LETTERS

The face-off

The Cover Story (January 18) on the India-Pakistan standoff was interesting. The hawks in the National Democratic Alliance government are pushing for a military confrontation with Pakistan. A war can result in tremendous loss of life and property on both sides. A nuclear war is also a possibility. That the U.S. and other developed countries advised India and Pakistan to exercise restraint is a good augury.

Putting diplomatic and other pressures to make Pakistan "behave" is in order. But a war can create more problems than it can solve. Measures such as cutting the staff strength of the High Commissions, stopping the bus and train services and banning civilian overflights will unfortunately affect the common people in both countries.

The time has come for a serious dialogue on all outstanding issues between the two countries. Containing terrorism can be on top of the agenda. Of late Pakistan has shown a willingness to act against terrorist outfits operating from its territory. We should encourage this process and give President Pervez Musharraf a breather. He is on shaky ground vis-a-vis the jehadi outfits. War should be the last option.

D.B.N. Murthy
Bangalore

The Editorial gave a succinct picture of the situation on the border by calling a spade a spade.

In the interview, Pakistan Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar spells out in detail the action his government is taking against terrorism. But it cannot hope to check the growing menace of terrorism just by freezing the accounts of three terrorist organisations.

Sattar sounds hollow when he says that the government of India "has been escalating its demands", that "we need evidence that is justifiable in the eyes of law in Pakistan" and that "Pakistan cannot accept the Indian claim that Kashmir is a part of India" .

Your correspondent in Islamabad is right in observing that the picture today is more complicated than it would seem. Both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. But how can anyone expect India to remain calm without taking any retaliatory measures? Can it not strike at least at the hideouts of the terrorists in the valley using minimum force? Will this also be disapproved by the U.S. and Britain, which are taking great pains to avert a war between India and Pakistan?

Mani Natarajan
Chennai

It is difficult to agree with your Editorial, which advises restraint on the part of India. Should we wait until all our leaders are eliminated?

Pakistan-based terrorists will keep coming back unless we act decisively now. In combating Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, India should emulate Israel. Whenever Palestinian terrorists attack Israeli targets, the latter's troops hit back.

S. Raghunatha Prabhu
Alappuzha, Kerala

Pakistan Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar has demanded that India give proper and well-documented evidence of Pakistan-based terrorists' involvement in the attack on Parliament. Pakistan shall never extradite the terrorists to India unless the United States "orders" it to do so.

Satish Pradhan
Pune

Although the "New Year musings" of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee was well-drafted, the reference to Jammu and Kashmir as a 'contentious issue' evokes mixed feelings. On the one hand we say that Kashmir is an integral part of India and, on the other, we project control over the valley as a 'contentious issue'. This will only provide a fillip to Pakistan's efforts to internationalise the issue. We talk of peace with Pakistan but we prevent a peace delegation from going to Pakistan, again sending conflicting signals.

Although Pakistan has arrested the leaders of some jehadi outfits, it can be trusted only if it hands them over to India. India should walk 'the extra mile' to work closely with Pakistan only when Pakistan's words are translated into action - a remote possibility given the current situation. The people of Pakistan do not have an anti-India mindset. It is their political and military leaders who keep up the anti-India rhetoric, under pressure from extremist elements.

S. Balakrishnan
Jamshedpur

Kangayam R. Rangaswamy
Durham, U.S.

Andaman and Nicobar

I thank you for highlighting the situation in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands ("Logging off, for now", January 18). The people on mainland India and the rest of the world ought to know how the Andamans, once a beautiful place, has become the victim of exploitation by the nexus of businessmen, politicians and bureaucrats.

The British started exploiting the forests in 1883 for timber and for employment generation. They, however, kept a strict control over unwanted migration. After Independence the floodgates were opened. Apart from people brought for rehabilitation and those involved in the rehabilitation efforts, there were vested interests who wanted to make money from timber with the connivance of Forest Department officials and politicians. Quarrying was also encouraged. The use of local construction materials was discouraged even in tribal areas so that the market for cement and steel flourished. Construction activities gave an impetus to the migration of cheap labour.

When nothing remains to be exploited in the islands, the politicians, businessmen and bureaucrats may go back to the mainland, leaving the poor people living here to face the consequences. There is the need for a law to punish people who encroach on forest lands and those who encourage them.

M. Abdul Salim
Port Blair

The dogs of war

Praful Bidwai's article "The dogs of war" (January 18) is nice, but the conclusion is not clear. The author probably wants India to bear with Pakistan's terrorist activities forever, because war will dampen the economies. How long should it continue? If Pakistan disintegrates after a war, how does it matter for India? Has not the Soviet Union disintegrated, and there is no Cold War now!

His comments on the Indus Water Treaty are also not logical. "If they suffer they will grow more aggressive" and they will attack us. Without that also they attack us, so? Should we try to please them so that they do not attack us? Great! It may fetch a few peace awards to individuals, but not bring peace to the country.

Sankar
Received by e-mail

I guess it is hard for folks like Praful Bidwai to repudiate what they believed all their lives. While the world embraces a market economy, your magazine still invokes a failed ideology.

A. Rao
Received by e-mail

ULFA's offer

I disagree with the observation made in "A peace initiative" (January 4) that the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) has shown interest in talks for the first time since it was outlawed. In 2001 itself ULFA had talked on two occasions about a dialogue with the Centre.

In an interview given to a newspaper on January 3, 2001, Paresh Baruah, the "commander-in-chief" of ULFA, called for a "scientific dialogue" (whatever that means). Again, on July 27, 2001, ULFA chairman Arabindo Rajkhowa talked about a political solution to the conflict.

The outfit's recent offer was clearly a non-offer, as is evident from its insistence on three conditions. It was only part of a strategy that began to be implemented in the days of Operation Bajrang in order to force the administration to adopt a go-slow approach so that it could replenish its reserves. The State government too seemed to have fallen into the trap.

It is wrong to portray ULFA as a beleaguered outfit today. It is true that ULFA lacks popular support in Assam. But it has a good geographical spread with a strong presence in Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh and northern Bengal and in Bhutan, Nepal and Bangladesh.

The photograph accompanying the report is not that of Arabindo Rajkhowa. The person pictured, who is now over 100 years of age, is Uma Rajkonwar, the father of Arabindo Rajkhowa. A freedom fighter, he is known for his anti-ULFA views.

Bibhu Prasad Routray
Guwahati

The erroneous use of Uma Rajkonwar's photograph, as supplied by the Associated Press photo service, is regretted. - Editor, Frontline.

Foreign policy

In the article "On the margin, behind the U.S." (January 4), the author criticises the foreign policy elements of the National Democratic Alliance government.

The foreign policy of a country is primarily determined by the national interest and the ideology of the ruling party. It must be dynamic enough to be in tune with the changing correlations of the global order.

In the past, Indian foreign policy suffered from a sort of strategic immobility because the emphasis was more on ideological principles than national interests. Unipolarity is a reality of the present-day world. India should accept the fact that it is not in a position to influence global politics and adopt a foreign policy accordingly.

Owing to geopolitical and economic necessities, the U.S. has changed its anti-India stand and looks for greater and more meaningful cooperation. The U.S.' National Missile Defence programme is destined to become a reality irrespective of our support or opposition. What do we stand to gain from opposing it?

The author contradicts himself when he says that India failed to take a principled, balanced stand in defence of the Palestinian cause. How can it take a balanced stand when it has all along supported the cause of one of the contending parties? India stands to gain a lot by taking Israel's help in its counter-insurgency and anti-terrorist operations.

Dr. K. Ampady
Alappuzha, Kerala

Israel and the U.S. are being invoked as models for us in our efforts to deal with terrorism. Why is violence against civilians, Israelis and Palestinians alike, escalating? Surely a successful strategy should lead to the lessening of violence. In spite of its military superiority, Israel's policy has failed. It has used tanks, missiles, supersonic fighters and laser-guided bombs against an enemy who is armed with no more than AK-47s. It is not easy to find volunteers to commit suicide for a cause. But when that happens it is time to prick up our ears and delve a little deeper into the issues.

It is astounding to see people ignoring the fact that Israel is a force occupying Palestinian territory for 35 years. Before criticising the Palestinian fighters for their choice of targets, should Israel not be asked to vacate Palestinian territory first?

Just because the U.S. ignores international law and carries out a slaughter of innocent Afghan civilians and just because Israel continues to hold a territory that does not belong to it, India cannot do such things. It is not a fair, equal and just world.

The U.S.' spending on its military is higher than the total of the next 15 largest national military budgets. Israel can act much as the U.S. does because approximately 25 per cent of American business executives, the class that controls corporate political contributions, are Jews.

American groups dominate the international media and the U.S. will have no difficulty in portraying India as a rogue nation if the U.S. perceives it as overstepping itself.

India's only hope lies in strengthening international institutions, working towards a common conception of justice amongst the nations of the world, abiding scrupulously by the rule of international law, and telling other nations, "Together we stand, divided we fall."

Tim Heineman
Mumbai

Correction: In "Profile of a terror outfit" (January 4), Jaish-e-Mohammad leader Maulana Masood Azhar was incorrectly referred to as a British national and a London School Economics graduate. Both these references are in fact to his aide, Syed Ahmad Umar Sheikh. Comprehensive accounts of Masood Azhar can be found in the past issues of Frontline ("Masood Azhar, in his own words", October 26, 2001; "Of theology and terrorism", January 21, 2000). A detailed account of Umar Sheikh's background can be found in "A Sheikh and the money trail" (Frontline, October 26, 2001).