Rohingya Hypocrisy

The Organiser, calling the Rohingya “illegal immigrants”, seems to open the debate on the communities from which India should accept refugees.

Updated: September 27, 2017 12:41:23 am
Rohingya muslim community, rohingya violence, India on Rohingya refugees, Myanmar Rohingya community, Rohingya infiltration, indian express news  The Organiser, calling the Rohingya “illegal immigrants”, seems to open the debate on the communities from which India should accept refugees. (File Photo)

Based on the Union government’s affidavit filed in the Supreme Court last week, in which the government made it clear that it sees the Rohingya refugees in India as a threat to the national security, the editorials of both Panchajanya and Organiser are focused on the issue. The Organiser, calling the Rohingya “illegal immigrants”, seems to open the debate on the communities from which India should accept refugees.

It says, “Bharat certainly has the civilisational tradition of sheltering all the persecuted from the world and Jews and Parsees are classic examples of that.” But, it shouldn’t mean that the country can “allow people who have tendency to feed on perceived deprivation and exploitation and using it for demographic and political domination, if necessary through violent means.” It talks about the “fundamentalists creating havoc” in Malda in West Bengal, and evokes the “still fresh” memories of Azad Maidan “ ransacking” in 2012, by the “same illegal migrants”.

Panchajanya says the Rohingya in India are “ghuspaithiye” — infiltrators or illegal migrants. It focuses more on the reaction of certain sections of the society who are sympathetic to the humanitarian crisis. It says the melting hearts of politicians in their support to Rohingya is ignoring even terrorism.

“Among those who are displaying humanitarianism towards infiltrators,” and those who remind the about the unity of the world, you will find the same faces “whose humanitarianism was dripping” for Afzal Guru, but are stone-hearted towards the Kashmiri Hindus, who are refugees in their own nation. Commenting further, the editorial says, “This country is watching the secular politics salivating for a new vote bank that is is eager to devour the rights of its own citizens.”

Media Ethics

Panchanjanya has an article that also starts with a focus on the Rohingya. Titled, ‘Intent in the ring of doubt’, the piece starts by saying, “As was expected, a large section of the media has adopted an anti-India stand on the issue of Rohingya Muslims.” This time too, it says, NDTV is the leader of this crowd. Those who used to make fun of our culture are now teaching us about “vasudhaiv kutumbakam” or the “global family”.

The author wonders that the same members of the media had claimed that Muslims in India were being tortured, are suddenly calling the country safe for Rohingya Muslims. Naming several media outlets including The Indian Express and The Economic Times, the article says that some are trying to project that India is a country of refugees, others are trying to create sympathy for the Rohingya with their photographs. Media’s job is not to just oppose, it also needs to bring out the true picture of events and report facts, the article argues.


Organiser compares United Nations Sustainable Development Goals to Deendayal Upadhyaya’s “antyodaya” programme. “‘Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development’ adopted at the 2015 UN Summit has all the tenets that Pt Deendayal Upadhyaya had propounded in his Antyodaya programme,” the article states. It discusses the evolution of SDGs and their basic tenets saying, “the three main dimensions of SDGs are, economic, social and environmental”. Unlike the Millennium Development Goals of the UN, the SDGs were developed by multiple stakeholders.

Organiser quotes the preamble of SDGs and states, “As we embark on this great collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind. Recognising that the dignity of the human person is fundamental, we wish to see the Goals and targets met for all nations and peoples and for all segments of society. And we will endeavour to reach the furthest behind first.”

This reminds the Organiser of “Sarve Bhavantu Sukhina” and “Antyodaya”. It says that this is where it finds multiple similarities between Agenda 2030 and “Purusartha — the Hindu View of Development which is based on Dharma. For us, pursuing our needs (Kama) through economic development (Artha) is subjected to moral values and righteousness (Dharma).” Upadhyaya, the article says, “had propounded this theory in his four lectures on Integral Humanism that he had delivered on April 22-25, 1965, in Mumbai.”

Compiled by Krishn Kaushik

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App