With a pinch of salt he could create a powerful movement. Gandhiji's keen interest in the well being of leprosy combatant Parchure Shastri has inspired generations of volunteers to join forces in the combat against leprosy and stigma.
Gandhiji came up with innovative solutions to solve man made problems. Others are coming up with brute force of weapons and ending up wasting man power, resources of nature and making fresh additions to the existing problems.
"Good", thats it?? Mr.Tutu, you are reknown international public figure, you can take a few more minutes if you like and come up with better description than "good"! And by the way, where is the "good" Dalai Lama now? Has he not failed the people of Tibet? Anyway, I cant complain too much because atleast Mr.Tutu has the sense not to mention Kashmir with SriLanka, Sudan etc.
RE:''Gandhi, Teresa, Mandela and Dalai Lama are 'good'''?
by kumar on Jan 31, 2007 06:52 AM Permalink
i think he meant good in a matter of speaking. I also agree that its good that he didnt mention Kashmir in the same breath as SL, Sudan, etc. Those are rogue nations that kill their citizens to implement a bhuddist (or islamic) nation without regard to a large indeginous population. I wish someone would do something about Darfur. Maybe Clooney will :)
Terrorist are defined as those who kill innocent people for their aim. So was ANC in South Africa terrorist, they were described as terrorist by the western world (at least by the US) but its ok for Polish people to fight back and kill when Germany invaded Poland, which would result in innocent German civilian deaths too. So how do we define a terrorist. Is LTTE a terrorist organization, because what other choice did they have after 30 years of peaceful demonstration, is IRA a terrorist organization (dont know much about IRA), etc, where there are perhaps situations where the government of the day discriminates a section of the people, like apartheid south africa. Was it ok for the SA government to kill blacks but not the other way around.
I would define Taliban a terrorist organization but its just as bad as another country invading another for no reason. I believe US had enough reason to invade Afghanistan but not all invasions are justified and in that case, who is a terrorist.
I guess terrorism is defined by who has the biggest propaganda machine and its a pity we fall for most of the propaganda.
RE:So what is a terrorist?
by kumar on Jan 31, 2007 04:12 AM Permalink
I would define LTTE as both terrorist organization in some cases and not in other cases. They do have a justified fight, and i can even understand why they took on India cause it was India who started fighting them first. Its the same in Kashmir, Pakistan started fighting us first, so we have the right to strike back.
However, there was no reason for them to blow up innocent civilians. Having said, that I would define the SL government the same because they do kill innocent civilians for the sake of Sinhala Bhuddism supremacy and perhaps their cause is even worse because as a government, they should have treated everyone equally in the first place.
I wish they would just stop bombing Hindu temples. Soon, India might be the only country with a substantial Hindu population.
RE:So what is a terrorist?
by JM on Jan 31, 2007 05:01 AM Permalink
Reg the comment on LTTE, be it 30 years or 300 years of peaceful demonstration. If an organization resorts to "indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians", then it is a terrorist organization period. LTTE has so far planned and killed 1000s of innocent civilians indiscriminately. So yes it is a terrorist organization.
RE:RE:RE:So what is a terrorist?
by JM on Jan 31, 2007 05:20 AM Permalink
Yes, SL govt has killed Tamil population living in SL indiscriminately. I consider it a terrorist govt as well (just as I consider Pakistan but maybe not to that degree)
RE:So what is a terrorist?
by JM on Jan 31, 2007 05:22 AM Permalink
Yes kumar. SL govt has killed Tamil population indiscriminately. It is definitely a terrorist govt (just like Pak govt but maybe to a lesser degree)
RE:RE:So what is a terrorist?
by kumar on Jan 31, 2007 06:50 AM Permalink
Given that SL is a terrorist government, we should proscribe it. Just as we must with a whole lot of countries. I hate it when we call some organization terrorist but don't say the same about the discriminatory government in the same breath.
We need to take the high road on this because we have treated our Kashmiri brothers as equal and then violence started at Pakistani instigation. This is not the case with Sudan, Sri Lanka, etc. We need proscribe all these terrorist countries. Have you seen what is happening in Darfur. I would not regret the day, some country will go into Sudan and bomb the government to pieces. But then again, noone cares, cause the dying are black, that is the world we live in. I wish India would do something about Sudan, such as mediate to stop the violence.
RE:RE:RE:So what is a terrorist?
by kumar on Jan 31, 2007 06:54 AM Permalink
Mr JM, i like your reasoning.
So I have one more question for you. if a people use non-violence to get equal rights and then they get crushed violently as happened in SL, should they never take up arms as the Tamils did. I am quite intersted in this as I am writing a paper terrorism in South Asia. Would love to hear your and others' opinion to my quesiton on whether a violently oppressed people have the right to take arms to defend themselves, especially against a well armed government force.
VHP etc say that muslims want to harm hindus and Maulvis say that hindus want to hurt muslims. Such a tough situation when both struggled together for India's freedom. How to resolve this identity problem that is caused by Religion ? Should we create a new religion where prophets of all religions are worshipped ? Probably there will be no such conflict.
I guess Mr. Tutu has understood the message from Gandhiji wrongly. Gandhiji fought injustice using non-violence. Not the other way around. If terrorists adopted non-voilence (ironic - they wouldn't be called terrorists if they do), they could have acheived their ends of justice being done. Tutu should preach the terrorists, otherwise, Gandhian values will fail and terror would succeed and will stand justified to get their ends met.
Gandhian values have too simplistic for some people to use it anyway they like.
RE:Gandhiji's message is wrongly understood
by Neelum Gour on Jan 31, 2007 03:20 AM Permalink
well I disagree with you in this context as the real terror perpetrated during the indian freedom struggle was by the British Administration against the people of this country and Gandhi had reiterated the stand that means cannot justify the ends and that truth and non-violence is the only way forward. During World War 2 when Germany invaded Poland one of his statements were that in conditions where the women and children of my country are threatened and there is no other way then violence will be the last resort and I will be the first one to pick up the weapon against the perpretrator. Violence is the last resort not the first, it is the weapon of the weak not the strong. Terrorists are weak therefore they use violence, weak in spirit and weak in morals. But if we resort to the same tactics we are not different than them. But if they continue and don't talk, if they are adamant on destroying every human soul out there then violence against terrorist should be the last resort. I completely agree with Desmond Tutu in this point and I feel honoured that I live in a country where apostles of peace like Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa walked, a place where the Dalai Lama resides. I feel proud to be an Indian and of the fact that truth and non-violence is embedded in our civilization for the past 5000 years and we should'nt forget or nullify this fact. Amit.
Hi, When a radicals behead a cow, India cannot behead a Pig or worship a Pig, both are damage to India. We need to find other ways to tackle the enemy. Softness w/ strong message will help india win the war aganist terrorism. Terrorism are caused by supressness, example SL. But some terrorism india facing is not due to supression of people, it is because of over softnessness. Now you understand the root cause of terrorism.
