Letters

Kashmir

The din and bustle of the elections in Kashmir is over but the shooting and bombing by militants is likely to continue indefinitely. India wants terrorist infiltration from Pakistan to stop completely, which President Pervez Musharraf may be unable to accomplish, especially since religious fundamentalists have improved their position significantly in the recent elections in Pakistan. So, what are the options left now for India if it sticks to the position of "no dialogue if terrorism continues"?

A full-scale war as an option is unthinkable, given the nuclear threat and adverse world reaction. Bombing terrorist training camps in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is an option, but for that India requires air power and/or missiles armed with conventional weapons, provided, of course, Pakistan does not come to the wrong conclusion hastily when the Indian missiles fly. The Indian government has now realised, rather belatedly, that it does not need an army of about 800,000 troops lined up along the Line of Control (LoC) to do this. Perhaps the government earlier thought that it may be a good idea to pin down a sizable chunk of the Pakistani Army, about 250,000 troops, in a direct confrontation and bleed Pakistan's economy in the process, the logic of the Cold War period. It did not work and it will not, especially with American aid pouring into Pakistan. Pakistan can now claim that it pinned down practically two-thirds of the Indian Army more efficiently and using far fewer of its troops. Furthermore, the morale of the Indian troops was affected, for which the credit must go to Pakistan. The ones that are really bleeding are the hapless tax-payers on both sides of the border. To stop terrorist infiltration, what India needs is not more and more troops but cutting-edge technology backed by defence forces of limited and optimal numbers. Modern wars are fought and won more with technology than with mere jehadic fervour.

It looks as though there is no other option for India but to reopen the stalled dialogue process. If India does not feel comfortable with one-on-one talks, it should not, ostrich-like, object to third-party mediation. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who has just won the Nobel Prize for Peace, may be the right man for the job. The Camp David accord he brokered between two implacable foes, Egypt and Israel, is still holding.

Kangayam R. Rangaswamy Madison, U.S.* * *

The three interviews (November 8) could not help arrive at any conclusion. The Congress (I) too has committed many misdeeds. How are the Congress-ruled States? Jammu and Kashmir, of course, is not like other States.

Mohammad Yusuf Tarigami is re-elected. He may make a good Minister. You forgot Bhim Singh. Ghulam Nabi Azad did not contest and was not a candidate for the Chief Minister's post before the elections.

Now about the agendas. In Punjab, during Surjit Singh Barnala's time, militants were released in a phased manner and after due verification.

S.S. Almal KolkataYasser Arafat

Yasser Arafat apparently knows his problem but throughout the interview he has not been able to come up with a concrete approach towards mitigating the sufferings of his fellow countrymen ("The occupation cannot be accepted", September 27). What the interview throws up is the mental make-up of a man whom the Palestinian people are looking up to. Particularly, when it comes to the Western world, if you take out Israel, his views are anything but aggressive even though his feelings appear otherwise. Vikram Sura, with his proactive approach, tries to provoke the leader and succeeds to a great extent in bringing out his feelings, but one can still see the defensive mechanism in action. Maybe a similar sitting with his Israeli counterpart can paint a total picture.

Ramanan HyderabadCauvery crisis

What does the Karnataka government want to convey by refusing to abide by the Supreme Court order? The whole affair shows that the Karnataka government has no faith in the federal structure of India or in the Indian Constitution. Does it want to give rise to a new and dangerous trend of ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court? If other States also start defying the Court, what will be the future of federalism and the Constitution?

Tamil Nadu is also responsible for this situation. The matter has become difficult because of the exciting speeches made in that State. The National Democratic Alliance government should intervene.

Ravi Prakash Singh Bhiti, Uttar PradeshImages of poverty

Harsh Mander's article about starvation in eastern Uttar Pradesh, specifically about one starving woman, does not tell us anything unexpected, but it is a wake-up call for the entire country ("Living with hunger," November 8). Stark hunger exists all around us, while we dream about globalisation.

Vasantha Surya Chennai* * *

The article pictures the ordeal of the deprived classes. It is disgusting that a woman fetches undigested foodgrains from cow-dung when we boast of a reserve of 60 million tonnes of foodgrains. Does the Antyodya scheme exist?

Arvinth Singaram CoimbatoreTIFR controversy

The report "A controversial choice" about the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in the October 11 issue correctly reports that the undersigned offered the TIFR's Council some general, friendly suggestions concerning the future of the institution. However, the suggestion that we were in some way involved in the activities of the Directorial Search Committee is without foundation. We regret that your correspondent did not see it fit to verify this with any of us prior to publication.

Abhay Ashtekar, Eberly Professor of Physics, and Director, Centre for Gravitational Physics and Geometry, The Pennsylvania State University; Jainendra Jain, Erwin W. Mueller Professor of Physics, The Pennsylvania State University; Aneesh Manohar, Professor of Physics, University of California, San Diego; Rabindra Mohapatra, Professor of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park; Subir Sachdev, Professor of Physics, Yale University; Sankar Das Sarma, Distinguished University Professor, and Director, Condensed Matter Theory Centre, University of Maryland, College Park; R. Shankar, Professor of Physics and Applied Physics, Chairman, Department of Physics, Yale University; Shivaji Sondhi, Associate Professor of Physics, Princeton University; S.R. Srinivasa Varadhan, Professor of Mathematics and the Frank Jay Gould Professor of Science, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University.

Correspondent R. Ramachandran writes:

Nowhere in the article have I said (or even suggested or implied) that the signatories "were involved in the activities of the Directorial Search Committee". I have only said that the search committee may have been influenced by this letter and shifted its focus on NRIs. This presumption on the part of the signatories itself could be construed as betraying their intention.

However, I wish to state here (which could not be stated in the article) that given the timing of the letter, when it was known that the selection process would soon end (which they too acknowledge in their letter), their intent could have been only to influence the search committee. This is further underscored by the following statement in the letter: "If it would be useful, we would be delighted to suggest suitable names... ."

More pertinently, as the former Director of the TIFR, S.S. Jha, has reportedly told a senior faculty member of TIFR, the signatories sent the letter only to the TIFR Council members who constituted the search committee and did not see it fit to mark the letter to him as well in spite of his being a senior member of the TIFR Council. Moreover, if the group had the interests of TIFR's in mind, it could have brought up the matter or written to him during his five years of directorship. In fact, Jha perceived this to be a move to undermine his directorship. That he himself was not keen to continue was a separate issue.

Hardy's cricketophilia

Apropos of K. Natwar Singh's reference to the cricketophilia of G.H. Hardy (October 25), allow me to add that according to Hardy, in the 20th century only two men fell into the "Bradman class" one was Albert Einstein and the other, Vladimir Ilich Lenin.

Ashish Lahiri KolkataInfrastructure

I have been a reader of your magazine for the past three years. It covers a lot of areas, especially State politics and world affairs. But it offers little about infrastructure in India. Could you put more emphasis on this area?

Amit Kumar BangaloreThe Akshardham killings

The article "The terror trail" in the cover story package (October 25) analyses the heinous terrorist killing at Akshardham in terms of a backlash against the state-supported communal carnage in Gujarat. I do not agree with the tendency of such analysis. All such backlash must be condemned and discouraged. We must learn from American citizens who behaved in a mature manner after the 9/11 attacks. Had they behaved like Indians, even the American police and intelligence would have failed. No country's police or intelligence can control a spontaneous reaction. The American police failed during the Los Angeles riots. India's citizens have to mature and become responsible if the country is to progress and innocent killings are to stop. The theory of revenge must end.

Capt. Ajay Tripathi Received on e-mailInsurgency in Assam

With reference to the article "Assam's angst" published in Frontline dated October 25, we wish to clarify certain aspects which decidedly the writer himself should have reflected in the article. The aspects are clarified as under:

Killed militants remaining unidentified: Almost 80 per cent of the militant camps are located in Bhutan. Therefore, the entry and exit of militants belonging to Upper, Southern and Lower Assam is all through Lower Assam, which has the international border with Bhutan. It would now be easily understood that the militants killed in Lower Assam, while infiltrating/exfiltrating, from/to Bhutan may not always be identified, especially when they do not hail from the area where the operations are conducted.

The identification has seldom been done within 24 hours of the killing unless the militant is a very senior leader of the group. Procedurally also, soon after the killing a press release is given out by the security forces or the mediamen in the field are informed by the fastest means, by which time the identification is normally not over. Lastly, it must be understood that the identification is done by local villagers; if the militant hailed from parts of Assam other than the area where he is killed, there is a good chance of the body remaining unidentified. In ambushes, the security forces may suffer casualties, and militants are also killed. In this eventuality the killed militants remain unidentified.

Public opinion is less exercised: A decade ago it was very different from the current times. Today the public at large is no more supportive of the insurgents because they are more in an industry of extorting money. People know this too well. In fact parents try to convince their sons to shun violence and join mainstream society. Having failed in such attempts, some parents disown their children. This aspect of insurgency is a worldwide phenomenon. The security forces, in addition to carrying out sustained military operations, are engaged in sensitising the public to win its "hearts and minds". Currently the lack of public support to insurgents is conspicuous.

This type of an article does add a touch of sensationalism, which is not really warranted in a responsible and highly respected publication.

Colonel V.P. Singh Colonel General Staff for GOC Headquarters, 21 Mountain Division

Dravidian movement

This is with reference to the views expressed by Karthigesu Sivathamby in the interview he gave R. Vijaya Sankar ("De-idelogisation of politics is the tragedy of Tamil Nadu", November 8). The interview is about the activities of the Dravidian political parties and we hold no brief for them. Yet it refers to the Dravidian movement, Dravidian ideology, Periyarism and Dravidianism. So as the secretary-general of the Dravidar Kazhagam, I want to comment upon a few aspects of the views expressed.

Professor K. Sivathamby says: "The policy of reservation in jobs and education... has strongly reinforced the permanence of caste groups and caste consciousness. This has created a historical contradiction. That is, the movement that sought to reject the socio-cultural hegemony of a particular caste has strengthened the caste consciousness of the low and middle castes among which it should have maintained equality. This is why caste clashes have become a persistent phenomenon in the contemporary history of Tamil Nadu." To say that reservation, meant to promote social justice, reinforces caste is basically wrong. It helps the upward mobility of the underprivileged by enabling them to get educated, to take part in administration, and to have a share in power. They call it affirmative action in the United States, when they take special measures to uplift the historically disadvantaged sections of people. This is how, by enjoying the fruits of the modern age of civilisation, they come to live on a par with the "upper" castes. As the divide between the "higher" and "lower" castes gets gradually obliterated in this way, the hatred and prejudices, suspicion and jealousies, gradually disappear. This leads to social harmony and encourages inter-caste marriages, which, in course of time, will lead to the creation of a casteless society.

Caste clashes are not a modern phenomena. They persist from the day the Varna-Jaathi social system got entrenched in this land. Hindu Puranas and Ithihasas tell how Parasurama, the Brahmin, had vowed to kill all the Kshatriyas, the rulers. Rama beheaded Sambuka, the Sudra, for the reason that he was meditating, deeply concentrating his mind on the `Supreme Being', an act reserved only to Dwijas, the upper castes. These stories may be imaginary, but they reflect the essential social conditions that give rise to clashes among Varnas and Jaathis. As late as the 19th century, the lower-caste women, under the influence of Western ideas of social equality, ventured to cover their body above the waist by wearing bodices. This led to violent clashes.

If clashes are owing to the caste consciousness reinforced by reservation, how do you account for the continuous caste animosities and fights between castes that have prevailed for more than 2,000 years? The Valangai (right hand) castes fought frequently against the Idangai (left hand) castes for several centuries. Those fights died down only in the 19th century. Learning, jobs, power, position and the ownership of wealth were reserved until the advent of British rule for Dwijas. Now reservation to uphold social justice has opened up those opportunities even to the lower castes. This is how privileges are abolished and rights are granted to all. Providing quotas to the weaker sections is like injecting a mild form of the disease to protect a person from catching the disease. Though caste clashes and cruelties still take place, there are also challenges to oppression, compelling necessary steps to put an end to it. Now this has become possible because at least a part of the deprived castes have come to stand on their own legs under the scheme of reservation, which has surely not led to any historical contradiction but has acted only as an antidote to the poison of the caste system that affects Indian society.

So long as there is caste consciousness, it will make people entertain a feeling of inequality. But this consciousness is neither promoted nor strengthened by reservation. It is promoted by socio-religious rites and rituals, customs and habits, principles and practices, traditions and beliefs. If you go to an educational institution, to an office, to a workshop, or to any secular assembly of persons, you cannot know their caste. But if you go to an Agamic Hindu temple, you will find the priest to be none but a Brahmin. So the caste consciousness and Varna hierarchy is inculcated and reinforced in the temple. It is shown to have divine sanction. The Hindu Shastras (scriptures) justify the Brahmin's highest status and his monopoly to be the temple archaka and the purohit. Other castes imitate the one at the top and try to have a rank of their own in the social set-up. Such an imitation is natural for humans. If this pernicious order is to be abolished and an egalitarian one is to be established, the unearned and unjust privileges of the Brahmin should go.

It is for this reason that the Periyar movement wants people of all castes to have equal opportunity to become priests. So when Professor Sivathamby talks about the Dravidian movement seeking "to reject the socio-cultural hegemony of a particular caste" (read Brahmins), he takes too simplistic a view. Let me remind him of what Professor N. Subramanian, himself a Brahmin, tells in the opening paragraph of his book, The Brahmin in the Tamil Country (1989): "... the essence of Hindu sociology all along has been the caste system and undoubtedly the Brahmin has ever been the core and axle of that system." So the Dravidian movement's efforts to end the Brahmin monopoly form an essential part of its goal to achieve a casteless society.

It is strange while Professor Sivathamby generally talks about the Dravidian political parties, he laments that the movement "rejected religion as a whole." But it is a thing that Periyar did, not the politicians. Quoting Marx that religion is "the soul of a soulless environment", he stresses it "has a social necessity." Then why does he regret a Dravidian political party "moving away from atheism and advocating the principles of one God, one community?" How could he say: "As a result of this, there was no ideological coming of age"?

Professor Sivathamby says: "When the question of marriage registration, the question of increasing the quotas were neglected, they naturally affected the mobility of the lower groups, which included Dalits." No Dravidian political party could be accused of negligence in this respect. In fact, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes get a quota in proportion to their umbers, whereas the proportion of the Backward Classes (B.C.) quota is less than their numbers.

There is no sufficient upward mobility of all sorts of lower castes and integration of castes. In this context, we should remember two things. First, we are fighting against a socio-religious system deeply rooted for more than two thousand years. Secondly, well-entrenched, powerful vested interests use all their mighty means to retain the hierarchical social order. Those who work for social integration and emancipation of the deprived sections have to contend against these powerful forces.

Professor Sivathamby observes that the man (Periyar) who should have demanded political action did not do it. It is true that Periyar kept his movement away from electoral politics and governmental power. That does not mean he shunned politics. As a matter of fact, he always strove to mould and make use of political parties so as to serve his socio-cultural principles, policies and programmes.

Professor Sivathamby is wrong when he says "that the whole Dravidan ideology was not shaped in terms of economics." As a matter of fact, all Dravidian movements, both political and non-political, consistently strive for mechanisation, modernisation, sustained development, land ceiling, cooperative ventures, and democratic socialism, which is obvious from their support to and efforts for the expansion of public sector enterprises.

K. Veeramani Secretary-general Dravidar Kazhagam Chennai

Korean war

With reference to the letter of the Counsellor of the Embassy of the Republic of Korea regarding the two articles I wrote in Frontline that was published in Frontline (October 11), I would suggest that before he accuses others of "wilful historical ignorance", he should look at the facts he has distorted.

He suggests that the U.S. invaded Korea only when, on June 25, 1950, "North Korea launched an unprovoked, full-scale invasion of the South". He ignores the fact that the U.S. had other reasons to be interested in occupying Korea. In November 1943, President Roosevelt had insisted at the Teheran Conference on putting Korea under trusteeship for 40 years. The suggestion was rejected. Again, at the Yalta Conference, in February 1945, the U.S. stated that it would be necessary to put Korea under 20 or 30 years of trusteeship so as to "cultivate the ability of the Koreans for self-government". As late as January 28, 1949, Report No. 4849 of the Information and Investigation Bureau of the U.S. State Department said: "In view of the strategic position held by Korea in North East Asia, establishment of control over Korea and her people... will considerably strengthen our country."

That the U.S. was prepared to go to any lengths to subvert any Korean movement for independence is evident from two trends in U.S. policy with regard to Korea prior to 1950. The first was the shameless collaboration with the Japanese fascist administration. Secondly, it could not send its army to Korea because of "insurmountable obstacles such as too far distance" and "shortage of manpower," while the Soviets and the KPRA swept Manchuria and Korea in a wave of popularity. So, it relied on Koreans favourable to the U.S. like, Syngman Rhee and Kim Song Su, to set up a separate government for South Korea in complete opposition to the decision of the three Foreign Ministers' conference held in Moscow in December 1945.

On August 20, 1945, Mac Arthur sent a cable to Abe Nobuyuki, the Japanese Governor General of Korea, that he and the commander in chief of Japanese troops "should maintain public peace in South Korea entirely on their own responsibility". No one else was allowed to maintain it and if they tried, they would be punished. So the fascist administration automatically became the "peace-keepers' of the U.S. in Korea. Contrary to the official's statement, the "advance contingent" of 45,000 U.S. troops landed at Inchon on September 7, 1945, instituting the military occupation of Korea under General Hodges, preserving the property of landlords and capitalist collaborators of the fascist regime, and prohibiting political activity. English was enforced as the official language, and death penalties were made enforceable by a "Military Occupation Court". On September 9, Hodges entered Seoul and took over the military, police and administration of fascist Japan as his own, dissolving the people's committees that had emerged all over the country in the process of liberation. This cannot be read as a declaration of Korean independence.

Mark Gayn, a U.S. journalist, has stated in his Japan Diary: "We were not a liberation army. We rushed there in order to occupy it, in order to watch whether the Koreans obey the conditions of surrender. From the first days of our landing we have acted as the enemies of the Koreans". South Korea is still under U.S. occupation with no less than 1,000 nuclear warheads to prop it up, whatever the legal fiction the U.S. and its series of puppet regimes of short life and varied character may invent to cover up this reality.

On June 25, 1950, when my critic claims that "North Korea launched an unprovoked, full-scale invasion of the South", the facts are the reverse. From 1949 on, Chae Pyong Dok, Chief of General Staff of the South Korean "Army", and others have made statements like "The only way of reunifying North and South Korea is for the ROK to restore the lost territory, North Korea, by force" and calls for a march to the north have been given more than once.

The Japanese were again involved in a plan to push forward and attack, with U.S. forces under Gen. Robets in control of a carefully vetted South Korean army. He reported to Syngman Rhee, the South Korean President: "Why should we appoint June 25 as the D-day of the Korean war? Because that day is Sunday. Sunday is the Sabbath to Christian countries like USA and South Korea. Nobody can believe that we would launch a war on Sunday. And so, they will be convinced of our innocence." A map for this attack was seized by the Korean Peoples Army when it captured Seoul on June 28, 1950 after repulsing a well-planned attack by the U.S. and South Korean forces. Also intrusion into the North sharply increased from 270 instances in 1947 to 2,617 by the end of 1949. Immediately before June 1950, the South Korean army was suddenly deployed along the 38th Parallel. Roberts also masterminded every attack on the North, according to Mon Hak Bong, adviser to the U.S. occupation forces. In fact, in a press interview on June 5, 1950, Roberts stated clearly: "My military Advisory Group is a living demonstration of how an intelligent and intensive investment of 5,000 combat-hardened American officers and men can train 100,000 men who will do the shooting for you". This was the actual nature of the U.S. invasion of the North. At the same time, to prevent an uprising in the South, no less than 118,621 people were arrested under newly promulgated draconian laws, according to the report of the U.N. Commission on Korea (September 5, 1950).

According to the U.S. historian Hershel D. Meyer's Modern History of America, "the North Korean Army was surprised by the Republic of Korea (South Korean) army and retreated two to three kilometres from the 38th Parallel before finally switching over to a counter-attack". These events do not reflect a Northern attack, but rather the reverse. The fact that the North was able to counter this and subsequent attacks reflect the support it had among the Korean people as a whole and it still enjoys.

As regards the U.N. vote, John Frat, Chief of the far Eastern Section of the British intelligence Bureau, is on record as saying: "The verdict of guilty given against the DPRK was based on the telegram sent by the U.N. commission in Seoul which said that there was no evidence as to which side had launched the attack."

So, to cut the long story short, my critic's memory needs a little more awakening than mine does.

Suneet Chopra New Delhi