapped young kids and put them in foster homes to give them Western education. Now will Mr. Ram argue the same way in these cases?
If a person from West proposes an idea such as Ram’s, I could understand but for a guy who was born in India to propose an idea such as this truly baffles me. If normal Chinese don’t want anything to do with Tibet then why does Chinese government still holding them? India could very well use the same argument as the Chinese and invade countries such as Burma, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan and even Afghanistan because technically British ruled the entire region under its “Raj”. So will Mr. Ram propose that idea too?
Being a loyal Communist is all good but using such idiotic arguments such as economical prosperities and other such schemes to crush people’s freedom is utter nonsense.