This is a must read. The world's largest democracy has just banned the latest edition of The Economist magazine. I have always said that western media, and especially the American-British media, or what I like to call the Am-Brit media, treats India with kid gloves.
I mean, imagine the world's largest democracy becoming home to 21st century's first genocide: over 2,000 Indians burned alive in a matter of three days for being followers of the wrong religion?
It happened, in 2002, in western Indian state of Gujrat. Did you hear about it? No. Did the world, the United Nations, or the EU take note? Not at all. Why? One reason is that those murdered were Muslims. But also because the culrpit in this case was India, a country that the United States is grooming to replace American and British soldiers in fighting their wars in regions close to India. Indian soldiers are cheap compared to the yanks and Brits. And there are plenty of them so India can absorb massive human losses. And thus India gets away with stuff that no other country would. For example, in 2000, two young boys, less than 10 years old, and their father, an Australian missionary, were burned alive by a mob of Hindu extremists and fundamentalists. Nothing could save the kids and their father, not even the fact that they spent months distributing food for free among poor Indians. Imagine this happening in China, or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, or Zimbabwe or Venezuela, or in any other country that Washington and London are not good friends with. But since this happened in India, no one knows about it. There wasn't even a whimper from Australia when three of its citizens were murdered in the most brutal way possible.
So it is significant when The Economist writes that Pakistan and China are not as bad when it comes to censorship as India is. And it is more significant when the BBC seconds The Economist and accuses India of harassing the BBC and other media outlets operating inside India.
I have been saying for some time now that Pakistan is more liberal and tolerant than India is. For five years or so of Composite Dialogue, we receved groups of private Indian citizens in Pakistan as part of the people-to-people exchange between the two countries. Pakistani delegations that would visit India would freely interact with India media, criticize Pakistani policies where necessary and call for peace. Surprisingly, we saw no such thing with the Indian delegations in Pakistan. They were all independent Indian activisits and citizens with no affiliation to Indian government, but they would dare not deviate from the official Indian position on any issue, be it Kashmir or concessions for peace. You could see they were all following the same talking points.
This and other points are explained in this excellent report titled, World's Largest Democracy Censors A British Magazine.
I mean, imagine the world's largest democracy becoming home to 21st century's first genocide: over 2,000 Indians burned alive in a matter of three days for being followers of the wrong religion?
It happened, in 2002, in western Indian state of Gujrat. Did you hear about it? No. Did the world, the United Nations, or the EU take note? Not at all. Why? One reason is that those murdered were Muslims. But also because the culrpit in this case was India, a country that the United States is grooming to replace American and British soldiers in fighting their wars in regions close to India. Indian soldiers are cheap compared to the yanks and Brits. And there are plenty of them so India can absorb massive human losses. And thus India gets away with stuff that no other country would. For example, in 2000, two young boys, less than 10 years old, and their father, an Australian missionary, were burned alive by a mob of Hindu extremists and fundamentalists. Nothing could save the kids and their father, not even the fact that they spent months distributing food for free among poor Indians. Imagine this happening in China, or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, or Zimbabwe or Venezuela, or in any other country that Washington and London are not good friends with. But since this happened in India, no one knows about it. There wasn't even a whimper from Australia when three of its citizens were murdered in the most brutal way possible.
So it is significant when The Economist writes that Pakistan and China are not as bad when it comes to censorship as India is. And it is more significant when the BBC seconds The Economist and accuses India of harassing the BBC and other media outlets operating inside India.
I have been saying for some time now that Pakistan is more liberal and tolerant than India is. For five years or so of Composite Dialogue, we receved groups of private Indian citizens in Pakistan as part of the people-to-people exchange between the two countries. Pakistani delegations that would visit India would freely interact with India media, criticize Pakistani policies where necessary and call for peace. Surprisingly, we saw no such thing with the Indian delegations in Pakistan. They were all independent Indian activisits and citizens with no affiliation to Indian government, but they would dare not deviate from the official Indian position on any issue, be it Kashmir or concessions for peace. You could see they were all following the same talking points.
This and other points are explained in this excellent report titled, World's Largest Democracy Censors A British Magazine.
I am sure Pakistan's press, and media generally, are far freerer than India's. However, a comment I made at your other website, ahmedquraishi.com, has been languishing in "moderation" for the past two days - this comment was made in response to Shireen Mazari's article on the attack on Mehran naval base.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, censoring and banning are two different things. India censored the Economist, not banned it. Nevertheless, it was a stupid thing for India to do, which made the government look petty and arbitary.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a lot of difference between censoring and banning. It is not entirely wrong in this case as allowing the distribution would have been counter to India's claim that Kashmir is Indian territory. And I would like to point out to the author that China bans any media publication which mentions any hint of "Tibetan independence" or "Chinese atrocities" in Tibet, don't believe me, ask Brad Pitt.....
ReplyDeleteBTW what exactly is the relation between being the "largest democracy" and censoring a foreign publication. I think democracy means the right to choose your representative to administer the country. This has nothing to do with censoring a foreign publication....
banning economist can't hide the truth it will sparkle some way or other
ReplyDelete