Letters

Published : Oct 11, 2002 00:00 IST

Cauvery tussle

The dispute over Cauvery waters (``Cauvery tussle'', September 27) is essentially one arising out of an upper riparian State's (Karnataka) attempt to choke to death a lower riparian State (Tamil Nadu) by cutting off the water flow in the river, which is Tamil Nadu's lifeline. The agricultural economy of Tamil Nadu has been dependent on the Cauvery for ages. It is true that the river flows through Karnataka before it reaches Tamil Nadu and that Karnataka has a right to utilise its waters for development. But that does not mean that it can appropriate all the water that flows in the Cauvery. Karnataka has repeatedly defied orders from the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and even the Supreme Court.

A permanent mechanism should be evolved to prevent such disputes in the future. Rivers that flow through more than one State should be nationalised and the Central government should take over the responsibility of distributing their waters among the States according to a scientifically evolved formula.

R.B. Nair Koovappadi, KeralaThe year after

The article titled ``The year after'' (September 27) by R.K. Raghavan was impressive and informative. Hope your magazine will continue to bring out articles of such brilliance.

N. Raghupathy BangaloreE.J. Thompson's biography

I was pleased to see the review of Mary Lago's biography of E.J. Thompson by K. Natwar Singh (September13). It showed that a writer and historian of some talent had not been forgotten completely.

However, I would like to add that this (India's Prisoner: A Biography of Edward John Thompson; 1886-1946) is a flawed book, the very publication of which may preclude the production of a better one. The late Mary Lago did not know Bengali and never visited India. She understood nothing of Indian politics, yet she wrote a book about a literary man who wrote about Tagore and Bengali literature and the history and politics of the Raj. When she tries to write about dyarchy, the confusion is so total; one does not know whether to laugh or cry. She is vague about Tagore's poetry because she has only seen shadows of it in English translations. She does not decipher the interesting and complex relations of Thompson with his British contemporaries and Indian nationalists because she is not particularly concerned with politics. Thompson was at once a critical defender of the Raj when he visited the U.S. but much more harsh in his assessments in print and in conversation in his home country.

Your reviewer has a good hunch that C.F. Andrews contributed to Tagore's negative reactions to some of Thompson's writing and also tried to harm Tagore's relationship with Leonard Elmhirst. The latter, by the way, is not very accurately referred to. He worked in India during the First World War and later in the early 1920s when he helped found Sriniketan. At that time he had nothing except his talents and commitment to India, which were greatly appreciated by Tagore. A few years later he married Dorothy Payne Whitney Straight, a widow of vast wealth, and with her founded Dartington Hall, supported many valuable projects in India, and shaped out his own career as an agricultural economist and rural reconstructionist. Thompson's life is also described in detail by his son E.P. Thompson in a book entitled Alien Homage, which may be the book referred to by your reviewer.

Leonard A. Gordon Received on e-mailThe Saraswati river

This has reference to the article ``Misoriented textbooks'' (Frontline, August 30, 2002). We are shocked that the author ignores the last 50 years of scientific research on the now dried-up river Saraswati. Topographical, hydrological and national remote-sensing investigation done by the Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur, the Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad (a CSIR unit) and the Remote Sensing Agency, Hyderabad, have brought out clear evidence for the existence of a mighty river in that region before the tectonic disturbance that occurred around 1800 B.C.

In recent years, the Geological Society of India organised a seminar at Vadodara (Baroda) and brought out its proceedings, covering the results of all these investigations under the title Vedic Saraswati, 1999 (edited by Dr. B.P. Radhakrishna, a geologist of world repute). If this is highly technical, the ISRO magazine, Space India, in its issue of January-March 2002, has published an easily understandable article for the use of laymen, titled ``Remote sensing helps to trace the course of River Saraswati,'' together with a map of IRS P3, WIFS image of the palaeo drainage in the Saraswati river basin.

What has been well established and accepted by the whole world cannot be ignored on flimsy grounds. This statement on the river Saraswati had been included in the earlier editions of the State textbook also. The archaeological explorations conducted in the last 50 years, starting from the early explorations done in Rajasthan in the 1950s by A. Ghosh, Director-General of Archaeology (of the Archaeological Survey of India), with further work followed up there and in Punjab, Haryana, western Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, as well as on Pakistani territory adjoining the Rajasthan border, have shown that this Saraswati river basin had been thickly inhabited once upon a time with clusters of populous villages and towns, including such big ancient cities as Kalibangan, Rakhigarhi, Mitathal, Hulas and Dholavira. Maps indicating the distribution of Harappan sites, taking into account all the recent discoveries, have shown clearly that there is a greater number of sites of the Harappan civilisation within the borders of India than in Pakistan. Unfortunately, the writer's knowledge of the Harappan civilisation is limited to the publications of the 1950s. Hence she has considered this as a great mistake and she imputes a communal bias to it.

Another point she objects to is the word `Sindhu'. We have used the word `Harappan'. But why should the word `Sindhu' be objected to? Our textbooks in Karnataka have used the word `Sindhu' to identify this civilisation for decades. It is difficult to understand the author's bias towards the words `Sindh' and `Sindhu', the very names still used in Pakistan and India; `Indus' is an Anglicised form of colonial times.

In a book on history, if the past and the present situations are clarified by providing both the old and the new names for various places, we do not understand why it is wrong. Are we to say the Delhi Sultan attacked `Daulatabad'? Outdated names like `Avadh' are not shown in any of the maps, including those of the Survey of India. It is necessary that our textbooks make the position clear rather than keep students in confusion.

Our paragraph on `Diversity of Population' concludes with the words: ``These various racial origins are indicated only to identify the contribution to the common culture and civilisation of this land. But no racial group has retained its separate racial identity. India has been rightly described as a `melting pot' by Nehru.'' Why does the reviewer ignore this paragraph in the textbook and make uncalled-for comments?

The books of standards VI and IX are at a try-out stage, and scholars' views are being ascertained. Even here the so-called `errors' in these books as pointed out by the author of the article are also generated out of outdated knowledge of history and the use of coloured glasses. Constructive criticism is always welcome.

Dr. Suryanath U. Kamath Chairman, Editorial Committee Former Reader in History, Bangalore University and Former Chief Editor, Karnataka Gazetteer

Dr. S. Nagaraju Scrutiniser of the Standard VIII and IX Social Studies textbooks. Former Professor of History, Hyderabad University

Korean history

With reference to the articles titled ``Confronting the times'' and ``Coping with threats'' (August 16 and 30, 2002 respectively), I cannot but state that they paint a biased and distorted picture of the truth. As for the contents of the articles, the writer largely confines himself to glorifying socialism and bashing capitalism. In doing so, he twists and distorts facts related to Korean history and makes observations that are just not true. This can be seen clearly by analysing the following passages, which have been extracted from the article.

First, the writer states:``Indeed, when I visited the society that he helped liberate from the Japanese in 1945 and which he prevented from falling prey to a savage invasion by the United States between 1950 and 1953...''

I think the writer displays a sense of wilful historical ignorance when he dubs the U.S. as an aggressor in the Korean War. It is well-documented and repeatedly confirmed at the international forums that on June 25, 1950, North Korea launched an unprovoked, full-scale invasion of the South, triggering the three-year Korean War (1950-1953). The U.S. joined the war later, together with 15 other nations, in accordance with the United Nations Security Council Resolution that ordered the communists to withdraw to the 38th Parallel and encouraging all U.N. member-states to give military support to the South. It is also a matter of public knowledge that in the first weeks of the conflict, the North Korean forces met with little resistance and pushed the South Korean army to the Pusan area at the southeastern tip of Korea. It was on September 15, 1950 that the U.N. multinational forces, including U.S. forces, landed at Inchon and began the counter-offensive.

Second, the writer states that ``since 1953, the U.S. has consistently refused to convert the armistice into a peace treaty''.

In my opinion, this statement does not make sense. Peace in the Korean peninsula is a matter for South and North Koreas, the parties directly concerned, to deal with. In fact, North Korea's insistence to negotiate a peace treaty with the U.S. is unacceptable to the South and has been the main obstacle to converting the 1953 armistice into a peace treaty. This is nothing but unrealistic political propaganda to undermine the South Korea-U.S. security alliance.

Thirdly, the writer states that ``as recently as March 21 to 27, 2002, it held its biggest military exercises since 1953, involving 37,000 U.S. troops in Korea, as well as those in Japan and the island of Guam, with 6,50,000 South Korean troops to back them up''.

The writer's remark that South Korean troops back the U.S. troops is just absurd. On the contrary, it is the U.S. military (37,000) that backs the 6,50,000 South Korean troops in defence of the Republic of Korea from external aggression. It is no secret that the U.S. is committed to helping defend the Republic of Korea itself from external aggression under the U.S.-ROK Mutual Defence Treaty of 1954. In support of this commitment, the U.S. maintains about 37,000 troops in South Korea.

Soon-taik Hwang Counsellor Embassy of the Republic of Korea New Delhi

Informative

I am a regular reader of your excellent magazine. It is very useful and informative to all categories of readers because of its in-depth approach.

New trends are emerging in Indian society owing to the impact of factors such as science and technology and globalisation. Please publish important material on social change and development

Bheenwa Ram Ajmer
Sign in to Unlock member-only benefits!
  • Bookmark stories to read later.
  • Comment on stories to start conversations.
  • Subscribe to our newsletters.
  • Get notified about discounts and offers to our products.
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide to our community guidelines for posting your comment