Anyone, anywhere

Like the rest of us, the Italian government hears about the recent violence in Orissa. They call in our Ambassador and express concern, in whatever way governments and diplomats accomplish these things.

Upshot: any number of people are extremely annoyed. "Italy should mind its own business and shut up" is about the mildest reaction. The worse ones involve snickers about Italy's status in the world, or their own scandals, or the over-stale diet of the Italian origins of Sonia Gandhi.

Yet why should anyone anywhere not express concern for the safety of people who are assaulted? When Rwanda descended into enormous bloodletting in 1994, should the rest of the world have stayed silent, saying "Rwanda's Tutsis are Rwandan"? (It's another matter that the rest of the world, in fact, did nothing to stop the massacre). When violence erupted in Tibet some months ago, how many of us decided that it was China's business and we should say nothing? When Idi Amin stirred up a campaign of brutality against Indians in Uganda, how many Indians were upset and said so?

Besides, if it's mere lines on a map that decide who should speak up and who should not, why does the rest of India pay any attention to what's happening in Orissa? Would we take seriously anyone from Orissa who says "What's happening in Orissa is Orissa's business alone"?

As far as I'm concerned, attacks on innocent people are the business of anyone in the world who finds such attacks revolting. (It's why we call them "universal" human rights). Sometimes the only hope that such attacks will stop is that enough people speak out against them, from wherever they are.

So whether in Rome or Arakkonam, Novaya Zemlya or Lunkaransar, my hope is that there will always be people expressing their concern about criminal assaults. Whether those assaults happen in Orissa or Kenya or Germany.