LETTERS

Advantage BJP

The Cover Story "Advantage BJP" (December 20, 2002) made good reading. The opinion poll threw light on the situation but some important issues were missed. The absence of a creditable alternative political party to educate the public against communal polarisation can cause great harm to our secular character. Your fears are correct. Hindutva ideology has come to stay, and God save India.

G. Parthasarathy
Chennai

Colombo-LTTE talks

It will be good if peace returns to Sri Lanka after all these years of bloodbath ("Sticking to his guns", December 20, 2002). However, the record of the LTTE's terrorism is different from that of other liberation movements; even India has had to pay a heavy price. We lost a former Prime Minister to LTTE blood-thirst. And V. Prabakaran is, in our records, a fugitive who ought to be extradited to India to stand trial for the assassination.

Should the Oslo talks succeed and the LTTE become part of the Sri Lankan administration, India would be the loser. One hopes that we shall not have to receive V. Prabakaran in New Delhi as a head of state.

R. Sajan
Aluva, Kerala

Naga talks

The article "A winter of hope" (December 20, 2002) ignored the core issues of the Naga problem sidelined. It lacked insight; the views of the various Naga factions in the region were not adequately presented. Consultations with one faction, the NSCN(I-M), might not yield any solution. The Central government should bring all Naga factions and tribal groups under one roof for talks with a mediator in order to achieve a consensus for an amicable solution to this long-standing problem.

Dr. Karthik S. Deepankar
Assam

The foreign hand

I would like to take issue with the general thrust of the article "The foreign hand" (December 20, 2002) — that espousing or propagating Hindutva should be considered a criminal offence. If this is accepted, the same treatment should apply to those who propagate Christianity, Islam, or atheism for that matter.

Just as an argument can be made that the Sangh Parivar's idea of Hinduism does not reflect the opinion of the majority of Hindus, the idea of Christianity professed by many missionaries in India is not accepted by the majority of Christians.

I agree, however, that any organisation that encourages violence should not be given donations, but this should apply to all religious organisations.

V.K. Sameer
received on e-mail

Crimes in cyberspace

Former CBI Director R.K. Raghavan has highlighted the obnoxious effects of cyber crimes by citing many instances ("Crimes in cyberspace", December 6, 2002). To cite one more instance of the same, The Chicago Tribune recently reported a major credit card scam involving a software company executive. The modus operandi was first to get partial information on the social security numbers of a "selected list" of customers from street gangs. From the social security numbers, the executive used his computer access to extract the credit histories of the customers. Once the data were ready he sold them to the gang. With the credit histories now available, the gang could manipulate the accounts.

This case highlights the exploitation of a major loophole in network security. Although five top credit rating agencies' data were at stake, they could spot it only at an advanced stage. A purposeful and proactive means for dealing with cyber crimes is needed as the volume handled by e-business grows.

K. Sethumadhavan
Hyderabad

A saffron offensive

It is an undeniable fact that Kamala Surayya is one of the finest writers Kerala has produced and deserving of the Ezhuthachan Puraskaram ("A saffron offensive", December 6, 2002). She enriched Malayalam literature and her English poems won international recognition.

What actually enraged the saffron crowd was her recent conversion to Islam. If it was not so, why did she suddenly become unacceptable to the Sangh Parivar? The argument that the recipient of an award should be from the same religion as the person in whose name the award is instituted and must hold the same view of life as he did is nothing but absurdity. If we accept these as the criteria for awards, an award in the name of Mahatma Gandhi cannot be awarded to anybody as it would be impossible to find a person like him.

The hue and cry can only be seen as an attempt to humiliate anyone who does not fit into the Parivar's scheme of things. This sign of hate and intolerance on the part of the Sangh Parivar will darken the tranquil literary atmosphere of Kerala.

The brighter side of the whole episode is that secular intellectuals of all hues stood as one man against the onslaught of the saffron brigade.

Gopalan Thayyil
Palakkad

The Delhi encounter

Apropos Praful Bidwai's insinuations at the Delhi Police's alleged highhandedness in shooting down two terrorists in cold blood in Ansal Plaza, the arguments smack of misplaced sentiments ("The Delhi encounter", December 6, 2002). I am appalled at the length to which the `intelligentsia' goes to champion the cause of the `oppressed', all in the guise of upholding human rights.

If a pre-emptive strike by the armed forces or the State police finds a few innocuous-looking terrorists dead, why does it draw universal media opprobrium? Was the Delhi Police in the Ansal Plaza case expected to blare out warnings to the terrorists to `disarm or else face the consequences'? Or are they to be declared terrorists only after they have taken the death toll up considerably?

If not so, what could possibly be the raison d'etre of this whole issue? Should the whims of a doctor, whose claim to witnessing the stage-managed shootout, be the basis to discredit the whole State Police Department? Why did the author not partner Kuldip Nayyar to raise a hue when 26 detenus were released unconditionally by the PDP-Congress(I) government in Jammu and Kashmir, which could play havoc in the Valley? The double standard of our `intelligentsia' needs to be weighed up before people can be swayed by their thought process. Let millions of minds not be moulded by a microcosm of a `secular' few.

Alok Srivastava
New Delhi

A century's lament

Natwar Singh's column is becoming more Leftist and anti-American He blames the U.S. for dropping atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, killing lakhs of Japanese people ("A century's lament", November 22, 2002). This is a cruel act done during a war in which the Japanese also inflicted much cruelty on the Americans, the Chinese (recall the rape of Nanking) and their allies. If the atom bomb was not dropped and the war had been prolonged much longer, the chances are that even more people would have died.

Again, Natwar Singh calls India's democracy a `near miracle'. He forgets the poverty, unemployment, and corruption in India. Often we read reports of people dying of starvation in a few States. Extensive areas in Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar are under naxalite control, with no proper administration. Is this the picture of an ideal democracy?

Madhavan Nayar
Parur, Kerala

The Dravidian movement

The views expressed by Marxist intellectual Karthigesu Sivathamby in his interview on the Dravidian movement (November 8, 2002) are thought-provoking and should be heart-warming to all those honest intellectuals disgusted with attempts to bestow respectability upon the Dravidian movement and its leaders of yesteryear.

For the intellectual, objectivity in analysis is the ultimate test of honesty in one's convictions as professed. By this yardstick, Sivathamby has acquitted himself gloriously as an honest and passionate intellectual trying to put things in perspective in assessing the role and performance of the Dravidian forces in Tamil Nadu.

Sivathamby repeatedly points to the fact that the Dravidian forces were bereft of economic orientation in their ideology. They could not have had one, given the fact that their emergence itself was based on malice, hatred and prejudice for Brahmins, and the jealousy and frustration of a few individuals because of the academic and professional success of Brahmins, of course aided by the historical and social advantages that they have enjoyed from time immemorial.

Whereas there was more than enough justification for the re-emergence of a resistance movement by Dalits and the oppressed against the dominance of upper castes, including Brahmins but not only Brahmins, the opportunity was usurped by self-seekers and opportunists to promote their own political ambitions and to occupy space in the political and administrative spheres by displacing Brahmins. This is the real background in which the Justice Party was formed. Subsequently, E.V. Ramaswamy founded the Dravidar Kazhagam (D.K.) because of his personal frustration and feeling of being marginalised within the Justice Party rather than any great concern for the marginalised Tamil communities.

Of course, EVR was politically astute to choose the most appropriate time and a perfect alibi for quitting the Justice Party. Even since, every split in these so-called Dravidian parties has been only due to the personal whims and fancies of one leader or the other and never on any great principled positions.

The opportunistic nature of leaders like EVR would be clear to anyone who has closely followed the declarations of EVR, such as the one that he would always be a supporter of whichever party rules at a particular point of time, be it the Congress or even the DMK led by C.N. Annadurai. Even while pretending to fight casteism on all fronts, EVR always took care not to offend caste Hindus, whose atrocities were no less condemnable than those of Brahmins. He clearly chose Brahmins only because they were a soft target from whom the least retaliation was expected, and his methods in directing his brand of resistance to archaic practices were fascist in nature. Similarly, in terms of the debate with regard to EVR's brand of atheism and fighting religion and superstitious beliefs, he chose only the Hindu community and its own gods and even there took care not to ridicule what were perceived as Tamil gods.

The Dravidian forces did not have intellectual inputs that could be deemed to be some sort of ideology worth its salt. They were more a potent grouping of people driven by their common hatred for Brahmins and a desire to give expression to their prejudices for the Hindu way of worship or, more pertinently, the Brahminical style and practices.

Sivathamby hits the nail on the head when he points out that while in West Bengal and Kerala the Marxist ideology has established itself and holds its own, the so-called Dravidian ideology has been diluted over the years. This only goes to prove that the declarations and statements of intent projected as ideologies of the Dravidian parties were, in fact, only opportunistic intellectual pretences and pronouncements devoid of conviction and incapable of stimulating intellectual debate.

Finally, it would be a great injustice and insult to Marxism and its ideology to be equated with or even discussed in the same breath as Dravidian pronouncements, which are nothing more than the outpourings of a group of opportunists with questionable intentions and uniformly guided by hatred for a particular community for all the wrong reasons.

N.S. Sankararaman
Chennai

Images of a revolution

Hats off to Frontline for publishing the article on Alberto Korda ("Seeing with the heart", December 20, 2002). He was indeed a photographer par excellence. The photographs taken by him during the Cuban revolution are themselves evidence of his association with the mass uprising.

The redoubtable photographer immortalised the key moments of the revolution. We expect more photographs taken by the man in later issues of your magazine.

Dipankar Baidya
Jadavpur, Kolkata

Animals in research In his "response" (December 6, 2002) to my column on animal experimentation (November 22), Dr. S. Chinny Krishna has resorted to a combination of assertions which are altogether irrelevant, and statements based on an outright misreading of data and facts. Let me take three instances of the latter alone. The records of the National Institute of Immunology (not "Nutrition", as Dr. Krishna calls it) do not show that monkeys "No. 299 to 326 with the exception of No. 315 and 323" were "TB-positive". The "x" sign in the register against their names only means they were not subjected to a tuberculosis test on a particular date. I understand that young monkeys born in animal houses are not routinely tested on the eyelid for TB unless there is a specific reason. However, the CPCSEA-appointed inspectors have apparently misread the "x" sign as a positive or "+" sign - and arbitrarily concluded that the monkeys were all TB-positive! One does not know whether to laugh or cry at such trivialisation and descent into the ridiculous. Presumably, that is what happens when sheer prejudice further vitiates the confrontationist posture adopted in a "raid", and when investigators do not bother to acquaint themselves with the procedures and practices adopted by the particular facility they are inspecting - before damning them. I used the term "raid" advisedly. The September 28 visit of the inspectors was more than a "surprise" or "challenge" inspection. It was more in the nature of a hostile confrontation. At least one inspector grabbed the animal house records and rummaged through them. The Delhi Science Forum report has detailed the hostile nature of some inspectors' conduct and their gross distortion of facts about the nutrition provided to the animals. (This report can be seen at the website, http://www.delhiscienceforum.org/). "Raid" was the precise word used by the "sympathetic" reporters to whom the story was unethically leaked. One expects higher standards of transparency and sharing of information - for example, through a press conference or the publication of the inspectors' report - from those who adopt high moral postures. As for the CPCSEA's "whimsical" behaviour, there is no better proof than its violation of Section 15A(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (amended 1982), which says that all its subcommittees shall consist "exclusively" of its own members. Surely, an illegality is even worse than "whimsicality". Nor has the CPCSEA evolved uniform criteria or procedures for appointing inspectors, conducting inspections, or scheduling visits - in the past 38 years. Dr. Krishna lists six "respected scientists" as CPCSEA "members". The names of two of them (Drs. Vinayak and Guru) have not been notified in the Gazette - - surely, strange for a statutory body! Praful Bidwai New Delhi * * * Every statement made by Dr. S. Chinny Krishna about the National Institute of Immunology (NII) in his letter titled "Animals in research" (December 6, 2002) is factually erroneous. Under the circumstances, NII feels compelled to respond to correct the major factual errors he makes about NII. To begin with, NII is referred to as the National Institute of Nutrition. It is the National Institute of Immunology. Next, the figures for the incidence of tuberculosis in NII's primate centre that Dr. Chinny Krishna provides are totally wrong. It appears that whoever compiled the data for NII's registers (without asking NII personnel for any clarifications whatsoever) had no idea of the system used and did not bother to find out. Thus, all "x" marks in `tuberculin test' columns appear to have been treated as "+" or a positive test, when all they indicate is that a tuberculin test was not done at that time on those particular animals (such as the animals Dr. Chinny Krishna refers to in the series from 299 to 326 and, presumably, the `over 70 monkeys' he refers to as having `tested positive to TB'). Thus, according to Dr. Chinny Krishna, `monkey number 310 tested positive on 5.7.2000, 31.8.2000 and 1.11.2000', whereas all that was done to this animal (born in the colony earlier in 2000 to a tuberculin-negative macaque) on those dates was to weigh it! When it became a juvenile of an appropriate age, a surgical procedure was carried out as per an approved protocol. Dr. Chinny Krishna accuses NII of wilful cruelty to a poor sick animal on the basis of data not cross-checked with NII. NII finds this both offensive and defamatory. Dr. Chinny Krishna then castigates NII for preventing an inspection by a CPCSEA `team', which was apparently supposed `to reconfirm how conditions at the NII primate house could be so deplorable'. Is more evidence of prejudice really needed? In any event, the reason for the NII Director to refuse formal inspection was that this team did not carry proper documentation of authorisation from the CPCSEA (as he pointed out to the team). All such documentation must be signed by the Member-Secretary, CPCSEA, or by some duly authorised formal government functionary, and not by `Expert Consultants' appointed ad hoc (however `authorised') as was the case of the documentation this inspection team carried. NII had pointed out this principle in writing to the CPCSEA prior to this visit. At the time of the visit, the Senior Manager, NII, also mentioned that, because of instructions from the Central government in the wake of the terrorist attack on Parliament House in December 2001, casual access to the Institute's working areas could no longer be easily provided. Nonetheless, while this could not be accepted as a formal inspection visit, NII clarified its willingness to have the team visit the experimental animal facilities informally. Thus, this visiting team apparently `felt humiliated' because the members were asked to obtain requisite formal documents in order to make a formal inspection, and asked for `stern action' against the Director of NII and his colleagues for simply insisting on the observance of proper rules and procedures. Further, as Dr. Chinny Krishna should know well, the very same team was welcomed to carry out an official inspection on November 23, 2002, when the CPCSEA, in deference to the rules, gave them the relevant authorising documentation. It is deplorable that an authority that slaps and kicks research institutes for `not following rules' fails to conform to the most basic administrative formalities required of any governmental agency. As another example, the CPCSEA has never provided NII with copies of any of the reports of these `inspections', contrary to all tenets of natural justice. Incidentally, contrary to Dr. Chinny Krishna's understanding, Dr. Kiran Singh is not currently `a member of the Board of NII', a fact that Dr. Singh himself would no doubt have pointed out if Dr. Chinny Krishna had bothered to ask him. Dr. Chinny Krishna then goes on to insinuate that NII is one of the `bad eggs in the scientific establishment' that get by through bribing inspectors. Given his patent disregard for the truth, such baseless, malicious innuendo is all the gentleman appears to be capable of. Finally, experimental animals are essential tools for biological research and they should be treated with humane care. NII does this. Laws should be followed. NII does this too. What needs to change, it seems, is the anti-science, anti-scientist attitude of the CPCSEA. Dr. R. Dhar Scientist-in-charge Public Relations National Institute of Immunology New Delhi

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail