Praveen Swami has been accurate in predicting certain developments in and around Kargil ("A worsening war", July 16). He has rightly pointed out that it is improbable that the war will really end even after the intruders are pushed back from the hills. The unfriendly attitude of Pakistan and the weak-kneed responses of Indian politicians will only intensify the war.
* * *It is hard to understand how the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government, which has many experienced leaders, allowed the situation on the border to develop into a crisis. Was the Lahore bus trip a mere trap? Have Indian leaders and administrators lost their foresight and planning skills?
The people of India are ready to protect their motherland at any cost but only when the leaders are vigilant and function properly.
G. Govind Reddy Hyderabad* * *It is gratifying to know that President Clinton advised Pakistan to withdraw its troops from Kargil. The Group of 8 and the European Union have also supported this advice, which marks a deviation from the United States' traditional policy of supporting Pakistan in all its disputes with India.
The statements of some political leaders suggest that India, if strategy demands, should cross the Line of Control and teach a lesson to the intruders. Such action would lead to a full-fledged war, which would be disastrous for both countries. The prudent step would be to go to the negotiating table and strive for a peaceful and permanent solution to the Kashmir issue after pushing back the intruders from Pakistan.
Dr. A.K. Tharien Oddanchatram, Tamil Nadu* * *The only long-term solution for the Kashmir problem is to hold a plebiscite under United Nations supervision. The plebiscite should be held simultaneously in Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. The people of these regions should have the freedom to choose between India and Pakistan or to remain independent as a separate state or states.
Until the time India shows the wisdom and courage to honour the promise it made to the people of Kashmir and the U.N. on holding a plebiscite, soldiers and civilians on both sides of the border will continue to die in wars and skirmishes. Military operations in the Kashmir region are bleeding both countries white. Resolving this issue will help them use their precious resources for development and peace in the subcontinent.
K.R. Padmanabhan Mumbai* * *Considering that the size of Pakistan's economy is much smaller than that of India and that Pakistan's military machine is weaker, it is difficult to understand why our hostile neighbour indulged in this misadventure.
In the late 1950s, when it became clear that a plebiscite was not going to be held in Kashmir, Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan of Pakistan moved his troops to Kashmir. He was deterred by Jawaharlal Nehru's firm declaration that India would respond to the challenge by attacking Pakistan. Now, with the acquisition of nuclear bombs, Pakistan has got rid of the fear of defeat at India's hands. Pakistan is now doing what Liaquat Ali Khan wanted to do in the 1950s.
Prem Behari Lucknow* * *We have created weapons of mass destruction. So have they. "We did it to ensure peace through deterrence," we said. So did they.
Two parties cannnot feel well-disposed to each other when they point howitzers at each other. Sooner or later, the fingers on the triggers would sweat and itch - not for a handshake. There is a lull before the final storm. This lull is celebrated as people who show courage that does not have a basis in reality.
The nuclear tests signalled the genesis of an entirely new kind of terror in the subcontinent. Yet, some of us believed that peace initiatives would prevail. Now the reality bites, and we can no longer revel in the sick joke of post-nuclear amity that we played on ourselves.
Amrita Mishra New Delhi* * *The editorial that appeared in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) mouthpiece Panchjanya (June 20) was alarming. It openly advocated the use of nuclear weapons against Pakistan, raising a rhetorical question: Why did India test nuclear weapons if they were not meant to be used? And, to top it all, the editorial called upon Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to drop nuclear bombs over Pakistan and go down in history as the man of destiny who brought about the "final solution".
The views expressed in the editorial are condemnable on various counts. First of all, the writer's lack of concern for human life is not just appalling but extremely frightening. Even during the turbulent period following Hiroshima, when the world was riven by sharp ideological divisions, one does not remember a single instance of anyone advocating the use of nuclear weapons to solve political conflicts. If anything, the Panchjanya editorial shows the moral bankruptcy of the RSS ideology. It reveals a mindset which, given an opportunity, would think nothing of creating concentration camps and gas chambers to solve "cultural and civilisational" problems.
The editorial is disturbing even from a tactical point of view. Such insane outcries would only increase the possibility of a pre-emptive nuclear strike, given the fact that there is no dearth of fanatic and cowardly elements within the Pakistani ruling establishment as well. In ordinary times it would be possible to dismiss such views as the intolerant outpourings of mentally deranged people and ignore them. But this is not possible in the present context, in which the RSS happens to be the extra-constitutional power centre in India.
The nation has a right to know from Prime Minister Vajpayee, a self-confessed RSS man, as to what his stand is on the use of nuclear weapons. In fact, Vajpayee must openly and categorically dissociate himself from the RSS' line of thinking. Otherwise he should not continue in office. The country is not safe even for a moment in the hands of a man who subscribes to the RSS' views on nuclear weapons.
Gaurang Mehta, Dr. P.R. Ram, Pushpa Mehta, Dolphy D'Souza, Rohini Hensman, Sukla Sen, Leni, Dr. Smita Puniyani, Anant Kamerkar, Irfan Engineer, Asad bin Saif, Prof. Nandkumar, and Prof. Uday Mehta. (Received on e-mail)
* * *Pakistan has been an irresponsible state right from the start. The 1948 intrusion into Kashmir and the overturning of the popular mandate in favour of Mujibur Rehman's Awami League and his assassination in East Pakistan were events that surpass the crisis created by Pakistan in Kargil. Yet the so-called "international community" did not put much pressure on Pakistan and, unfortunately, tended to equate it with India or even tilt towards Pakistan. Why is the international community responding differently this time? The two Bs - the Bomb and the Bus - have made all the difference.
The Bomb has made it clear to the world that the situation in the subcontinent is extremely precarious, that there is no longer any scope for gamesmanship and that both countries have now to behave in a mature manner.
Given the new situation, it is imperative that India and Pakistan normalise relations. The Bus was a great opportunity to show the world that India desires peace. The Indian Prime Minister went to Pakistan, and it was not the other way round.
It is in this background that the positive international response to Kargil has to be viewed. By its actions Pakistan has projected itself as a rogue nation. The Bus, and now a scrupulous respect for the LoC, have clearly shown India as a responsible power. This distinction would be irrelevant if both countries were marginal players internationally, but the Bomb has changed the situation.
It is in India's interest to show the world that the Army (and not the Prime Minister) is in control of Pakistan. Defence Minister George Fernandes was right when he pointed out this fact. If this perception gains international acceptance, then it will benefit India's position immeasurably.
Ranjan Sinha (Received on e-mail)* * *From the exploding of bombs in U.S. Embassy buildings in East Africa in 1998, which claimed more than 200 hundred lives, to the training of Saudi billionaire-terrorist Osama bin Laden's guerillas in Afghanistan, Pakistan's active role in aiding and abetting crimes against humanity around the world is evident. It is the fountainhead of international terrorism and India is a prominent victim.
New Delhi's clear policy on the Kashmir issue, despite its military action against the intruders, has left Islamabad more isolated than ever on the political and diplomatic fronts.
Sanjeev Kudesia Hafar Al-Batin, Saudi ArabiaNarmadaSome of the statements in "Threat of submergence" (July 16) will not stand scrutiny. It says that in 1994, when the dam height was only 69 metres, flood waters rose to a level of 94 m and "ravaged Jalsindhi". The Sardar Sarovar dam is located at a place where the Satpura range meets the plains and Jalsindhi is at a much higher level up the river. Have the laws of physics been reversed just to oblige the agitators?
According to the article, seven persons who were relocated from Kakarna village died "within 10 days of moving into their new homes". Does it mean that we should abolish attempts to relocate project-affected families (PAFs) and give up all projects?
It further says: "It is clear that Madhya Pradesh does not have enough land to resettle its own PAFs." Should we then assume that the Madhya Pradesh Government will somehow get rid of children born from now onwards. The fact is that several families migrate to metropolitan cities every day.
The author says: "The Gujarat government has refused to provide dispensaries in those resettlement sites where there are fewer than 500 people." Does this mean that a dispensary should be provided even if 50 people resettle at a place? In that case every street with a population of 500 should have a dispensary. Similar is the case of apartments in cities. But for huge dams, India would have faced famines and food riots. There would have been no Green Revolution.
It will take a year or more to build the extra height and up to a year to cure the new construction. And water need not be stored to the maximum level before the PAFs are resettled. In view of this, the work on raising the height of the dam could be done simultaneously with efforts to resettle PAFs.
Instead of holding a "rally for the valley" from Delhi, why does not Arundhati Roy, who wrote "The human cost of big dams" (Frontline, June 4), look at the slums on the banks of the Yamuna? Lakhs of people live in most unhygienic conditions, and there is no programme for their resettlement. Their living conditions are appalling as compared to those of the PAFs of the Narmada valley. And when the Yamuna rises during the monsoon, these slum-dwellers have nowhere to go except the streets of Delhi. Like Mother Teresa, Arundhati Roy could have started a mission to alleviate their sufferings instead of politicising the Narmada issue. Does she know that millions of women in Gujarat pull handcarts over long distances to bring water to their homes? Should these people die of thirst merely because some people with abundant water are threatening to drown themselves? Lastly, does Arundhati Roy know what will happen to crores of Indians if the monsoon fails even once?
C. Ranganathan Tiruchi* * *Arundhati Roy has drawn our attention to the great human problem caused by the construction of a dam across the Narmada. It is essential to provide opportunities to the tribal people to live with dignity.
Very soon Chennai and Bangalore will be getting drinking water from the Krishna and the Cauvery. This is made possible by the construction of dams across these rivers several years ago.
In the past 50 years, tribal people living on river banks and other economically weaker sections, have become poorer, while the rich have become richer. Arundhati Roy concludes that this is the result of the ruthless execution of a sinister plan by the government. However, my conclusion is different. The poor becoming poorer is the ugly manifestation of a cruel law of nature - survival of the fittest.
A.S.Rao Pune* * *Arundhati Roy's essay "The greater common good" (June 4) deserves wide publicity. It shows both her power and sensitivity as a writer, and her deep understanding of the problem of the deprived people. She has raised some fundamental questions. Until these questions find a resonance in the heart of every thinking Indian, our democracy will not be rid of its pretensions and self-deception.
The team of do-gooders in power is opening up the heart of the old country. It must develop, the people in power say, in accordance with their plans and designs, which are all shortcuts, short-sighted and hurtful. They are performing a gigantic open-heart surgery, to ensure the supply of fresh, oxygen-rich blood to the cities and ports, the commercial hubs where their kin live, at the cost of the aboriginal donor. There, obviously, are two Indias: one enjoys (even if in different measures) the fruits of the green, white and saffron revolutions, of multimedia and microchips; the other must pay for all these. The unorganised masses, uprooted and cast away, eventually get biodegraded, unnoticed.
Big dams have become obsolete and archaic all over the world. These obsolete technologies and short-sighted projects are exported to and imposed upon 'developing' countries.
Comparisons, people would say, are odious, but it is the telling comparisons, both of figures and of perceptions, that give Arundhati Roy's writing its edge and transcendent power. Her comparisons - of people displaced by dams and refugees fleeing riots and wars, of the irrigation-drainage system and the artery-vein system of the human body, and of big dams and big bombs - and imageries such as that of the paring off of children's nails with giant-sized hedgeshears lift her writing above routine journalism. We look forward to getting more such pieces on your pages.
Dhananjoy Sen Kharagpur* * *I really loved Arundhati Roy's article, which was an eye-opener. Everything she said hit home. I never really bothered much about the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) and now I would do anything to help the people affected by the Narmada project. I am part of an organisation in the U.S. that works for grassroots development in villages in India. We have pledged our support to the NBA and endorsed it. Our volunteers in India are also working with the NBA. I only wish I could be there in India helping them.
Ram Subramanian Cincinnati, Ohio* * *Much of the sufferings of the people living in the submergence zone could have been mitigated by adopting proper measures for resettlement, as was done in the case of the Bhakra dam and projects in the U.S. It is the callousness, corruption, red-tapism and inefficiency of the respective State governments that have brought suffering and misery to the displaced people.
Many of the projects listed in the article have not been taken up for implementation at all - such as Koel Karo, Bodhghat, Polavaram and Inchampalli. In fact, the little money that has been spent on investigation in Bodhghat has brought prosperity to the tribal people. They are able to market forest produce, using the approach roads that were built with this money.
There is no point in raising a hue and cry over big dams. Big dams in narrow valleys and mountainous terrain in places like Idukki and Mattuppetti (both in Kerala) have generated power. And there was very little submergence.
The problems of waterlogging and salinity can be avoided by adopting the sprinkler irrigation method and using plastic tubes. The total amount of land lost for the projects is much less than the land lost every year because of erosion caused by rivers and seas and soil erosion in the hill slopes.
China, which is far ahead of India in economic emancipation, still goes ahead with big dams such as Three Gorges. If countries like Sweden, France and the United States have stopped constructing large dams, it is because they completed their major projects in the 1980s.
B. Ramachandran Chennai* * *Arundhati Roy has a "plot " rather than a mere story. Is Roy not aware that many mighty rivers are becoming non-perennial and that the Chambal, the Shipra and even the Godavari have water in downstream segments only when water is released from dams? To give examples that can be verified, the Ganga is not even three inches deep in April under the railway bridge on the Allahabad-Varanasi route and the Godavari has no water in April-May under the railway bridge near the Kopargaon railway station. Water is an enabling factor in all agricultural operations. India now needs more dams for harvesting water that is needed for drinking and for irrigation. However, the rehabilitation of displaced persons has remained unsatisfactory in most, if not all, cases.
Om Verma BhopalChild labourThe adoption of a new Convention at the recently concluded International Labour Conference can, at best, have a marginal effect on the lives of the millions of children working under sub-human conditions ("For the children of the world", July 16). The organised sector has a record of not employing child labour, but the situation is grim for children working under hazardous conditions in the unorganised sector.
Poverty is the root cause of this problem. By reducing poverty through better employment facilities and encouraging self-employment, the economic condition of the poor could be improved. In the absence of such measures, they are forced to send their children to work.
To demand the abolition of child labour is politically correct but economically unsound. We need to take small but pragmatic steps to make the lives of the child labourers better. Certainly, they must not be allowed to work in hazardous places. The government, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and others should make efforts to provide the basic needs of child workers, such as clean drinking water, warm food, and uniforms. Moreover, the owners of small units employing children can be persuaded to spare the children for an hour a day so that they can be taught to read and write by "mobile schools". Periodical medical checkup is also essential.
D.B.N. Murthy BangaloreRajya Sabha electionThe decision of the Left Front in West Bengal to nominate General (retd) Shankar Roy Chowdhury as one of its candidates for the Rajya Sabha election scheduled for July 26 is an unfortunate development from the viewpoint of people who consider the mainstream Left, despite its various shortcomings, an important and the most formidable element among the forces fighting for an egalitarian, pluralist and democratic India. The General is known to be a hawk. In fact, in the context of the Kargil conflict he has ardently advocated the "crossing of the LoC" in order to evict the 'intruders'.
Sukla Sen MumbaiAmartya SenThank you for the three-part article, "Amartya Sen's human science of development" (June-July 1999).
Professor Bagchi's exposition of the Nobel laureate's seminal contribution was well-researched and deserved acclaim. Indeed, the Prize to Sen has brought the burning issue of mass poverty and human deprivation to the fore. Only improvement in the quality of life can usher in 'development' that Gunnar Myrdal once defined in Asian Drama (1968) as the "upward movement of the entire social system".
Shyamal K. Shrestha Kathmandu
