From: cen466p@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (S. Parthasarhathy)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil
Subject: Re: It has been fun....
Date: 19 Nov 92 14:31:14 +1100
Organization: Dept. of Chem. Engg., Monash University, Australia

In article <2B07F3C8.1150@news.service.uci.edu>, sundar@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu (M. Sundaramoorthy) writes:

>>S. Parthasarathy writes:

>>
>>Naturally. Disgrace ? No it is prudence. Usually when I say I am a Tamil, I
>>hear "Are you ones who has killed Rajiv Gandhi" or "are you the ones who is
>>killing innocent people." tell me, why i should I choose to be associated with
>>rajiv gandhis' and innocent peoples' deaths. I have no choice but to say I am
>>from India and my mother tongue is tamil (that too only if i was asked
>>specifically).  ? I have no problems with this arragement. I am proud to be an
>>Indian who speaks Tamil rather than a Tamilian who hail from India.
>>

Before I start answering your points, you have taken my statement out of
context.

> When someone asks me the same question, I choose explain the
> background of the entire issue,

As far as reasoning out what is happening in SL -- not the Ealem issue, but the
killing of innocent civilians -- IMO is similar to reasoning out holocaust of
second World War. I feel gun culture used in SL is wrong. So tell me, what is
the purpose of me explaining things, if ultimately I am going to blame both
parties. Also, I feel outsiders and Sri Lankans staying outside can talk till
their mouth and throat goes dry about SL since they are not the ones who are
getting killed. You talk to a sinhalese, he (at least most of them) will
support SL army's action and you talk to a tamilian, he (most of them at least)
will support the actions of LTTE. Poor muslims are caught in the middle. So the
reality is innocent people in SL are suffering. You can't deny that. As I
mentioned in my post, from where I come from both of their actions are wrong so
I never bother to reason out either of their actions.

>  ... rather than trying to shy away, posing a
>'proud Indian' or 'Universal humanist'.

Go thorugh my post in full. Neither I shyed away nor have I portrayed
myself as a universal humanist. I have written that I am as helpless as
Mr. Ranjith is in stopping the killings (even in Punjab + Kashmir, let
alone in SL) and also adviced him and fellow srilankans to take the case
to the concerned people (LTTE and SL army) to end the sufferings of SL
people rather than complaining about callousness of Indian Tamils (he
arrived at this because Indians watch more movies now a days !). Because
I was countering Mr. Ranjiths' statements, my views may not be in order.
But all my post should be viewed only in that context. period.

if you think advising someone to take some steps to stop killing of
innocent people is the quality of "universal humanist", perhaps I am.
but where the hell is my Nobel prize for Peace ? ;-).

In my post all I suggested was the problem should be sorted out by SL
people and thro' negotiations and not by guns. it is the self
dertermination of SL people which I argued for. if thats what you call
shying away from the problem, well I can't reason out with you. can I ?

I am not "posing as a proud indian", though I have my reservations about
India's stance on some issues, for sure, I am proud of being an Indian.

>While I don't defend the murder of Rajiv, whoever did it, I do utilise
>that opportunity to explain them his crimes as the head of the state of
>India and a notorious party, both at home and abroad and his least
>respect for human lives.

Regarding RG, on SL issue, I always felt he was taken for a ride by JRJ.
RG, because of his political naivity, succumbed to the political acumen
of JRJ. No question about it. India should NOT have got into SL problem
in the first place but because of the TN politics, India was dragged
into it and paid the penalty. 1000+ soldiers, RG + 15 others died and
also it introduced the gun culture into TN.

you say, you don't feel sorry for long for what has happened to the
leaders. but you fail to see the repurcusions and ramnifications of
killing the leaders. that is the difference between the
assassination/murder of a leader and a common man. when IG died, how may
sikhs suffered ? when RG died how may people suffered because of lack of
transport, essential servies etc.

> .. ( stuff deleted)

>........these leaders go unchecked for their crimes.

I agree with you here. the leaders should be made accountable for their
misdeeds. but killing them is not the answer. may be RG is as bad as you want
me to believe or may be even worse. but has his killing solved SL problem ? No.
Has the killings of IG solved Punjab problem ? No. it did not. I don't know who
killed RG, but so far the evidence points to LTTE. What did they achieve other
than satisfying their ego and demonstrating their capability to kill a leader
of a democratic country ? may be they took revenge but at what cost ? has it
helped an iota in finding a solution to SL problem ? tell me that. but they
lost the trust of TN people, for sure. IMO because of that TN has gone down in
the eyes of INDIA and tamil culture has gone down in the eyes of other cultures
in the world. if that and the elimination of Rajiv are needed to solve SL
problem, by this time, LTTE should have solved it. Have they ? No. IMO
assaasination of Rajiv produced more uncertainity with regard to a solution.

>I don't understand what makes one feel proud of being Indian
>first, and Tamil next or vice versa. We don't even have control over
>the choice of our names, let alone on the native place, nationality,
>mother tongue etc. to feel proud of something.

friend, you are talking philosophy. try talking this to LTTE and SL army
"one day or other everybody is going to die, so why bother fighting over
a separate land ?" or to the innocent civilians getting killed.  it is
the same philosophy which you applied before birth, I am asking you to
apply after death. Get real. You will be treated as an entity only after
you are born (life after conception is altogether a different issue. any
queries, will be forwarded to
hon_pope_john_paul_II@catholic.church.vatican.it ;-}) Once you are born,
your nationality, native place and racial identity are fixed.
(Unfortunatetly in India caste identity ;-) is also fixed). You can't
change any of them. May be you inherit them, but these things are not
like material properties which you can dispense with. Some of them, even
if you want, you can't, caste identity (atleast in India ;-) for
example). May be you can choose to renounce Indian citizenship (fill in
what ever nationality you had before or have now), still you will be
referred to as "indian born ...". I dunno whether you do feel proud of
your country but I do feel that way. Tamil is my mother tongue and I
feel proud about it too.

>        As someone pointed out (I think R. Balaji), if we have
>contirbuted something positive to these we might feel proud. Taking
>pride in something we inherited when it looks good and shying away when
>it looks bad is sheer hypocrisy.

again, it not fair on your part to view my statements out of context. if you
see Mr. Ranjiths' statement for which I countered, you will know why I phrased
my answer that way. Yep. Mr. Balaji is right. IMO, as long as, one does not
ruin the heritage and supports any one who wish to do something constructive to
uplift it is by itself a good positive contribution :-}. also, don't you feel
proud of atleast your parents, whatever be their shortcomings ? if you do  then
you should understand my statement. or is it wrong to be proud of them too (as
per ur defn, you should not feel proud of them either, neither should they be
proud of you if you fell short of their expectations). if you do feel proud, 
tell me who is the hypocrite ?

>What one needs is to be critical on
>individual issues rather than characterising entire society, race,
>country etc good or bad based on an isolated example.

If you think I approve whatever India does just because I feel proud to
be an Indian. You are wrong. So when I said "I am proud Indian who
speaks Tamil, rather than a tamilian hailing from India", it just shows
I for one, detest an ethnic identity, but proud of my national identity.

Also, if you read the whole article it should be obvious to you that I
was trying to reason out with Ranjith and was countering his statements.
Taking only one section of my post twists the whole thing. It is similar
to saying "Mahatma Gandhi supports killing cows" just because he said
"you can kill a cow if it is trying to kill you" (words may not be
exact. but something to that effect). (please don't infer that i am
comparing myself with mahatma gandhi ;-) thank you. The funny part is
Mr. Ranjith took all my statements in its context.

May be you got irked by my statement. it is not my intention to irk somebody
half (quarter ;-) a globe away :-}. But I stand by my claim. I am proud to be
an Indian who speaks Tamil rather than a tamilian hailing from India. if you
have any reservation with that, well it is not my problem.

Parthasarathy
Chem Engg

Paarthaa
ChemEngg

------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. ParthaSarhathy            !! E-mail  : cen466p@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Dept of Chem Engg            !!           partha@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au
Monash University            !! Tel (AH):  61 3 544 5063
Clayton, Victoria 3168       !!     (BH):  61 3 565 3443
Australia                    !!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil