LETTERS

The hijack drama

One cannot but agree with your editorial "Defeat at Kandahar" (Frontline, January 21). Although the release of the hostages was a happy culmination of the drama, the costly defeat of the so-called tough-talking Government shames the nation.

On an average, about 10 securitymen die while capturing one terrorist. Therefore, the release of jailed terrorists would demoralise our security forces and the relatives of victims of terrorist attacks. The Government's claim that its tough stance had sh aken the terrorist groups and Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) has been proved hollow by the hijack incident.

The Government needs to take some tough measures to combat terrorism. India should try to capture back the hijackers and the released militants.

S. Raghunatha Prabhu

Alappuzha

Your editorial is not fair. It was neither a victory nor a defeat. If we could not hold our head high, at least we could heave a sigh of relief. If the release of the three hardcore terrorists is a defeat, saving the lives of 155 passengers is surely a v ictory. If saving the 155 Indians does not serve the national interest, what else does? Of course, the Prime Minister proclaimed that the Government would not budge before a show of terrorism. What else would any head of state say at such a juncture? So many defence experts, strategists and crisis management experts were interviewed on television but no one could suggest a fool-proof way to secure the release of the hostages. Once IC 814 flew away from Amritsar and landed in Taliban land, the Government could do nothing but concede.

T.S. Bagavathi

Tiruvarur, Tamil Nadu

The Cover Story "Bowing to terrorism" was analytical, exhaustive and comprehensive and left out no factual details. It is worth preserving for reference. On the contrary, other magazines simply touched the surface of the issue, furnishing only salient as pects thereof, leaving the reader to imagine the rest.

D. Manuel Reddy

Visakhapatnam

After Kargil, now there is yet another blunder by the BJP-led Government. Its crisis management skills, in the face of a serious problem, were inadequate. Its reaction was too slow and late. It forced itself into a corner and the militants-for-hostages b arter was inevitable given the options. What is strange is that our Foreign Minister had to "thank" the Taliban authorities for their "cooperation". The fact that the Taliban chose to run with the hare and hunt with the hound escaped our Government.

The hijack drama may not be the last act meant to pressure India on the Kashmir issue. There is no let-up in militant attacks even on fortified places in the Valley. Given such a situation, there is no option but to tighten security at all important publ ic places. The public must be taken into confidence and involved in anti-terrorist operations, without which no plan can succeed. Vigilance on the border should be stepped up to prevent the infiltration of terrorists and the smuggling in of arms and ammu nition, a difficult task even in normal circumstances.

We have to face the fact that a mere tightening of security cannot solve the long-standing problem with Pakistan on Kashmir. The nation's resources have been drained for too long in order to maintain law and order in Jammu and Kashmir and to protect the sanctity of the Line of Control (LoC). We should be prepared to discuss all burning issues with our neighbour without any preconditions and with or without third-party help. This need not be seen as a sign of weakness but of maturity and strength. Are no t the Palestinians and the Israelis talking to each other despite years of hostility? All political parties should agree on such a dialogue without trying to be one up on the others. Only this way we can reduce the militancy in Kashmir and elsewhere and bring lasting peace, which will help both countries concentrate on social and other issues.

D. B. N. Murthy

Bangalore

The hijack crisis was a wake-up call for the nation in general and for the authorities in particular. The authorities' claim that the episode was a success (as they could bring down the hijackers' demands in terms of the number of terrorists to be releas ed) is in no way justified. No doubt we were left with not many options after the criminal lapse at Amritsar airport, but the whole story will go down in history as a complete failure of the Indian state. Instead of blaming our enemies, we should have re alised our own shortcomings and shown a responsible attitude with regard to our duty towards the country.

Ahmad Ali

Aligarh

Corporate defaulters

This is with reference to the article "A controversial report" (January 21). It is now a well-established fact that over the years successive governments have allowed industrial houses and corporate giants to take heavy loans from public sector banks and financial institutions and failed to enforce them to repay these loans. The resultant escalation in the Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) of banks is thus a creation of corporate houses. The banks are not to blame as the existing legislation is insufficient to recover the dues. Moreover, the governments have always shielded the defaulters. The corporate sector has been making profit from the public funds with nationalised banks. This drain of public funds has been a serious problem faced by the economy in g eneral and banking and financial institutions in particular.

The recommendations of the Confederation of Indian Industry's (CII) Task force defies logic and justice - instead of punishing the defaulter, it wants to punish the victim. The Government has failed to take appropriate preventive measures and now wants to take curative measures such as the privatisation of public sector banks and even the closure of a few. This goes to prove that the Government does not take economic offences seriously.

The Government must stop protecting the defaulters and must empower banks with suitable laws in order to enable them to recover un-paid loans. Banks should also be provided with appropriate safeguards against such default in the future.

The concept of privatisation of public sector banks is flawed. India nationalised banks in 1969 and again in 1982 to preclude a few hands from controlling large sums of money. Besides, the track record of private sector banks does not always inspire conf idence. Private sector banks have been bailed out on several occasions by public sector banks.

Deregulation and decontrol are the hallmarks of the liberalisation process. But deregulation should not become synonymous with no regulation. Good regulatory norms are essential for the proper functioning of banks and other financial institutions. Econom ic offences should be punished. A developing country like India can ill-afford such huge dilution of financial resources.

Sanjai Kumar

Hazaribagh, Bihar

Jerusalem With reference to the letters of Ms. Yael Ronen and Rev. Philip K. Mulley (Frontline, January 21) I have absolutely no argument with their contention that symbols have social and philosophical importance and that we have no reason to dismiss them out of hand. But we cannot thrust them up on history or archaeology. No one would infer that Schliemann's excavations at the site of what we call Troy today in any way reflect the historical truth of every personage and event in Homer's Iliad and Odyssey or Virgil's Aeneid. The relation between the epics and reality needs to be demonstrated much more concretely than is done by the exhibition in question. The mere ending of human sacrifice - a universal phenomenon - does in no way authenticate the legend of Isaac. It merely highlights the enormous social importance of this development. Until we have concrete archaeological evidence for a more precise conc lusion, we must leave it at that. This is the difference between tradition and concrete historical fact. I am perfectly aware of the tradition of "City of David" just as I am of "the new Jerusalem"; but until archaeological evidence proves the existence of David in Jerusalem - and the facts provided in this exhibition in no way do that - I must regrettably stick to my conclusion that the title is a misnomer. Indeed, when Ms. Ronen very correctly states that the exhibition "covers life under the Caananites, the Jebusites, the Israelites, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians and the Greeks", my conte ntion that the title is incorrect is more than vindicated. With regard to Rev. Mulley, I would only like to state that when we call Mahatma Gandhi the Father of the Nation, we are definitely stating that he was the visionary through whose efforts the present Indian state, and no other, came into being. Had it no t been for the state's people's movements and the overarching vision of the Congress regarding a secular and democratic India, the map of this country would have been very different. Also, when one speaks in one breath of the "Harappan and Vedic heritage ", one fails to understand that they are two different things. The former is based on inferences from archaeology, and the latter on literary sources, which may have undergone innumerable changes over time. The two may stand together as "culture" today i n common parlance; but to stand up to the test of science the Harappan script must be properly decoded, while Vedic references as a whole are almost impossible to pinpoint on the ground without a doubt. Also, as regards the "copies", I was told this by one of the organisers who may have understood my pointed question wrongly. I am willing to accept Ms. Ronen's explanation on that count; but unfortunately the so-called inscription of the "House of David" is one that was neither found in Jerusalem nor is in the exhibition in the original form. So, to make it the basis of naming the exhibition - and that seems to be the only reason for its inclusion - is, to say the least, specious. Finally, while being deeply aware of the injustice done to Jews in Europe, and having been a visitor to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp near Berlin, I do not see that being anti-Zionist is being anti-Jewish, just as being against the Rashtriya Swaya msevak Sangh (RSS) does not make one anti-Hindu. Also, I cannot see this oppression as the reason for the massacres of Palestinians, the seizure of the lands of neighbouring Arab countries, and basically playing up hell with a region that had fought for its liberation from the Turks. And that too, at the expense of people who never persecuted Jews, unlike the Europeans. Mahatma Gandhi's position on the question is clear enough for most Indians: "My sympathies are all with the Jews... They have been the untouchables of Christianity. The parallel between their treatment by Christians and the treatment of untouchables by Hindus is very close. Religious sanction has been invoked in both cases for t he justification of inhuman treatment meted out to them. Apart from the friendships, therefore, there is the more common universal reason for my sympathy for the Jews. "But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home of the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Pa lestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? "Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense as England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. Th e Mandates have no sanction but that of the last war...' (Harijan, 1938). The truth of this position is reflected in the creation of a Palestinian Authority in the region today. The "sentiments" Ms. Ronen speaks of are understood by us both as an oppressed people and as a people who have fought off that oppression successfully despite the British attempt at Balfourisation of India and the partition of the "culture" of Punjab, Sindh and Bengal on religious lines. We still survive as a secular state. We only wish the Zionists had chosen to look forward in history as the leaders of our national movement did, and had not collaborated with the very forces that were responsible for the 2,000 years of oppression Ms. Ronen speaks of. Then it would not have been necessary to project Jerusalem as "the City of David", I am sure. Suneet Chopra New Delhi