An open letter to Aamir Khan

April 3rd, 2008Related|Filed Under

LINK

There Are 20 Responses So Far. »

  1. Comment by jayshah on 3 April 2008:

    Great response and generally agree. A lot is being made of this and can understand now. The Olympics like any world sport don’t belong to any country. Its a world sport and just re-located in number of places. Carrying the Olympic torch is more IMO representing your own country. The biggest issue I have here is if Aamir is being told to not do this, then surely the same people should be lending their grievances to all participants aswell. But I guess the perception here is Aamir is ‘helping’ or ‘promoting’ Beijing as opposed to just being participant at least that is what I get from this post.

    ‘By lending your name and prestige to the torch run, you are unwittingly helping the Chinese to cover up the blood stains.’

    Now this is where is the grey area. Is it helping China or is it representing India?

    On moral grounds, the nasticies of 1000’s of people vs a small minority is the same in my book. Horrible doing whether it be one person or a million is all the same. Aamir should probably refuse this but it is not a decision to lose respect over. There is a debate for and against. It is down to personal judgement and IMO he is ‘now’ screwed either way now. If he refuses, what does that mean for Indian participants? Should they boycott aswell? The media will bring this up for sure.

    The Aamir of RDB would refuse this :-)

  2. Comment by Eire on 3 April 2008:

    I must say that this China-Tibet issue has put a serious cloud over the upcoming Olympics. I don’t see it going away because of China’s hardline refusal to admit any whiff of human rights follies or misconduct. I’m in agreement that Aamir is in a “damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t” situation.

  3. Comment by satyam on 3 April 2008:

    Good piece here..

    I am more interested in whether the US will have the nerve to boycott the Olympics. They did it to Moscow not so long ago!

  4. Comment by Ravi on 3 April 2008:

    Satyam “I am more interested in whether the US will have the nerve to boycott the Olympics. They did it to Moscow not so long ago!”

    That was long long ago Satyam and I don’t think US has the guts to boycott the games in China, China is too powerful now(I mean in a economic sense) and I don’t think anyone would like to antagonise them.

    By the way , I don’t believe in boycotting games for any reasons, sports and politics should not mix. Do not let the athletes and the sports loving public be punsihed bcoz of some political games is my opinion.

  5. Comment by satyam on 3 April 2008:

    Ravi: Yes I also think the US will not do so. But as to your other point sports can be politics by other means!

  6. Comment by rks on 3 April 2008:

    A passionate appeal.

    1. When you are selected for hosting an Olympic is through ballot. So majority of countries voted for China inspite of knowing all the human rights situation. Why take away the partcipation rights of sportsman who have toiled for four years for glory.

    2. I would have considered Bhutia refusal great had India a good football team and possibility of medal were great. India doesn’t stand a chance in football so IMO refusal is just personal (small in a sense).

    “The importance of your participation and of the participation of Saif Ali Khan to the Chinese was not only because you are both widely-admired film artists. It was also because both of you are widely-respected Muslim personalities.”
    3. China doesn’t know who is Aamir Khan. Normally the people are selected by Indian Olympic Association. I don’t think China dictates this. Aamir is running because Coco COla is one of the sponsors and Aamir endorses it.

    “Has China ever held a single democratic election in Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia since the Communists captured power in 1949? ”
    4. That is based on assumption that democracy is solution. They don’t conduct election in main land china also. Then it could be assumed the conditions of mainland china is no different form Tibet?

  7. Comment by rks on 3 April 2008:

    China’s intransigence in Tibet

  8. Comment by vikschshkr on 4 April 2008:

    There was a recent documentary on Channel 4 in UK about Tibet.
    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/undercover+in+tibet/1824047
    It was scary the way the Tibetans are treated - right from torture tactics, uprooting people forcefully and making them live together in closed quarters, with no communication with the outside world.
    This article puts it across beautifully.
    http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2008/04/03/on-aamir-khans-decision-to-carry-the-torch/

    On Aamir Khan’s decision to carry the torch

    There are good reasons to carry the Olympic torch. Aamir Khan gave the worst one.

    Aamir Khan, it has been reported, has turned down pleas by Tibetan refugees, fans, friends and some members of his family not to carry the Olympic torch on its Indian leg on April 17th.

    His decision is in sharp contrast to that of Baichung Bhutia, the Indian football captain. Mr Bhutia pulled out of the programme as a personal protest against the China’s handling of the protests in Tibet.

    It is not at all surprising that Mr Bhutia’s decision was hailed as heroic, and Mr Khan’s criticised. Indeed, if Mr Khan had only justified his decision based on the need for an Indian citizen to respect the Olympic spirit on the grounds that the Olympics ought to transcend politics, like Kiran Bedi did, his decision too would have been praiseworthy. It would have invoked the Longbottom principle.

    Unfortunately, Mr Khan went on to justify his decision by belittling his own country. As B Raman writes in an open letter to Mr Khan, and as The Acorn pointed out when M K Bhadrakumar made a similar argument a few days ago, it takes a particular form of moral deficiency to equate China and India and the way they deal with disaffected citizens.

    There can only be contempt for those who draw this specious analogy and hide behind the I-am-against-any-form-of-violence amoral pacifism.

    That Aamir Khan made this comparison should disqualify him from carrying the torch on behalf of India. The torch should be carried by those who are proud of the values that India stands for.

    Shame on you, Mr Khan.

    Update: Aamir Khan is carrying the torch on behalf of the Coca Cola Company, and not a representative of India. The difference is important. It is a decision between him and his corporate sponsor. Given his repugnant perception of his own country’s values, it should only be a good thing that he is not “officially” representing India. But this does not mean that his comments are any less excusable.

  9. Comment by ILG on 4 April 2008:

    I dont think its a big deal but going by Aamir’s personal sense of whats right and wrong as indicated by his support of peoploe displaced by Narmada dam, I think if he were to rethink this, he may not do it. Sports and politics in general should not mix but
    plight of Tibetians is hard to ignore. Certainly one doesnt need to promote these Olympics. Participation is OK.

  10. Comment by Ravi on 4 April 2008:

    What is happening in Tibet is real unfortunate and it is fast becoming a cultural genocide.

    From what I read, with the trains set up directly between China and Tibet, it is forecast that in the future there will be lot more Chinese than local people in Tibet and this is being actively and systematically done by the Chinese government.

    The Chinese government actually has lot of perks like allowances etc set up for people to migrate to Tibet and the aim being no separate identity for Tibetans and they becoming part and parcel of the Chinese land and thus no complaints from the rest of the world.

  11. Comment by rockstar on 4 April 2008:

    “Unfortunately, Mr Khan went on to justify his decision by belittling his own country”

    well if he had refused to carry the torch the same people would have attacked him for not representing india , bhaichung got away because he is from northeast

  12. Comment by rockstar on 4 April 2008:

    “It is not at all surprising that Mr Bhutia’s decision was hailed as heroic, and Mr Khan’s criticised. Indeed, if Mr Khan had only justified his decision based on the need for an Indian citizen to respect the Olympic spirit on the grounds that the Olympics ought to transcend politics”

    well he gave the valid reason by saying that olmypic is not the propert of china ( they are just host only),if Olympics ought to transcend politics they why tibetans in india are burming the effigy of aamir khan

  13. Comment by rockstar on 4 April 2008:

    It is not at all surprising that Mr Bhutia’s decision was hailed as heroic, and Mr Khan’s criticised. Indeed, if Mr Khan had only justified his decision based on the need for an Indian citizen to respect the Olympic spirit on the grounds that the Olympics ought to transcend politics”

    well he gave the valid reason by saying that olmypic is not the propert of china ( they are just host only),if Olympics ought to transcend politics they why tibetans in india are burning the effigy of aamir khan

  14. Comment by rockstar on 4 April 2008:

    others celebs to have carried the torch but specifically aamir has been targetted just because he is more famous and his logic has been questioned only , and for those who say sports should not be mixed with politics why tibetans are burning his posters all over india who gave them the right to dictate others personal preferences

  15. Comment by rockstar on 4 April 2008:

    “On moral grounds, the nasticies of 1000’s of people vs a small minority is the same in my book. Horrible doing whether it be one person or a million is all the same”

    well jay hate to disagree here then by that logic one should boycott games in u.s(due to iraq), russia(chechenia)
    india( due to kashmir), pakistan( due to their act in afghanistan and kashmir), china( due to tibet), srilanka ( due to l.t.t.e), england and other nato countries( due to yugoslavia ) and bla bla then what is left

  16. Comment by Qalandar on 4 April 2008:

    My comment on The Acorn:

    http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2008/04/03/on-aamir-khans-decision-to-carry-the-torch/#comment-117278

  17. Comment by satyam on 4 April 2008:

    Rockstar: If one isn’t willing to boycott a country economically, or hurt its prestige in softer ways by boycotting the Olympics, then one really cannot do anything to pressurize the country in question. Moral lessons will hardly get the job done.

  18. Comment by rockstar on 4 April 2008:

    If one isn’t willing to boycott a country economically, or hurt its prestige in softer ways by boycotting the Olympics, then one really cannot do anything to pressurize the country in question

    well in intenational politics morality and prestige lies with the country who is having superior power and this is fact , even india was banned economically after pokhran
    it didn’t hurted its prestige infact its growth has been more impressive and in the end they have to remove the so called economic sanctions

  19. Comment by jayshah on 4 April 2008:

    rockstar - I was just comparing nasticities, not Aamir’s decision. IMO it is a 50/50 decision and he is now damned either way

  20. Comment by rks on 4 April 2008:

    “IMO it is a 50/50 decision and he is now damned either way”

    Very true. Actually there has been increasing tendency in India to paint anything with some political color. Be it Jodha Akbar, Olympic torch, Tanushree incidence….Is it good or bad, only time would tell.

    ps: Does anyone remember who were the people among the torch bearer in 1984 Los Angeles Olympics? I don’t think anyone remembers except maybe the final runner (Md Ali).

Post a Response

You must be logged in to post a comment.