Tibetans or harming them by giving instructions to China and secondly, the possible action which the United Nations can take against China. But there is no doubt that the Dalai Lama has repeatedly expressed an earnest desire to find a peaceful solution to the Tibetan problem — by initiating talks with the Chinese government. China should benefit from this and try to find a peaceful solution to this problem,” it said.

National Herald group’s Qaumi Awaz, in an editorial on March 24, charged the US with using and subsequently discarding many leaders including Osama Bin Laden for breaking the Soviet Union, and said, “America is overlooking the historical fact that neither the Dalai Lama is Gorbachev who may set his own Lanka on fire nor are conditions in China similar to those in the Soviet Union enabling America to succeed in breaking China by using the Dalai Lama”.

Jamaat-e-Islami’s mouthpiece, bi-weekly Daawat, on March 22 wrote, “The problem of Tibet is there for many decades. But the ‘contractors of establishing global peace’ (‘qayam-e-aman ke aalami thekedar’) cannot even think of saying or doing anything in this regard, because China is a big power... As far as India is concerned, it has indeed given shelter to the Dalai Lama and his followers but it has also recognised Tibet as a part of China.” Kolkata and Delhi-based Akhbar-e-Mashriq on March 24 has gone to the extent of saying that “India is under China’s influence and it has closed its eyes to China even though, unlike China, India has a democratic system of governance that guarantees independence and sovereignty.” It pointed out that India did help Bangladesh and Nepal in their movements for democracy, something it is not doing for Tibet.

Delhi-based Hamara Samaj on the same day wrote that the Dalai Lama himself was against complete independence for Tibet. The Tibetan Bhikkus’ struggle for independence would not succeed without a change of leadership, it opined.

Real democracy?

Delhi-based Hindustan Express, in an editorial on March 24, raised the question whether the new dispensation in Pakistan heralds ‘real democracy.’ It wrote that President Pervez Musharraf should have accepted defeat and relinquished his office — if he were to be true to his professed urge for democracy. Instead, “there were secret meetings with Asif Zardari, Nawaz Sharif was cleverly managed (‘sheeshey mein utara gaya’), a game was played to isolate Makhdoom Amin Faheem and now, according to a secret understanding, the act of forming a new government has been started.” Writing about the newly elected prime minister, Makhdoom Syed Yusuf Raza Gillani, Hamara Samaj (March 25) said that now Sindhis have been ignored and a Punjabi leader has been anointed. Pakistan has always been dominated by Punjabis but following Benazir Bhutto’s assassination it was believed that Sindhis would be given primacy following the National Assembly elections. It opined that Gillani might be able to contain terrorist activity on the Afghan border as he comes from an influential ‘jagirdar’ family of Multan and is connected with a ‘khanqah’ that has a large following in Afghanistan.

Advani writes back

L.K. Advani’s autobiography and his various statements elucidating its contents have attracted some sharp reactions. Qaumi Awaz, in an editorial on March 25, asked, “Did Advani not enjoy the confidence of Vajpayee?” It highlighted Advani’s confessions in his ‘Walk the Talk’ interview in which he claimed that he had been kept in the dark about the high-level bargaining with the hijackers of the Indian Airlines plane in 1999. The editorial says, “Throwing the principle of collective responsibility to the wind, he confessed that he was kept uninformed about the then External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh being sent to Kandahar with the freed hijackers”.

Delhi-based Jadeed Khabar, in its editorial (March 21) entitled ‘Advani’s Autobiography’, wrote that even Vajpayee was in favour of action against Chief Minister Narendra Modi following the Gujarat riots. But there was only one person against any such action — L.K. Advani, the then home minister and deputy prime minister. “It would have actually been surprising if Advani had claimed that he had supported

action against Modi who was responsible for the Gujarat riots”, the paper said.