Mail

India's own war

Sir,

Prime Minister Vajpayee has now only indicated his firm resolve that India is now fighting its own war against militancy in Kashmir, by initiating retaliatory attack along LoC in J&K, just with reinduction of George Fernandes as Union Defence Minister overlooking all political criticism! Action was well-timed with US Secretary of State Colin Powell visiting India and Pakistan. Every since 11th September attack on WTC, India seemed to present itself as front-runner for the US but unfortunately only for the US being advantageous to Pakistan, a fact proved by Colin Powell admitting Pakistan's stand on Kashmir.

It seems that US administration favours to retain a position of ring-master for rest of the world, rather than being eager to take revenge for attack on WTC. Everyone knows that Pakistan stands for Taliban, and Taliban for bin Laden. Parvez Musharraf is simply plaing drama of assisting US from outside but having all sympathy and support by heart to Taliban (and thus bin Laden). US also knows the fact very well, but is ignoring to avoid India becoming a super-power in time to come. Such shrewd diplomacy of the US will prove still costlier to US citizens, like attack on WTC was result of the US not helping India in IC -814 hijack at Kandhar!

Yours etc...
Subash Chandra Agrawal
1775 Kucha Lattushah
Dariba Delhi 110006

Seek alliance

Sir,

The man who is weak physically or financially dares not to take sides between the two antogonistic parties. He tries to be in the good books of both of them so that he loses nothing whether one or the other triumphs. This is euphemistically called "Neutrality".

A nation advocating the doctrine of neutrality sites on the edge and watches the two parties going to battle and tearing each other. A neutralist politician is only a disinterested spectator. Neither party is going to take him seriously and befriend him in case of dire necessity. In international political conflicts, nations seek firm allies and not goody goody neutralists. The ancient saying is "one who is not for me is against me". A neutralist nation is a nation without friends. Formally and superficially it has no enemies, but it has no friends. No body will come to its rescue if it sinks.

International alliances stand the test of time only when nations are ready to swim and sink together. Mere lip sypathy political loans and powerful speeches concerning ideals of democracy and secularism do not make for real friendship.

Our conflict with China in 1962 proved that a neutralist policy was dangerous for India. It was then that Mr. Khurshev Prime Minister of USSR bluntly told the world" India is our friend but China is our brother". In December 1971 conflict with Pakistan our success was largely due to the fact that India was not following the age old neutralist policy, but had entered into firm alliances with USSR.

The whole world is in the grip of terrorism. Terrorism has become a profitable industry for fundamentalists and greedy persons. The present situation in the world particularly in the Indian sub continent demands that India should not unnecessarily stick to its old neutralist policy. It should not come under the pressure of Muslim minority in India. The present Govt. should not give any weightage to the demands of some selfish political parties who are building pressure on the Government to be neutral and silent spectator in the present Afghan crisis. India should learn a lesson from President Musharraf who despite all odds decided to side with USA keeping in view the interests of his country. One cannot deny the fact that India is militarily powerful country. But keeping in view the modern terrorism it is impossible for India to destroy the terrorist net work in the country without the help and cooperation from the superpowers. For this India needs to say good by to the non-aligned policy.

Yours etc...
Autar Krishen Razdan
Lale Da Bagh, Jammu.

Deoband school

Sir,

This refers to Prof. Mohan Lal Koul’s letter (Excelsior October 19).

My article did not intend an evaluation of the philosophy of Deoband. I, of course, pleaded that it should do some serious rethinking on its pivotal role in saving Islam from the ignonimity to which it is being dragged by Taliban.

I simply raised the question why Deoband, patronised by Gandhi and Azad, has been isolated from the national mainstream and why Pushtoons, who revered Gandhi and Ghaffar Khan turned Taliban.

I am aware of the fatwas and criticism of the Deoband school against liberal Muslims. In fact one can discern two broad streams of Muslim public life. One represented by the Ulema, mostly influenced by Deoband, and the other of modernised and westernised leadership influenced by Aligarh Muslim University. Prof. Koul has mentioned names of Sayyad Amir Ali and Nawab Abdul Latif Khan. To them may be added Sir Ayed Amad Khan, Chirag Ali, Agha Khan, Dr. Iqbal and Jinnah.

It is no place to discuss merits and demerits of the two Muslim schools except to note the fact that Jinnah, who was least religious Muslim, and Gandhi, a thoroughly religious person could not communicate in a common idiom whereas the religious idiom of the latter helped him to establish an excellent rapport with religious Muslim leaders like Azad and Deoband Ulema. But the fact remains that modernised westernised Muslim leadership succeeded in mobilising Muslim masses better and isolating the Islamic scholars.

Not only during the British rule, even earlier Ulema have not been leaders of the Indian Muslims who followed either the hedonist kings or non-conformist Sufis.Why Hindu-Muslim dialogue and understanding could not succeed and prevent the partition is, again, a much wider question and was beyond the scope of my article. But Prof. Koul tends to be oversimplistic when he implies that modernism is equivalent of secularism or religious orthodoxy is equivalent of communalism. For none of the Ulema ever supported the demand of Pakistan.

As far as Kashmir is concerned the most outstanding Deobandi was Maulana Mussoodi, a statesman-saint-scholar of whose calibre there were not many in the country. Neither his legacy nor the Kashmiri tradition can be held responsible for hounding out of Kashmiri Pandits from the Valley.

Yours etc...
(Balraj Puri)
Jammu.