LETTERS

War against terrorism

There are times when we as responsible citizens must put braces around our actions (Cover Story, November 23). This is not the time to exercise our freedoms to their fullest. We must restrain our expressions of opposition or support to any of the powers involved in the ongoing global fight against terrorism. If there ever was a time to follow the principle of the golden mean, it is now. The civil society must set an example by showing the path of sobriety.

Kallol Bhattacharya
Delhi

Gender inequality

Prof. Amartya Sen essay on gender inequality, remarkable for its conceptual clarity, is an eye-opener for many social scientists who ignore qualitative data (November 9). Across societies there is very little evidence of "gender equality" as it is sought to be presented by some modern development specialists.

In modern terms, gender inequality can be looked upon as inequality in the control and distribution of resources. Land ownership is a case in point. I, as a social anthropologist, came to learn that women of almost every caste in a particular village was prohibited from owning, and even ploughing, an agricultural field. Even if she is the only legal heir, the property does not come to her. In one case village elders and local politicians connived to transfer a woman heir's land to a distant male relative who lived in another village.

Gender ratios as presented by Sen are accurate and revealing. The explanations are also refreshing. The biological illustrations are useful pointers but may not be sufficient to give a holistic perspective.

The traditional concepts of "gender" and "equality" require a closer look, and there is the need for contextual and qualitative analyses by social anthropologists before macro-level quantitative conclusions can be drawn.

Rajesh Patnaik
Visakhapatnam

Onkar Chopra
New Delhi

Prof. Sen has exposed the discrimination against women. His essay is definitely educative, but when he makes an argument to take a 'plural' view of gender inequality, he does not provide the full picture. He has taken into account mainly the problems of women. He has not discussed the problems of men. To bring any positive change in society, it is crucial to look at both sides of the coin. Since "men studies" have already begun in South Asian countries including India, Prof. Sen could look at men's problems in a sequel to the essay.

S.M. Faizan Ahmed
Delhi

The seven types of inequality faced by women need urgent attention from governments worldwide. Declining male-female ratios in India and other countries owing to female foeticide expose the popular attitude to the girl child. But think of the effects of this on our future. It would be worthwhile to remember that the world needs women to give birth to men.

The year 2001, hailed as women's empowerment year, is about to pass without any significant achievements being made in this respect. Child marriage, rape, eve-teasing and sexual harassment make the gender inequality problem worse. Governments the world over should, with the help of the media and social organisations, come forward to restrict gender inequality.

Akhilesh Kumar Sah
Faizabad

POTO

This has reference to "Terror through ordinance" (November 23). The Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) is essential to control anti-social elements disrupting peace in the subcontinent. But when it is implemented, the authorities would do good to remember to safeguard the interests of law-abiding citizens.

K. Ramadoss
Chennai

This refers to R.K. Raghavan's column "Old wine in a new bottle?" (November 9). The author's enthusiastic endorsement of POTO is mystifying in the light of his own admission that the rate of conviction of persons hauled up under POTO's predecessor TADA has been "miserably low". It also goes against the main trend of criticism of the ordinance by the human rights community in India, led by the National Human Rights Commission. Maybe the author is carried away by the trend in the U.S. to ask for stringent steps to deal with the challenge of terrorism against that country, which, unfortunately, is only likely to be aggravated by its ongoing brutal assault on Afghanistan ("brutality smeared with peanut butter", as Arundhati Roy puts it in her brilliant piece in The Guardian, London, recently) and its massive violation of the human rights of the common people of that country. U.N. agencies have expressed concern over the condition of women and children in particular and the threat of starvation of millions as a result of the U.S. attacks.

It is not clear what human rights agenda, if any, Raghavan (now on the Human Rights Program of the Harvard Law School), seeks to advance by his uncritical endorsement of the notorious POTO. The basic problem with the Indian police, as he knows, is the discretion enjoyed by the street-level bureaucracy to pick up people indiscriminately under various draconian laws and the enforcement of accountability of policemen to the human rights laws of the land. This lesson was brought out clearly in a study on the National Security Act conducted by me years ago when I was Director of the Research and Policy division of the Union Home Ministry.

Raghavan will do well to suggest methods for improving street-level accountability in the Indian police (of which he has been a part for many years) rather than indulge in the same "arm-chair" theorisation, of which he is rightly critical. One may add that today terrorism, along with drug-trafficking, money-laundering and espionage, constitutes "multinational systemic crimes" which call for efforts not mainly at the international level but at the national level.

Moreover, parochial concepts of correction and law enforcement should be replaced by broader concepts from outside the disciplines of criminology and criminal justice. A mere attempt to empower the local police with additional regulatory powers is not a viable option in containing multinational systemic crimes today. Such measures only lead to substantial commitment to the expansion of police, paramilitary and military bureaucracies. The author should know this better than anyone else.

K.S. Subramanian (IPS retired)
received on email

Kashmir

Whenever any country offers help to solve the Kashmir problem, the Government of India insists that it is a bilateral issue and no third-party mediation is needed. However, when incidents of cross-border terrorism occur in Kashmir, the government appeals to all countries, especially the United States, to restrain Pakistan, the promoter of terrorism in the Valley.

India may not be able to continue with this policy of contradiction in the post-Afghan war scenario. The hope that the U.S. will snub Pakistan for its proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir is misplaced. The U.S. has its priorities and national interests to consider. It had to depend on the Musharraf regime in its action against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. America may ask Pakistan to close down the terrorist camps in Pakistan that send militants into Kashmir, but that will be at a price. India too will have to heed the advice of the U.S. The attitude of 'no third party interference' may have to be abandoned.

As it is, post-Agra positions taken by India and Pakistan are not of much help in solving the Kashmir problem. It is clear that moving on the same groove is not going to solve the Kashmir problem. Rational decisions with a futuristic vision have to be taken by both governments to reach an agreement. Political one-upmanship and holier-than-thou attitudes will not help solve the problem.

India and Pakistan must agree that the future of Kashmir is to be decided by the people of Kashmir. Pakistan should realise that it can never take Kashmir by force from India. And whatever sympathy the people have for Pakistan is not because of religious affinity or faith in Pakistan's goodwill. It is only because the enemy's enemy is considered a friend. Kashmiris also know that they would have been worse off if they were in Pakistan. There would have been no Article 370 in the Pakistani Constitution. However, the probability that Kashmir under Pakistan would have been worse is no excuse for India to be bad.

After 50 years, a plebiscite still seems to be the way out of the Kashmir imbroglio. Some changes to the originally envisaged plebiscite are necessary to suit the present situation. First, the plebiscite should be held separately in the three major regions of the State - Jammu, Kashmir (including PoK) and Ladakh - and the decision of the people should be honoured. Secondly, options should be given to join either India or Pakistan or to remain independent. The plebiscite should be held under U.N. auspices with the help of a peace-keeping force acceptable to all parties concerned.

The international community will be only too happy if India puts forward such a proposal. Pakistan cannot refuse it since all these years it has been harping on a plebiscite. If the Hindu fundamentalists would deem it a surrender to Pakistan, they are mistaken, for the outcome is likely to be more favourable to India than to Pakistan. Jammu and Ladakh are certain to opt for India. Kashmiris may most probably vote for independence, and there is no reason for them to prefer an authoritarian Pakistani regime. The end result will be: Pakistan will lose PoK and gain nothing.

Half a century of hostility has left India and Pakistan backward despite their tremendous human development potential. The world will not allow two South Asian nuclear weapon states to settle their disputes by war. Therefore, why not give peace a chance with some concessions and conciliation?

N. Kunju
Delhi

Nobel Prize and Naipaul

This refers to "A house for Mr. Naipaul" (November 9). V.S. Naipaul has carefully and consistently cultivated a proclivity to be prejudiced against groups and individuals. More often than not his writings reflect his scant regard for civilisations and value systems and for people's suffering, poverty and injustice. No wonder a cold cynicism runs through the whole body of his works.

Naipaul is scornful of even distinguished personalities such as Mahatma Gandhi, E.M. Forster, J.M. Keynes and R.K. Narayan. Perhaps his dominant attitude in life is: "I'm okay, you're not okay."

His writings are as coloured as his vision. Central to his works, including his travelogues, are his personal predilections and idiosyncracies. Is he not badly affected by an 'attention-getting' psychology?

In short, the special mark of the genius of Naipaul is his eccentricity that works to the detriment of his truly masterly handling of the language. Naipaul may have won the Nobel but he lacks nobility.

R. Soundararajan
Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu

George Fernandes

'Morality' is a word alien to Indian politicians. So there is nothing surprising in the re-induction of George Fernandes ("The return of Fernandes", November 9), who has not been charge-sheeted unlike the three Ministers of the NDA government who have been charge-sheeted in the Babri Masjid demolition case. But the way Fernandes was re-appointed a day after Justice Venkataswami ruled the Tehelka tapes authentic raised many eyebrows. You are right in thinking that keeping Fernandes inside the government would be less troublesome than keeping him out. Whatsoever the re-induction of not only Fernandes but also Harin Pathak (whose alleged offence is murder) and Bangaru Laxman (as Chairman of the Parliament Housing Committee) has maligned the image of the Vajpayee government. It is a sad reflection of the country's political system, now led by a party that likes to think it is different from others.

Bidyut Kumar Chatterjee
Faridabad

The re-induction of George Fernandes has severely undermined the 'rule of law' in the country. When Fernandes resigned from the Defence Ministry in the wake of the Tehelka expose, he had stated that he would not hold any ministerial position until he was exonerated. However, it is most unfortunate that Fernandes has altered his stand now. Constitutionally the Prime Minister is within his rights to appoint any person as Minister, but he should have exercised this right responsibly.

Bishal Das
Baripada, Orissa