• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Peace Prizes And Pimping Pinkos
<b>Peace Prizes and Pimping Pinkos</b>
<i>By: Veera Vaishnava</i>

<i>“….No one calls a rape a complex gynecologic emergency. A rape is a rape, just as genocide is genocide. And both are crimes”

James Orbinski, President of Médecins sans Frontières International.</i>

All humanitarian actions and motivations born in any civil society have gained influence until they reach the political agenda as history as shown us. The main distinctions are that while humanitarian action and search for true peace takes place in the short term, for limited groups and for specific objectives and goals. This is both its strength and its limitation. The political agenda on the other hand is long term, which itself is the movement and reshaping of the societies. Humanitarian action is by definition universal. Humanitarian responsibility has no borders as identified in the nation-state paradigm. By contrast, the political knows borders, and when crisis occurs, political response will vary because historical relations balance of power, and the interests of one or the other nation. The time and space of the humanitarian are not those of the political. A true humanitarian or peace seeker thus has a vision that by definition must ignore political choices. However these days “humanitarianism and peace seeking” has become and industry and is used as a tool of war. Ideally the tools, tactics and techniques that are used in a war to secure peace, has turned on its head, and peace movements are being used to secure victory in a non conventional and asymmetric war. The objective of such war typically is the containment of an enemy or perceived enemy. This article tries to address how such goals are achieved by states and entities that are inimical to the idea of a healthy and strong India, by using “peace movements and activists” to curtail the development and subvert the identity of a nation-state.

<b>Asymmetric Information and Warfare</b>

Insurgency and counter-insurgency are asymmetric forms of non-traditional warfare. The terrorists/insurgents who are trained in Pakistan are fighting for the most effect with resources supplied by Pakistan to wrest Kashmir and to bleed India in the hopes of bringing India down to its knees. The Indians/counter-insurgents on the other hand are fighting for the hearts and minds of the population. Thus the terrorist establishment uses tactical, strategic techniques as well as involve in consolidating any gains accrued from tactical and strategic operations. For such consolidation, the <b><i>existing civil society’s support structure is an absolute necessity</i></b>. In case of India, the consolidation aspect unfolds in two ways: blunting <b>Hindu revival (to minimize the consequences of Islamism in the public consciousness and awareness of Indians), </b>and use of <b>Peace movements </b>to benumb any pro-active and decisive reaction of India towards Pakistan and terrorists. There are other nations that are also involved who would like to see India tied down forever in this imbroglio but that is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

<b>Peace Movements and Prizes</b>

In an effort to recognize, appreciate and award such humanitarian and peace seeking activities of such selflessness and elevated people, peace prizes are normally thought to be awarded. However the peace prizes and political agendas cannot be separated, as they were never intended to be separated. With regard to the Peace Prize, Nobel defined this as having "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." The most difficult stipulation to live up to has undoubtedly been "in the preceding year." This is now understood to indicate the most recent contributions in the <b>various cultural fields </b>to which the will refers. The Prize, in other words, is not only for past achievement, although that is the most important criterion. The committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account. Among the reasons for adding this as a criterion is the obvious point that Nobel wanted the Prize to have <b>political effects</b>. [1] In other words, there is a complete absence of any objective analysis of achievements, but only vagueness in identifying the potential winner.

The humanitarian aid worker is the human face seen by the individual victim of war, the manifestation of respects for that individual's human dignity, and thereby the embodiment of the best hope of peace and reconciliation. This gets to the roots of the absolutely fundamental prerequisites for peace. The decision to award the first Peace Prize for humanitarian work was one of the most important decisions in the history of the Peace Prize. Today, "humanitarian intervention" (with or without military support) is one of the most important factors in international peace work.)

<b>Peace Prizes and Political Agendas</b>

The Nobel Peace Prize is viewed by many as a prestigious award, only given to those who greatly improved mankind through invention or good work. It perhaps, at one time, was this. But it is high time to call the Nobel Peace Prize or any other such prize for what it is today: a tactic and a tool used for advancing political agendas. Invariably, Nobel Peace Prized censures had earned near-universal condemnation, often making the message of the award a forceful rebuke from the world community.
• Yasser Arafat, who is the leader of a country that sends suicide bombers into civilian areas of Israel. There is no merit in this case, but an agenda. The agenda is to deaden any action that Israel might take to protect its citizens, and the poster child is the apostle of peace: Yasser Arafat.
• Shirin Ebadi, is no different. It is to affirm the political agenda she represents. Shirin Ebadi is an advocate of reform, not rebellion, per the committee. It was also said that Ebadi got the award for her work with woman and children’s rights. Iran used this to the hilt. After winning the Nobel Prize, Ebadi immediately began to plead for peace. The Ayatollah made further statements against US attack in Iran after this woman was recognized as a Nobel Peace Prize award winner. Ebadi is the regime’s poster girl as she opposes regime change in Iran.
• Solidarity leader Lech Walesa was given the award in 1983 as an affront to the Polish Communists and the Soviet Union, thus sending a clear political signal to erstwhile U.S.S.R.
• Desmond Tutu took home the prize, sending a message of condemnation to the South African apartheid government.
• Dalai Lama was chosen for the award, to send clear reference to the iron fist the Communist Chinese applied in ruling occupied Tibet. This gesture sent a message to repressive, dictatorial regimes.
• Sometimes the committee has been less subtle in their approach, awarding the prize to open members of the radical Left. The 1973 prize for Communist North Vietnam's Le Duc Tho.
• In 1992 when the Nobel Committee awarded the prize to Guatemala's Rigoberta Menchu, an ardent Marxist and supporter of the Communist Sandanistas.
• Japanese experience with the latest peace prize fraud [2]

Following the footsteps of Nobel Peace prize number of other peace prizes sprang up in the recent times including Asian equivalent of Nobel Peace Prize, Ramon Magsaysay Award. In April 1957, the Ramon Magsaysay Award was established by the trustees of the <b>Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF)</b> based in New York City. The vision of Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation states [3]

“ With strong international presence and support, the Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation continues to hold up persons and organizations as exemplars of selfless leadership, whose lives and work make Asia truly a better place by:

1. Addressing issues of human development across boundaries of culture, politics and religion with courage and creativity…..”

Let us briefly look at the winners of this precious and coveted peace prize who have been active in politics, and some quotes from the citations. The author assumes readers’ knowledge about the notoriety the following winners have gained in India, and laurels Internationally, by constantly and consistently putting India on the back pedal and in promoting “hindutva” as a fascist concept and Hinduism as a backward religion: in other words they are secular angels trying to save the soul of India.

• Admiral Ramdas – 2004 – <i>“…recognizes their reaching across a hostile border to nurture a citizen-based consensus for peace between India and Pakistan.”</i>
• James Michael Lyngdoh – 2003 <i>“…best hope of secular democracy in strife-torn India.”</i>
• Sandeep Pandey - 2002
• Mother Teresa – 1962 – <i>“…recognizes her merciful cognizance of the abject poor of a foreign land, in whose service she has led a new congregation.”</i>

The vagueness in the citations is amazingly remarkable. Vagueness is a characteristic of language. It is different from ambiguity in the sense, that ambiguity has more than one meaning where as vagueness is a characteristic of a single meaning with borderline cases. The citations above have the appearance of soundness yet heavily depends upon vagueness in its terms. It is highly subjective as any differentiation and distinction is based on qualitative scales, and who gets to set those standards. It is thus no strange coincidence that the political agendas – agenda set forth by such prizes, and those of individuals who aspire for such awards – match. The complementary endeavor to gain prominence and recognition is by slandering those who really have neither political agendas nor they care for any peace prizes and photo ops such as India Development Relief Fund (IDRF). The slander unleashed by the leftists of India, and again by no strange coincidence, winners of such peace prizes, was phenomenal and unprecedented. The rebuttal of such attacks by misguided and self-promoting ideologues, and in this case, on IDRF, is available here for any open minded and rational individual(s) [4].

In the Indian context, another unsaid prerequisite, to be considered for such awards, one has to be a vigorous, rabid anti-Hindu. Consider the case of Amartya Sen, Nobel Prize winner in Economics. An instant celebrity all over the world turns his words and economic wisdom to berating and belittling India’s achievements. He constantly chides India for its Hindu heritage and reminds Indians to shun Hindu way of life to achieve any progress comparable to developed countries. No intellectual in India dares to challenge an Economist’s expertise in social, historical and cultural issues, especially of an avowed socialist. It cannot be just an opinion, as these Intellectuals are aware of the consequences and repercussions of their acts and sayings. Nothing can be accidental in their careful calibration in the well choreographed dance to the Peace Prize Galas and shoulder rubbing events.

Herein lies the rub, a socialist in the west might be a threat to the free market system in the west, but a brown socialist with an assumed or awarded secular label is touted as an intellectual, progressive, and a liberal as a foot soldier takes up the cudgels in keeping the gap between developing and developed worlds intact if not widen it.

These prizes, true to their objectives in an asymmetric warfare, are also used to contain a country’s growth and development - Narmada Bachao Andolan’s Medha Patkar springs to mind immediately. Other awards that bear upon the prerequisite of “nobel peace prize” – cultural affairs – is Booker prize. The winner, Arundhati Roy who happens to berate India’s nuclear establishment while receiving grants, prizes and accolades from Nuclear Weapon States. Richard Crasta has a completely different view point and a recipe which is absolutely hilarious and right on target, on how to win such prizes [5].


All these peace prizes have one thing in common, a creeping politicization that exposes the deeper political agenda of these committees -the agenda of the far Left, peaceniks and anti-capitalists in their own deluded visions of a global community’s Utopia. The vision is an ardent pacifism, an abject and unilateral surrender, in the face of hostile elements, and making a virtue out of a vice. These are just “useful idiots” in the global play of geo-politics, prostituting themselves with their self promoting agenda, carrying around their whopping egos, while willingly becoming pawns of a very short sighted vision.
If the “Peace” Prize committee were genuinely interested in peace, they would condemn an oppressive military government that kills its own people, trains terrorists and send them over to slaughter hapless people across the border. If peace prize seekers are genuinely interested in cultural exploits that will confer upon them peace prizes, they should strive to work for the preservation of the indigenous culture by promoting them and/or reforming them, but not supplanting them.

But they only condemn “violent wars” when it is innocent people rising to their self defense or when India defends itself. They condemn Hindus when Hindus protect themselves and refuse to be victimized and butchered. The only condemn humanitarian organizations such as IDRF that stay away from politics and get involved in genuine, and meaningful of human service.

Finally, who are the ones to decide the awarding and rewarding of peace prizes? The ones who run the institutions, and the ones with financial and political influence, definitely the ones who have a specific and clear political agenda. Are there any worthy Peace Prize winners? Yes, Doctors without Borders!, and IDRF, but not activists who specialize and experiment in Social Engineering.

For these Peace Prizes to reclaim their original purpose and to be seen by all humanity with awe and respect, they much clamor for, the intellectual incest promotion should stop and the pinkos ought be put out of their pimping business.

Post 9/11, every Terrorism incident has finger prints of Pakistan all over it, and so do on our Peace activists, when it comes to supporting and rationalizing “Jihad” in Kashmir and elsewhere in India. Should there be any doubts in the minds of the readers, please check the winners’ travel itinerary for peace promoting vists, lectures and socializing events attended across the border. It then begs the next question - <b>Are they Peace activists or Terrorists’ enablers?</b>


1. The Nobel Peace Prize: From Peace Negotiations to Human Rights http://www.nobel.se/peace/articles/sejersted/
2. The Okinawa Peace Prize Fraud: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=44&ItemID=2606
3. http://www.rmaf.org.ph/
4. Narayanan’s Rebuttal – http://letindiadevelop.org/news/VoiceOfA...72003.html
4. Richard Crasta, “Impressing the Whites”, “Roy, Rushdie and Seth: Spokespersons, Invisible Man Books.
Not sure if this is the right thread, nevertheless...
A Case Study of the Aims of Foreign Funding
The original article is out at IndiaCause


Roy's full speech
November 4, 2004 - 10:54AM

The 2004 Sydney Peace Prize lecture delivered by
Arundhati Roy, at the Seymour Theatre Centre,
University of Sydney.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)