LETTERS

Agra Summit

The feature "Summit letdown" and the Editorial (August 3) persuasively presented the case for continued interaction between India and Pakistan. Indulging in parody, one may describe the post-Agra situation as "the dialogue is dead, long live the dialogue". Although there was no mutually agreed agenda for the summit, the participants had a hidden agenda that was dissimilar - a fact that was reflected in the unhelpful noises made during the deliberations.

Wars begin in the minds of men. Hence more dialogue is a sine qua non to end the decades-old sabre-rattling by India and Pakistan.

K. John Mammen
Thiruvananthapuram

The Summit has raised hopes for peace and amity. But the pessimists, magnifying the apparent dispute over Musharraf's insistence on Kashmir being the core issue between India and Pakistan, have termed it a failure. Vajpayee and Musharraf are unable to free themselves from age-old prejudices and create new hopes and aspirations. It is because of their rigid stances on Kashmir.

From Pakistan's point of view, any dialogue without its focus on Kashmir is futile. So Musharraf could not display sufficient flexibility, perseverance and diplomatic skills to make the Summit fruitful.

The Summit should be regarded as the first milestone in a long voyage to peace. The path is full of obstacles but they are not insurmountable.

Musharraf's invitation to Vajpayee is an indication that the peace process will continue. It suggests that the two leaders have realised that use of force cannot solve the Kashmir problem. This is undoubtedly a Himalayan achievement.

In future talks, the leaders of both the nations should wean themselves away from past prejudices. Doubts and hesitations should be replaced by mutual trust. Joint efforts should be made to combat the common adversaries, that is, poverty, hunger, unemployment, population explosion, illiteracy, fundamentalism and unscrupulous foreign powers that want to perpetuate the hostility between the two countries and fish in troubled waters.

Buddhadev Nandi
Bishnupur, West Bengal

The Indian interlocutors failed to raise certain basic questions. If Pakistan is so concerned about the wishes of the people of Kashmir, will it tell us whether it ascertained the wishes and aspirations of the people before gifting away a part of Kashmir to China? Has it fulfilled the wishes of people living in the regions that were amalgamated with the Northern Areas of Pakistan? What has happened to the human rights and political rights of the people of Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir?

If the All Parties Hurriyat Conference intends to go back in history, then it should tell us who the original inhabitants of Jammu and Kashmir were before it was taken over by the Mughals. History has taken several turns and India has done well to maintain the boundaries and the multi-ethnic, multi-religious social composition of Jammu and Kashmir. It is unethical to call for a plebiscite in a society of such diverse cultures and traditions.

Dr. Vinay Prasad Sahu
Imphal

The "Lahore yatra", the ceasefire in Jammu and Kashmir and now the Agra Summit show that Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee is in a hurry to solve the Kashmir issue. Such haste will only complicate the delicate issue. Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi tried their best to solve it but in vain.

V.K. Krishna Menon, a Cabinet colleague of Nehru, once said that the fate of Kashmir can be decided only by the people of India, and not by a handful of politicians. Vajpayee, therefore, should take the nation into confidence on his moves in respect of Kashmir.

Patanjali Chaturvedi
Lucknow

Everybody knew that nothing miraculous would happen at Agra. But the media hype generated expectations of a dramatic breakthrough. As a result, the Summit, which succeeded in forming a strong base for future interaction, was widely seen as a failure.

Until a couple of months ago India and Pakistan were on the verge of another Kargil. The unilateral ceasefire in Jammu and Kashmir proved to be a costly misadventure. But, thankfully, India foresaw the danger and took the right steps, calling off the ceasefire and inviting General Pervez Musharraf to India. Under the prevailing circumstances this was the best India could do. India did not expect the Summit to bring the hostility to an end.

The Summit has indeed made a beginning in improving mutual understanding. Now it is up to the governments to move forward to the goal of peace.

Sairam Sanath Kumar
Thrissur, Kerala

Those who had high hopes of an agreement at Agra were disappointed. The two sides stuck to their well-known positions owing to domestic compulsions. Musharraf did praise Vajpayee for his bold initiative but the General had his own agenda: to project himself as a strong leader before the people of Pakistan.

The Agra Summit need not be seen as the last attempt in the process of normalising relations between the two countries. The need of the hour is to take bold initiatives. For this to happen, there has to be a consensus within the country.

D.B.N. Murthy
Bangalore

Your editorial described the Summit as a gamble. We would have had cause for worry only if the leaders had reached an agreement. Musharraf threw out a democratically elected government and has not given a time-frame to restore democracy. What is the guarantee that any agreement with him would be honoured by future rulers of Pakistan? The dialogue with the military ruler must be carried on in order to prevent an escalation of hostilities. But an agreement must be reached only with a democratically elected government.

Any such summit should be held only after taking Parliament into confidence and getting its agenda approved by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament.

Seth. Swaminathan
Received on e-mail

Sivaji Ganesan

Your tribute to veteran Tamil actor Sivaji Ganesan was memorable ("A doyen among actors", August 17). The thespian could portray any character with brilliance and ease. His demise marks the end of a golden era in the history of Tamil films.

Abhijeet D. More
Nashik

Education

The article "Abandoning a reform measure" (August 3) explained the positive aspects of the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) in Kerala. But some realities should have been taken into account before introducing the programme.

It is an activity-oriented programme, which requires a lot of time at school and an encouraging atmosphere at home. Unfortunately, most pupils of the Malayalam medium government schools come from the lower strata of society. They cannot afford the accessories required under the DPEP. Financial assistance is necessary in such cases.

Secondly, the DPEP cannot be implemented by teachers who are trained in the traditional methods of education. A crash course may not be of much use as the teachers keep moving to advanced levels of the DPEP.

After Standard X, all science subjects are taught in English. So English should be given importance up to Standard X. A good knowledge of English is required to raise education to international standards.

Teachers who oppose the DPEP do have a point. After several years of service, a sudden change that involves a lot of physical activity is not easily acceptable. Hesitation to assume an unfamiliar role is natural.

Arun B. Ashok
Thrissur, Kerala

I am a teacher of English and the mother of a seven-year-old boy who is in Standard III in a government-run Malayalam medium lower primary school in Kerala. My son is growing up as an aware, observant and resourceful person, only because he is taught to look around, observe and learn and is encouraged to use his creative skills.

Although children in the traditional stream of education knew the names of the capitals of countries and learnt about their crops, minerals and various other resources, most of them do not have much idea about what they have memorised. My son reads maps and finds out all the details about countries. He has classified almost all the trees and plants in the neighbourhood on the basis of their uses and life-spans. He also knows the types of soil in which some of them grow. Besides, he identifies birds, animals, insects and various other organisms and has observed their habitats and 'researched' on their behaviour.

He reads and writes notices, letters and diaries and prepares questions from the text he has read. He modifies original stories and writes character analyses. He also has a notebook on the environment, in which he notes down details about the monsoon. He has made a rain-gauge using a bottle and a funnel. Fortunately he has lost interest in mechanical toys.

In arithmetic, he can add, subtract and multiply and identify numbers in a sequence. He also makes a note of how much our family spends daily. He is given coins and asked to count them and to say what he can buy with them. He also has a book, Fun with Arithmetic, where he notes down tricky mathematical problems.

How many children who learn in the traditional way have an idea about the environment and the practical uses of arithmetic? What more 'measurable' achievements do the critics of DPEP want?

I remember my own experiences in school (a Kendriya Vidyalaya following the Central Board of Secondary Education syllabus). Although we had wonderful teachers, we used to wonder why we learned all those complex theorems and laws that are of "no use" later in life. Under the DPEP, children do learn those complex theorems and laws, but in a different and happier way.

Unenthusiastic teachers can certainly not help the system survive. But why should we abandon a just cause to pamper teachers who are not dedicated?

Textbooks for the DPEP are prepared painstakingly. It is obvious that much work has gone into selecting the material and grading and making them interesting. The English textbooks prescribed for Standard IV in DPEP schools are along the same lines as the CBSE English textbooks for Standard IX, which were revised in 1993 after years of research. I taught in a CBSE school for five years.

I do believe that children should be taught English from Standard I in DPEP schools. Younger students have an innate capacity to acquire language skills; the younger, the better.

The emphasis should be on imparting reading and writing skills and not on the quantity of material taught. Informal training in listening and speech skills can be given simultaneously.

I taught my son to read and write English using the method adopted under the DPEP to teach Malayalam. I did not teach him the alphabet first. Instead, I taught him groups of monosyllabic words with similar vowel sounds. (For instance, cat, bat, van, cap, yak.) When he found that it is actually easy to read and write so many words, he became more confident and the next step was easy. He now reads The Hindu though he does not understand the meaning of all the words used.

As for evaluation, I find the system followed in DPEP classes adequate. There are no examination time-tables. The students in DPEP classes are not warned in advance of the impending deluge of questions; rather, they are tested normally on topics taught during the course. On a typical test day in Standard I, the teacher writes down a few letters on the blackboard. The pupils write the names of animals using these letters. They are then made to sit in groups. Each group chooses one animal for discussion. The teachers join in the discussion from time to time. This goes on throughout the forenoon. In the afternoon, the pupils individually write down all that they know about the animal discussed in their respective groups. Such tests are conducted throughout the year without being a burden on students. There are no dogmas laws about the examination pattern.

I disagree with your correspondent only on his observation that the new curriculum reduced the role of the textbook, the tuition master and the parent. He is mistaken on the role of the parent. Whereas the parent had only to supervise the readymade answers earlier, under the new system the parent has to involve himself or herself in every stage of the child's learning process. In fact, the parent finds his or her long-buried curiosity and enthusiasm coming to the surface again. That is, if the parent looks at it in the right perspective.

Any good system of education should free the child from eternal dependence on the teacher and textbooks and encourage him/her to be self-reliant and resourceful in acquiring knowledge. This is what the new system does.

Zahira Rahman
Arecode, Kerala

Bonded labour

This has reference to the story of bonded labour in Haryana ("Slavery amidst prosperity", August 3). Bacchan Singh, described as a "Dalit", appears to be a Sikh and the landlord also belongs to the same community. One of the fundamental teachings of Sikhism is against casteism. It is apparent that most Sikh landlords consider themselves members of a "higher" caste. The Harminder Sahib at Amritsar should take action against those who violate the basic Sikh tenet. But this is unlikely because Sikh religious bodies are dominated by people from the "upper castes" and are far removed from the spirit of brotherhood preached by Guru Nanak.

Gurdial Singh
Received on e-mail

Women's rights

The Union Law Ministry's decision to introduce a Bill to amend Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is welcome. However, when it becomes law its provisions should be applicable to Muslim women also ("An iniquitous proposal", July 20).

According to the Constitution, the CrPC is applicable to all citizens. It is a pity that Muslim women are excluded from its purview in respect of maintenance. This is a challenge to the concept of the rule of law.

The Supreme Court gave a historic judgment in the Shah Bano case, guaranteeing the right of maintenance to Muslim women. But it was nullified by the Muslim (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, an irrational law which was approved by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board.

In the erstwhile Soviet Union, which had a Muslim population of 70 million, personal laws had diluted Islamic laws. It is high time India reformed the unjust personal laws of various religious communities.

Vimal
Kannur, Kerala