An "open letter" to film star Aamir Khan is titled "The Blood-Stained Beijing Olympics". It's by a man called B Raman, a retired Additional Secretary (retd) to the Government of India, and a well-known "strategic analyst."
Why Aamir Khan? Well, in a few days, the Olympic torch will come through India on its way to Beijing for the Olympics. Khan is one of various well-known people who are supposed to carry it on its relay through India. He says he has received many requests "not to participate" in the torch relay, as a gesture of support to the Tibetan struggle. But he says he has thought about it and decided to participate nevertheless. The Olympics, he says, "do not belong to China."
Undoubtedly, you have your opinions on Khan's decision. Me, for example, I think he should not carry the torch. I think what China has done in and to Tibet, for half a century now, is an outrage.
B Raman also thinks Aamir Khan should not carry the torch. He lists all manner of reasons, some involving Pakistan, some involving Chief Ministers, one involving the ICRC. He asserts that Khan is part of the torch relay because Khan is a "widely-respected Muslim personality". He works in disapproving mentions of "leftists" and "communists." He says that we Indians "handle our problems in the minority areas ... like civilized, democratic people"; in contrast, "the Chinese handle them like Hitler and Stalin used to do."
"By lending your name and prestige to the Torch run," says Raman to Khan, "you are unwittingly helping the Chinese to cover up the blood stains."
All of which is fine. Raman is entitled to his opinions.
But he also writes: "I have myself been a strong supporter of the Olympics being held in Beijing. I wrote even after the recent outbreak of the revolt in Tibet that we should not support the moves for a boycott of the Bejing Games."
So let me get this straight: Raman doesn't want Khan to run with the Olympic Torch because that would help the Chinese "to cover up the blood stains." But at the same time, in the same breath, he does want the Olympics to go ahead; in fact, he is "a strong supporter" of them; in fact, he doesn't want to "support the moves for a boycott" of the Games.
No, I can't get it straight. If the Olympics Torch relay is a move by the Chinese "to cover up the blood stains", why are the Olympics themselves not a similar move "to cover up the blood stains"? Why, by supporting the games, is Raman himself not "helping the Chinese to cover up the blood stains"?
Oh yes. I forgot. Raman does think "we should not help China in giving a great shine to the Games."
So let me get this straight. Olympics Torch relay by Aamir Khan: no. Olympics themselves: yes. Shine to the Games, whatever that might mean: no.
This is, evidently, what's called "strategic analysis." This is the analysis that a popular Indian blog aggregator refers to as "well-argued." Of course.