To
The Editor,
“Global Times”
Beijing.
Sir,
I read with interest a commentary by Lin Xu, in
your edition of December 30,2012, making some negative remarks about the state
of India as a liberal democracy in the wake of the widespread public protests,
particularly by the students of Delhi against the gang-rape of a 23-year-old
girl in a private bus on the night of December 16,2012.
2. There has been considerable public outrage all
over India, particularly in Delhi, over this incident which illustrates the
increase in crime against women, the inability and incompetence of the police
in dealing with it effectively and the insensitivity of the political
leadership in responding to the outrage.
3.One saw a similar student upsurge in the Tiananmen
Square of Beijing in June 1989 caused by allegations of widespread political
corruption and lack of democratic rights. The response of the authorities of
democratic India and the one-party Chinese dictatorship to the two student
protests differed qualitatively.
4. The Delhi police imposed curbs on student
protests in certain areas sensitive from the VIP security point of view such as
the Vijay Chowk and used force mainly in the form of tear-smoke and long bamboo
sticks called lathis to prevent protests in these areas. Outside these areas,
the students were free to demonstrate wherever they wanted. Both Indian and
foreign media freely covered the protests in the restricted as well as
non-restricted areas. The Army was not used. No martial law was proclaimed. There
was only one death in the confrontation between the police and the students---that
of a policeman.
5. As against this, to deal with the student
upsurge in Beijing, the Army was called and a Martial Law was proclaimed. The
Army used tanks to disperse the students. Till today, neither the Chinese people
nor foreign media have an authentic account of the number of students killed by
the tanks and other units of the Chinese army.
6.The Government of China banned any reference to
the Tiananmen Square upsurge by the media or social media networks. The Chinese
authorities projected it as a non-event to which there should be no reference
in any discussion or articles.
7.That is the difference between democratic India
and authoritarian China. In India, 65 years after our independence, we still
have many serious deficiencies---political, administrative, economic and
social. We are concerned over them, but we do not push them under the carpet. We
freely admit them, criticize our leaders and officials for them, project them
in our media and protest in public over them without any fear that we may find
ourselves in jail for doing so. Can anyone in authoritarian China do so? The day
you allow your people the right to do so, you will have the moral right to criticize
India, but not now.
8. Permit me to cite another example of the qualitative
difference between democratic India and
authoritarian China. Last year, the “ Washington Post” published a highly
negative article on Dr.Manmohan Singh, the Indian Prime Minister, sent by its
correspondent in New Delhi. There was considerable anger in Indian official
circles over the article, but the correspondent did not have to suffer any
negative consequences for writing that article. The Indian media and opposition
political parties, which have been unhappy over the functioning of Dr.Manmohan
Singh, freely disseminated the article. The Government did not try to prevent
them from doing so.
9. During the same period, the “New York Times”
carried an investigative report on the wealth of some family members of Chinese
Prime Minister Wen Jiabao. There has been an unadmitted ban on the
dissemination of this article inside China. The Chinese Government has not
extended the visa of the NY Times correspondent who sent this report, thereby
forcing him to leave China.
10.There has been increasing pressure from the
Internet generation in China for greater political reforms with an end of the
single-party dictatorship and the introduction of a multi-party democracy. The
Tahrir Square uprising in Egypt has added to Chinese fears that the younger
generation in China has not forgotten and forgiven the Tiananmen Square massacre and wants
genuine democracy and political reforms, the key demands of the 1989
generation.
11.Your paper, which is the voice of the Communist
Party of China, has, therefore, been trying to project the student outrage in
Delhi as indicating the dangers of the imperfections of Indian-style democracy
and social deficiencies. Your tactics is unlikely to succeed.
12. It is India’s free and open despite imperfect society
and style of democracy that will ultimately succeed. ( 2-1-13)
Yours sincerely,
B.Raman
Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat,
Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical
Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies.
E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com .Twitter: @SORBONNE75 )
