Murli Deora, The Indian *Ee-Minister, Is Responsible For Sparking Off The Monks Massacre of 26 September 2007
Oct 12th, 2007
A Poem by Dr. David Law
(*Ee means intestinal gas, which is in fact, also a natural gas. Deora is actually the Minister of Petroleum and intensely interested in natural gas, the kind used as fuel, from Burma)
Murli Deora came to make a deal
Without a scruple, oh, what a heel!
Arrived in Burma September 23rd,
And Bloodshed began just three days afterward!
Murli Deora stinks like a hog,
Only wants to act like a frog. [in Burmese, frog is a sycophant]
Flattering Than Shwe to get a good deal,
150 million, what a great steal!
People of Burma are up in arms
Than Shwe’s going to do much harm
Millions of dollars coming from India
Only make Than Shwe all the more stingier
Did Murli have any concern
For starving people whose stomachs burn?
Murli and India had no comment
They only wanted gas at a hundred percent
Murli ruined US Sanctions
Pushed Than Shwe into reckless actions
Murli, you are responsible
You made the Massacre all possible.
Deora looks “Toward the East”
Only as a greedy beast .
He cannot see the starving masses,
Only wants to kiss the generals’ asses.
Deora, Murli you’re just a dog;
Deodorant merely creates a fog.
You’ll go down in history
In a cesspool of misery.
——end of poem—–
Footnotes:
When people in Burma were reeling in shock from increasing gas and fuel prices, and demonstrations were going on nationwide for months, it would have been only fair to delay any business deals.
Or, if the deal HAS to go ahead, at least it would have been proper to address the peoples’ pressing needs with a kindly offer of aid and support for their suffering. After all, when Murli Deora, the Indian Petroleum Minister came with a 150 million dollar investment in the gas fields of Burma, the least thing he could have said would be to feel sorry for the people and to make some pledge of support. But he did no such thing.
And in the case of Than Shwe, the Ee-Gas King, or simply the Ee-King who depends on Peking, with all his hundreds of millions of dollars, surely he could have eased down the tension of August and September by announcing some relief measures, such as providing poor people with some kind of fuel subsidy, government transport, and so on.
But he, too, did no such thing.
It is very obvious that the 150 million dollar investment made at the height of the monks’ demonstrations emboldened Than Shwe to act in the drastic manner that he did. The US and EU were threatening him with new sanctions and this surely effected him. The proof is that later, when UN Envoy Gambari pressed for him to talk with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, his very first demand, as a precondition, was that DASSK must drop her call for Sanctions.
If Sanctions were useless, would Than Shwe have said such a thing? This is proof that Sanctions do restrain Than Shwe. Conversely, when India came to Than Shwe with yet another huge multi-million offer, it certainly emboldened the Generals into acting recklessly.
Thus we should hold Murli Deora and his Indian leadership chain of command directly responsible for the War Crimes committed by Than Shwe. They should all be tried in court, all the Indian and Burmese leaders. (Chinese leaders, too, and more on that later)
I rest my case.
Murli Deora, the Indian Petroleum Minister
3 Responses to “Murli Deora, The Indian *Ee-Minister, Is Responsible For Sparking Off The Monks Massacre of 26 September 2007”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 13th, 2007 at 1:58 am
India Vs Myanmar: Mahatma turning in his grave
S Shivakumar, merinews 04 October 2007, Thursday
Excerpts_
Our government has again paid lip service to the popular up-rising in Myanmar. On Gandhi Jayanthi day, it was ritual as usual for our Prime Minister and Congress President. The latter held forth to an international audience. Sheer hypocrisy!
PRESS REPORTS claim that in its strongest response so far on the unrest in Myanmar, India had said bloodshed was ‘unacceptable’ and wanted the Myanmar government to probe the violence. By no yardstick this can be called ‘the strongest response’ because there is nothing to probe. After all, everything is in the public domain. It is at best a knee-jerk reaction from our Minister, which is too little; what is more, even this ‘too little’ has come too late.
External Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukherjee told his Myanmarese counterpart, U Nyan Win.
Anyway, what purpose will the enquiry serve even as the junta continues with its violent suppression of the popular uprising except perhaps buy time?
His leader and Congress President Sonia Gandhi spoke of the international community’s ‘collective failure’ to move towards comprehensive universal disarmament. She was addressing the 192-member UN General Assembly on Oct 2. Then why not she lead by example, by ensuring that no arms flowed into Myanmar from India? These arms are abused and misused to stifle the popular uprising in Myanmar.
If she or her Congress party had the courage to emulate the Mahatma’s preachings and what he lived and died for, why does India keep quiet even as innocent monks and citizens are shot dead by the junta in Myanmar?
Let not Sonia Gandhi shed blood; let her go on a fast unto death in true Gandhian style to impress on the Myanmar junta to pave the way for restoration of democracy in Myanmar. You will not get a better candidate than Sonia Gandhi for the purpose since she is also a ‘Gandhi’.
Meanwhile, Western diplomats in Yangon report of the unaccounted disappearances of Buddhist monks and a creeping climate of fear among the other civilians. Some monasteries are said to wear a deserted look now. This has raised suspicions about the fate of the missing monks. Midnight arrests of suspected pro-democracy activists are said to be becoming more common now.
Read more at http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=126796
October 13th, 2007 at 2:07 am
NST Online » Columns
2007/10/06
OPINION: India’s dilemma in engaging Myanmar
MAHENDRA VED
India’s External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s call for an inquiry into the deaths of protesters following the violence in Yangon has not appeased detractors who had sought a much stronger response from
The Indian intelligentsia, too, has joined the global outrage. They include stalwart politician George Fernandes, who sheltered Myanmar’s rebels in his home, even as the government in which he was defence minister engaged the military junta.
India, China, Russia and Asean nations have been asked to “do more” to restrain the Myanmar rulers. India, for one, is asked to take a high moral ground. There has been stray talk of using force, if not direct military intervention.
But many of those who desire this have either played a dubious role in the past or have no stake in Myanmar. Saying this is not to justify or overlook what is happening in Myanmar. But it is necessary to emphasise that coercive diplomacy has not worked in the past, nor is it likely to work now.
Although New Delhi was slightly defensive, especially after the bad timing of Petroleum Minister Murli Deora’s visit to Yangon just when the pro-democracy protesters were thronging the streets, it made clear that it was not going to abandon the policy of engagement with the junta in its larger national interest while pushing for political reforms.
India has pursued this policy for a decade. President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, on a state visit, made it a point to remind General Than Shwe that Aung San Suu Kyi, who had studied in India, was like a daughter, and a daughter was always respected.
The world community, it seems, wants to apply force, without anything to indicate that coercion would work, forgetting that Myanmar has a record of isolationism, and staying that way.
We already have two major disasters, if not more, staring at us in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Despite these, there is a demand for imposing sanctions on Myanmar that may or may not hurt the military rulers, but would certainly hurt the impoverished Myanmar people.
When Kalam was embarking on his visit to Yangon, 23 governments sought to know why India was propping up a military junta.
It was true then, as it is true now: how are the Myanmar generals different from others in the region, or elsewhere? Why do decibels of protest rise in the case of some flouting democratic norms, but they remain muted in the case of others?
India has the most unenviable neighbourhood with most of the countries around it in dire stress, riven by internal problems, ethnic and religious conflicts and the absence of institutions that make a modern state.
With Myanmar, it shares a 1,400km border that runs arbitrarily across forested ridges from Arunachal Pradesh to Mizoram. It is an open border and the tribal people are free to move up to 20km on either side.
Though the majority of the Nagas live in India, a large number live in Myanmar. Ditto for the Kukis and Mizos who claim a close relationship with the Chin peoples of Myanmar.
As there are close cultural and geophysical ties, New Delhi has no reason to be apologetic about its role in Myanmar. Its conscious policy to stay engaged with the junta is driven by three strategic and economic factors: the increasing influence of China that has cornered most of the big oil and gas and infrastructure projects in that country; the location of Myanmar makes it a terrestrial link to India’s northeast and gives it influence over Indian insurgent groups; and, most importantly, oil and gas which Myanmar has in abundance.
With a teeming insurgency in its northeast, India needs Myanmar to push the rebels from its territory. It is a mutual give-and-take.
There cannot be anything static in relationships. Fortunately, there are good suggestions coming up. India could adopt a dual approach comprising a government-to-government dialogue and a simultaneous activating of Track-II diplomacy with people-to-people contacts, including with the Buddhist monks.
This approach, hopefully, would meet some of the criticism being heaped from those far and near.
Read more http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Saturday/Columns/20071006
October 13th, 2007 at 7:30 am
I can understand the behaviour of the leadership in China but I’m shocked by the behaviour of the leadership in India who professed itself to be the largest democracy in the world. I guess what you profess and what you practice must be different.
Let us remind you though, the so-called military government has legitimacy in international law, it’s own people and in the eyes of the world. If (even it this if must have to be a big IF) by the twist of fate this military regime were to fall both India and China should know that the agreements they have enetered do not have to be honoured by the incoming government. If that government were to do so we now have enough people who are educated to put on to the government for abrogation of those agreements. What’s illegal in the first place can never be legal at any stage.
Gobble up while you can, it will choke you later.