India’s High Commissioner to Ottawa recently laid a summer of a Vision TV weekly show titled Ankhila Punjab (From the Soul of Punjab).

A portion of the segment in question hosted by a specific group of Sikh Canadians refers to ongoing infringement of human rights in India, about the corruption of the Indian government and about widespread atrocities committed by the late prime minister Indira Gandhi’s regime, which prompted her assassination at the hands of her own guards the ‘patriotism” of the guards who Undertook to put a halt to her “tyranny.” and celebrates them as martyrs.

It is not surprising that the Indian format has tried to interfere in a ‘and legal activity in Canada. His government has had no difficulty in Stiffing free discussion in India repressive taws any Amnesty International or Asia Watch report wilt confirm that what it would to do now is prevent free discussion in Canada because it threatens to make the Indians uncomfortable.

What is shocking however, is the Fit Fraser, president of vision TV, to the complaint. ‘On March 1, 1996, he writes to the CRTC, which is now involved in the matter, and states that “I am satisfy that the program was abusive.

He confesses, however, that have had some difficulty in obtaining a clear and precise translation of the ‘content of the program.”

In a country that has 400,000 Punjab is peaking Canadians?

Despite these self-acknowledged limitations, faster proceeds to profusely apologize for the program and sends copy of the letter the Indian embassy. In the same letter, he states that he is “directing the producers of Ankhila Punjab to forward a format apology to the complainant.

He adds that the program should “avoid political comment, particularly on events taking place in India.

Thus, without waiting for a proper translation and a review of the same with the producer judgment was summarily rendered at the behest of a foreign governments against Canadians are obviously at logger heads with it.

I should state at this juncture that I neither subscribe to nor sympathize with the form, content or tone of the program in question, but I have re viewed a copy of the segment. My mother tongue is Punjabi.

I have also reviewed the translation relied upon by Fraser. It contains words, phrases and lines which appear from thin air they just do not exist in the original, similarly, words, phrases and lines that were uttered are not to be found in the warped translation, which also has a vicious slant in Mei choice of words.

My concerns at Fraser’s kneejerk reaction, however, are more basic:

Would Fraser have moved with the same alacrity if a diplomat from a Communist country had intervened to stifle a program criticizing human rights violations against a religious minority in their nation? Does he have any inkling about the atrocities referred to in the program and the role of the government that directs the diplomat “complainant”?

No comment on events in India? Way has vision TV become an apologist for oppressive and corrupt regimes? If it is okay to talk about human rights violations in Bosnia, the Middle East, South Africa, South ‘America, Ireland, etc., pray why is it prohibited to comment on India?

Vision TV’s mandate is to be equitable to all faiths, its bop decision makers represent a single faith tradition, does that make it difficult for Fraser to understand the needs and problems of other faith groups?

The inherent bias in the translation betrays the problem: The Punjabi word “sunghursh” which unequivocally means “‘struggle” has been described in Fraser’s documents as “holy war.” Even the mistranslation is: ter. Why “hob war”? Why not crusade,” the more benign tern invariably used in Christian context?

The overall question is: Are different standards being applied to the smaller faith groups as opposed to the ones larger in number?

I see no need to lower the standards of how we treat minorities in our country merely to appease some foreign regime or its representative here.

Surely, a TV channel describing i mandate as “Canada’s faith network” ‘can be daring enough to urge the latter to raise theirs.

Article extracted from this publication >>  April 10, 1996