Let’s fight our own war

Sir: I agree with most of your cogent editorial ‘Pro-active firing’ (IE, October 17). However, I disagree with your concluding sentence, ‘‘risky military action should be avoided’’. Let me explain why.

First, it is for India alone to act in its ‘‘supreme national interest’’, as Prime Minister Vajpayee put it in his letter to American President George W. Bush. India cannot expect, and must not hold a ‘‘begging bowl’’ to, the West to fight its battles. Should the US support India? Sure, from the sidelines, just as India need not contribute manpower for their current war.

Second, the more India allows this problem to drag on, the worse it will become in the future. The very existence of a secular India will one day be threatened.
— PRATISH SHERE
Arlington

Shades of terror

Sir: This is with reference to Seema Alavi’s article ‘How this war has entered my life’ (IE, October 17). One agrees with her that people do not usually brand terrorism by the LTTE as ‘‘Hindu’’ terrorism or terrorism by the IRA as having to do with Catholic/Protestant differences. But terrorism in Algeria, Egypt, Palestine or elsewhere is branded as ‘‘Islamic’’.

However, there is one important point that cannot be overlooked. If one looks at the LTTE, for example, there is a strong cultural ‘‘Tamil’’ identity which is more dominant than the religious identity. But surprisingly, most terrorism that is usually branded as ‘‘Islamic’’, even though it comes from countries as diverse culturally as Egypt, Afghanistan and Libya, seems to arise from fundamentalist beliefs where the religion is primary and the cultural ethos/identity secondary.

This leads to an easy network of terrorist organisations from diverse countries which all start to believe they are fighting for a common ‘‘cause’’. This networking is not seen among other terrorists, like those belonging to the LTTE or the IRA.
— SUNITA
On e-mail

Voice of America

Sir: Shailaja Bajpai’s report ‘Global news channel sounds, looks like Washington’s handmaiden’ (IE, October 18) was brilliant. After I watched Christiane Amanpour’s report on CNN, I was fuming.

Also take, for instance, Rumsfeld’s quote that ‘‘Kashmir is the most dangerous place in the world.’’ That one soundbite has now been transformed and is transmitted on all news channels — in less than a week, and without being quoted in full as ‘‘many believe that Kashmir is the most dangerous place in the world.’’
— MURLI NAGASUNDARAM
On e-mail

Two priorities

Sir: In your editorial ‘TADA by another name’ (October 18), you imply that the ‘‘media’’ has more privileges due to the ‘‘information’’ that you collect and disseminate. What you in the ‘‘media’’ fail to acknowledge is that national security is much more important than your ability to disseminate information.
— GIRIDHAR
On e-mail

Shocking defeat

Sir: I do not know what is wrong with our cricket team. There is no consistency, leave alone in the long term, even in the short term — among the bowlers and the batsmen alike.

Sometimes — especially after the Indians lose to underdogs like the Kenyans — I really thing that we are wasting our time late in the night in tracking their exploits on television.
— K. SIVAKUMAR
On e-mail

No restraint

Sir: This refers to the editorial ‘Powell comes and goes’ (IE, October 18). It has been rightly inferred that India will have to fight its own battle.

The US has always put its own self-interest first before taking any sides. Today it is taking the help of Pakistan to fight terrorism, though for years its security agencies have gathered enough evidence to nail Pakistan as a terrorist state. So we can’t depend on the US.

I would also like to refer to criticism of the government’s decision to attack Pakistani posts. People have said that it may weaken our case in international fora. But what did the international community do when Pakistan, led by Pervez Musharraf, undertook incursions in Kargil in 1999? Despite our restraint the war went on for two months.
— MANISH GARG
Noida