LETTERS

War on Afghanistan

This refers to "War on Afghanistan" (October 26). The terrorists' claim that they act according to the dictates of their religion is not true because Islam stands for love and brotherhood. Similar is the case with Christianity. Jesus Christ exhorted people to love even their enemies. If countries that swear by Christianity follow this dictum, why should there be so much violence and anarchy all over the world? It is these countries that were responsible for the two World Wars.

G.E.M. Manoharan
Coimbatore

In-depth coverage The October 26 issue, packed with objective analyses and insights into the events that led to the war on Afghanistan, is worth many times more than Rs.15, the price of a copy of Frontline. I do not think there is any other magazine in the country that has handled the subject in such depth. In Frontline, there are also other articles that hold the attention of a thinking person. Jaiboy Joseph Chennai

While everyone's heart goes out to the innocent victims of the September 11 attacks, the sufferings of the poor Afghans should not be lost sight of. As your editorial pointed out ("Dangerous implications of America's unjust war", October 12), there are substantial gaps in what is known about the precise authorship of the conspiracy. Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the United Kingdom said in a British Broadcasting Corporation programme that out of the eight persons identified as Saudi nationals who had been killed in the September 11 crashes, seven were in Saudi Arabia. This shows that the U.S. has made hasty conclusions about the perpetrators of the crime.

Even in the Oklahoma bombing, the initial suspect was Osama bin Laden but the culprit turned out to be an American citizen, Timothy McVeigh. It is time the United Nations played a more dominant role and saw that it is not hijacked by the U.S. as it happened in the case of the Gulf war. The U.S.' rhetoric will not help put an end to the menace of terrorism. If it wants to combat terrorism, it should review its own foreign policy in the first place.

Anwar Batcha
Coimbatore

The U.S.' response to the terrorist attacks is guided by self-interest. Keeping in mind its geo-political interests, it has chosen Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia - countries that nurtured Osama bin Laden and the Taliban - as its frontline allies in the fight against terrorism. It has ignored India, which has been fighting terrorism for more than a decade. Putting aside Pakistan's dubious track record on this front, the U.S. has promised all sorts of help to that country. The best way to fight international terrorism is to mobilise world opinion and carry out the task under the auspices of the U.N.

Sanjay Kumar
Delhi

The need of the hour is not a war of revenge. There should be a comprehensive approach to end global terrorism.

Shaik Rafeeq Ahamed
Rayachoti, Andhra Pradesh

Will terrorism vanish from the earth if Osama bin Laden is caught, dead or alive, and Afghanistan is razed? What about terrorism in other parts of the world - Kashmir, Palestine and recently in Nigeria? Was the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki not a crime against humanity? Will the U.S. promise that it will not repeat such a heinous crime against any country in future?

A. Srikantaiah
Bangalore

We are all taken for a ride by the U.S. Any action against the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks must have been taken only after an impartial inquiry. If one goes by U.S. President George W. Bush's logic, India can take military action against the United Arab Emirates, which gave sanctuary to Dawood Ibrahim, the suspected brain behind the serial blasts in Mumbai in 1993, which crippled India's financial capital for a while.

Parvez Mohammed
Thalassery, Kerala

The world is already haunted by the fear of a nuclear winter. India and Pakistan are so close to each other that mutually assured destruction (MAD) is a frightening reality. Adding to the danger is the menace of religious fundamentalism and the big powers' race to appropriate the world's resources, perpetrating unspeakable crimes against humanity in the process.

R. Ashok Kumar
Mumbai

If a terrorist attack in the U.S. is reason enough to launch a war against the Taliban regime, India can take retaliatory action against Pakistan-based terrorists. It would be wrong to believe that the U.S. is really interested in putting an end to terrorism and that it will benefit India. The U.S. has always adopted double standards on such issues.

Bidyut Kumar Chatterjee
Faridabad

The Prime Minister has rightly stated that every Indian has to be a part of "this global war on terrorism and India has faced terrorism for a long time." India lost many of its soldiers and civilians in Jammu and Kashmir to terrorism but the U.S. has always turned a deaf ear to India's concerns. But now American leaders speak a different language. However, the U.S.' war offers India an opportunity to solve the problem of terrorism in Kashmir.

Vinod C. Dixit
Ahmedabad

The terrorist attack in New York and Washington made it clear that no land is safe from terrorism. America's present campaign is nothing but a war against a phenomenon nurtured and sponsored by it for long. Are they not terrorists who dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, invaded Vietnam and attacked its people and caused the death of half a million children in Iraq?

Terrorism may be subdued temporarily but it will rise its head again in different forms as long as racism, economic disparity, exploitation and imperialism prevail. India should have been cautious before offering unconditional support to the U.S.

Expecting the U.S. to ignore Pakistan and forge ties with India is nothing but chasing a mirage. During the 1971 war, the U.S. took the side of Pakistan and sent its naval fleet to scare India.

Buddhadev Nandi
Bishnupur, West Bengal

The U.S. is facing the consequences of its own policies. The Taliban was created by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pakistani Army as part of their attempt to oust the communist regime led by Dr. Mohammed Najibullah. The U.S. supported the Taliban even after the fall of Kabul in 1996 and it did not condemn the brutal killing of Najibullah by the Taliban militia. The U.S.' latest war will only aggravate the miseries of the Afghan people who are already reeling under the impact of a protracted civil war.

American leaders' opinion that humanity has not witnessed anything more savage than the September 11 attack is false. The world has seen worse cases - in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia and the Bay of Pigs.

Vimal
Kannur, Kerala

The U.S. has had a taste of terrorism at a heavy price. It is time the world united against terrorism.

Akhilesh Kumar Sah
Faizabad

Nuclear terrorism

In the article 'Global dilemma' (October 26), R.K. Raghavan discusses the ramifications of "the terrorist capability to let loose chemical and biological weapons..." One also has to take into account the possibility of nuclear weapons entering the scene.

The common perception that nuclear weapons can be delivered only with the help of ballistic missiles is not correct. A suitcase is enough to carry a low-yield nuclear weapon, and it can be detonated with a remote control mechanism.

Another dangerous possibility is the detonation of a conventional weapon over a nuclear power plant. I hope the Central and State governments have taken precautions to avoid such an eventuality.

Kangayam R. Rangaswamy
Pennsylvania, U.S.

The judiciary

The article "Judging the Judges" (October 26) exploded the myth that all Judges are above board. In an era of judicial activism, it is unfortunate that the functioning of some Judges leaves much to be desired.

Given the political situation, the coalition era is likely to continue for many years, making it almost impossible to impeach a Judge under Articles 124(4) and 218 of the Constitution. Some Judges also seem to take advantage of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The common man who runs from pillar to post to get justice sees Judges as their saviours. The framers of the Constitution would not have thought that politicians and Judges would go to the extent of misusing constitutional provisions to their benefit.

The proposals of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution to 'cleanse' the judicial system are good and need to be debated in Parliament. As the Commission's Consultation Paper says, Judges should not work for salary but should consider the office an honour and a call of national duty. It has rightly pointed out that though there are not many cases of deviant and capricious behaviour, the few that are there have fouled the atmosphere.

S. Balakrishnan
Jamshedpur

SIMI

The government's decision to ban the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) is a bold one ("A controversial ban", October 26). SIMI reportedly had links with various organisations around the world, including Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence. The Opposition parties have asked the Centre to take a similar attitude towards the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal. The activities of the VHP and the Bajrang Dal may be communal, but those of SIMI posed a danger to the sovereignty of India.

S.A. Sundara Murthy
Tirupur, Tamil Nadu

The article does not seem to have been based on an independent investigation into the activities of SIMI, which has been accused of serious crimes by an elected and representative government. The fact that the organisation does not accept the notions of democracy or secularism - both of which form the bedrock of the Indian state - has not been criticised.

Prashant Rao
Received on e-mail

Labour's loss

Michael Hindley writes off Britain's Conservatives under their new leader, Iain Duncan Smith ("From Right to Far Right", October 26). The party is no more right-wing than it was when Margaret Thatcher led it to victory in 1979.

That the Labour party took power in 1997 because it was popular is a myth. In fact, the Conservatives lost because of their sleazy behaviour. Labour is also getting increasingly sleazy, which is evident from the recent appointment of a Labour supporter as Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

The Lords and Sirs who led Britain's trade unions were nonplussed by Tony Blair's recent promise of more privatisation. But Labour members increasingly see the bankruptcy of this approach, as evidenced by the spectacular collapse of the privatised rail network company, Railtrack. People who constitute Labour's traditional base in the trade unions stay away from elections.

The Liberal Democrats are not just picking up disaffected Conservatives but have captured many neglected heartlands of Labour in the past 20 years. Also Glasgow, Scotland, has seen a Far Left party, the Scottish Socialist Party, come from nowhere to win over 10 per cent of the votes.

Clive Power
London

Jinnah's role

In "Jinnah and Junagadh" (October 12), A.G. Noorani says: "In his hour of triumph, Jinnah's bitterness overwhelmed his judgment and he sowed the seeds of Indo-Pakistan strife." Mohammed Ali Jinnah was once president of the Indian National Congress and was hailed as the "ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity". With reluctance he joined the Muslim League in 1913. It was mainly owing to his efforts that the Congress and the League signed the Lucknow Pact in 1916. At a Muslim League Council meeting in 1934, Jinnah said: "Nothing will give me greater happiness than to bring about complete cooperation and friendship between Hindus and Muslims." In 1936, Jinnah was officially thanked by the Governor of Punjab for having intervened and brought about a compromise between Muslims and Sikhs who were at loggerheads over the usurpation of a mosque by Sikhs.

Lord Mountbatten admitted: "The last thing that Jinnah wanted was that we should go. He said first he didn't want a separate Pakistan, just wanted us to stay and hold the reins for them. But the Hindus wanted us to go..." It was the results of the provincial elections in 1937 that changed Jinnah's political thinking. The Congress won the election in all provinces and did not allow the Muslim League to be part of a coalition government in any of them. Sir Percival Griffith described this as the Congress' "tactical blunder". Only between 1937 and 39 did Jinnah finally subscribe to Iqbal's long-standing arguments in support of a separate Pakistan.

The seeds of India-Pakistan strife were sown when India held back Pakistan's share of Rs.50 crores in financial assets and of army vehicles, trucks, guns, tanks and some Army personnel; stopped the water flowing into the canals on the Pakistani side with a view to hampering agricultural operation; sent planes to evacuate Hindus and Sikhs from the Pakistani side, thus depriving Rawalpindi of the truck drivers who used to transport fruits and goods between Rawalpindi and the Kashmir valley via Abbotabad, Muzaffarabad, Muree/Kohala and Sialkot and leading to the blockade that was blamed on Pakistan.

While one can appreciate the finer points of Noorani's arguments regarding Junagadh, to the layman the situation looked like this: when it came to Hyderabad and Junagadh, the Indians said that the people must choose because the majority population were Hindus and the rulers were Muslims; but when it came to Jammu and Kashmir they said that the ruler must choose and not the people because the ruler was a Hindu while the majority of the people were Muslims. Do these double standards make sense? Yes, they do when Noorani himself quoted Nehru as saying: "I have an intimate and personal interest in it and the mere thought that Kashmir should join Pakistan and become a kind of foreign territory for us is hateful to me."

Zariani Abdul Rahman
Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

The Adivasi struggle

For the Adivasis of Kerala, it was a struggle for survival ("The Adivasi struggle", October 26). They chose a unique form of agitation in order to draw the attention of the authorities. Their demand is just. Had successive governments attended to their problems, the present crisis would not have occurred. But in an enlightened State like Kerala, poor Adivasis should not have been forced to take to the streets in the first place. The best way to solve the problem is to return the alienated land to them.

C. Madhu
Kattanam, Kerala

Jayalalithaa

This refers to "Exit Jayalalithaa" (October 12). Even after the Supreme Court judgment unseated her, Jayalalithaa continues to be the de facto Chief Minister. If her successor goes by her advice, does it not amount to a violation of the oath of secrecy taken by him? The Supreme Court should also prevent a disqualified person from exercising governmental authority by proxy.

V. Radhu
Mumbai

Enron

Apropos "Enron end-game?" (October 12), the Maharashtra government's failure to find an early solution to the problem makes one wonder whether any secret deal is in the making. It is not clear why Nationalist Congress Party leaders oppose a probe into the affair. Perhaps there was something wrong with the way decisions were made with regard to Enron. The people have a right to know how the deal was struck.

R.N. Vaswani
Mumbai