Skip to main content

Suu Kyi, Rohingya, Oxford and Hypocrisy

#Britain (and a lot of other nations are) condemning the Myanmar Army, Administration and the Nations for the Rohingya crisis.
Myanmar is Buddhist majority nation. Buddhists are by far the most peace loving religion in the world. What is forcing the most peace-loving religion to take such drastic action? 
The world media is showing pictures of miserable families and children of the refugees and writing stories of atrocities on them. The refugees would love playing victims. Narrate stories that may not have even happened. After all they want is sympathy. They would never talk about what they as a community have done to anger the nation and a peaceful community.

Oxford University dropped Noble Peace Prize winner Suu Kyi from common room's name ( as she had not been able to stop (the so called) atrocities on Rohingya community and the blatant Human rights violation. Myanmar is trying to solve their internal problems, forced to take extreme measures by those playing victim now. And the British and Oxford conscience awakens to Human Rights. Where was their conscience when they invaded almost every country in the world (a telegraph article states there are only 22 countries that Britain didn't invade). They ruled (read enslaved) 70 plus countries for centuries, mass murdering any resistance that rose its head or asked for freedom from British empire. A nation with such a history talking about Human Rights is such a sham.

 If Britain is really concerned about the condition of Rohingyas; being an economic might (and having plundered the wealth of hundreds of nations it invaded and enslaved); it is welcome to send aircraft to the poor and developing countries like Bangladesh, India etc, where these refugees are flooding to and take them to Britain. Provide them political asylum, food and shelter, not just lip service.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Virtual Greeting, Social Celebration and Real Relations

Facebook greeted me with a message, as the year came to a close.  Do I care?  Obviously Not. My year ended pretty good, even with this note from Facebook.   But, Should you care? Real World Connections. I have close to 2000 friends on Facebook. All of whom I have met, most I fondly interact whenever I meet. (Few are mere acquaintances). The number would have been greater if all my friends were on Facebook and connected. I have made friends in real life and later connected with them on Facebook. The friends on my list are from my School days, College, Band of Brothers from the Armed Forces, Training academies, various courses I've attended, people with whom I've served in various tenures. My batch mates from MBA. Colleagues from the companies I've worked with. Neighbours from places I've stayed at. Friends with whom I've gone on trips. My students, participants and trainers- from the trainings I've attended and imparted. Friends I made on var
1 comment
Read more

New Year Resolutions are for the Fickle Minded

It's good to make and keep resolutions. Today is 1st Jan 2018. More than half the world would make New Year Resolution (NYR). Most will fail. The very practice is conceptually flawed. The Tradition. The history goes back to the Babylonians & the Romans, who vowed on a day or during a specific period, to do something through the year. The vows were made to the Gods; entailed a much bigger commitment. The New Year Resolution. In Modern times, as part of NYR, we commit to ourselves (or family) to start or to stop doing something. The most common resolutions are:- Stay Healthy Lose weight Enjoy life to fullest Save more Spend more time with family/friend Few lesser talked NYRs; which constitute a high percentage; are giving up habits like Drinking, smoking, and other more dangerous substances. Simple Observation. I haven't made any NYR but do indulge in physical activity regularly. Mostly a sport or jog, sometimes both. I am in Abu Dhabi for a few day
Post a Comment
Read more

Journalism and Activism or Intellectual Terrorism

Sometime back- before the COVID-19 caught everybody's attention, I met an American journalist/activist at one of the premier education institute. Throughout the conversation (where I was on the sidelines- as I had gone to meet some faculty), the active participants - the faculty, research associates and PhD candidates were giving him inputs. Being a journalist, he was taking meticulous notes. He was visiting India and reporting a few things, supporting activists and causes. But what??? There were only 3 topics on which he was asking questions and seeking opinions. Ram Mandir verdict, Citizenship Amendment Act and Rafael deal. This may have been okay- had he been genuinely seeking opinions. He had visited Ayodhya the week before and was narrating his experiences. Within a few minutes, I understood that he was primarily seeking anti views only. He was out rightly rejecting/ignoring any views otherwise. Needless to say, the audience (maybe awed by white skin and accent- lot of us
Post a Comment
Read more