Bhutia strikes goal

Bhaichung Bhutia scored a goal for all freethinking Indians as he refused to carry the Olympic torch through Delhi, protesting against the Chinese treatment of Tibetans. This, he said, was his way of standing by the people of Tibet and their struggle, and his abhorrence of violence in any form. Some may disagree with him, and in an open society they are absolutely entitled to. But Bhutia8217;s action underlines a new phenomenon in India. An Indian public figure who speaks his mind is a rarity in our bland, inoffensive and ideologically blank celebrity culture. Unlike in, say, the US our movie stars and sports icons are never anti-establishment, even when it might clearly help their own PR machines if they mouthed a few platitudes about a 8216;humanitarian8217; issue. Bhutia8217;s principled opposition is laudable for being both brave and unmotivated.

China8217;s human rights record vis-a-vis Tibet and its complicity in human rights violations across the world, including Darfur, have drawn fire from world leaders and celebrities. Artistic advisor Steven Spielberg pulled out of the whole gig, and many more such protests are bound to follow even though it is tactically difficult for many countries to officially condemn China. But even as foreign policy realpolitik often forces stands that run counter to the people8217;s conscience, a real democracy registers their protest. In 2003, the streets of London were a carnival of anti-war dissent even as Tony Blair and George Bush solidified their pact over the invasion of Iraq. The Anglo-American alliance eventually did what it had to 8212; but even as the invasion went awry, it was manageable because the governments had been put through the stringent process of being answerable to their people. And despite all the mockery of showbiz dissent and the range of motives behind the magazine-shot of a crusading celebrity, the fact remains that in a society of spectacle, these people have genuine galvanising power.

From Paris 1968 to Vietnam, civil society has taken on the barricades and raised hell. Many around the world found comfort in American resistance to its own government8217;s excesses. As the following editorial argues, governments have to weigh national interests against pure principles. But in striking the right balance, governments benefit from the engaged dissent of their people. For all China8217;s military might and economic clout, its awesomely orchestrated society and its hold over its citizens, Bhutia8217;s solitary act shows the humane accommodations democracies allow. But most of all, his action is a challenge to fellow Indians so wary of taking a stand on any issue.