A Warm Shake Hand
(Modi Crosses the Rubicon, July 16); This refers to the article titled ‘Modi Crosses the Rubicon’ by Dr Vikas Abrol in Organiser. Judging even by the high standards of personalised diplomacy set in place in the last three years , Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi’s visit to Israel must be termed as an astounding success. His trip has been marked by a few points, but what steals the show was his walk on the beach with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Shri Benjamin not only drove the vehicle for Shri Modi for the photo-op, he also joined him as they hitched up their trousers and waded barefoot into the surf at Olga Beach in northern Israel. Israel has always supported India , both militarily and otherwise even when there were no diplomatic ties. Perhaps the biggest achievement of this visit is the de-hyphenation of India’s relations with Israel and Palestine. This has been criticised as India abandoning the Palestinian cause, but evidence on the ground says otherwise. Domestically for the first time New Delhi has a ruling regime that believes that it does not need to get bogged down by the Muslim community’s traditional sensitivities, at home or abroad.
J AKSHOBHYA, Mysuru
Bullets vs Devotion
(Pilgrims’ Poise, July 23;) It has been rightly said in the article titled ‘Pilgrims’ Poise’ by Deepak Zazia from Pahalgam in Organiser that despite the attack on Amaranth pilgrims the flow of devotees has continued unabated, thwarting the intents of jihadis. The deceptive calm that fell over Jammu and Kashmir on the death anniversary of Burhan Wani, the Hizbul Mujahidden commander who was killed last year, has been torn to shreds by the terror attack on the Amarnath pilgrims. The pilgrims might have taken a bus that wasn’t registered. They might have been travelling after permitted hours along a path that was not safe. They might have got in the line of fire during a raging battle between the terrorists and the security forces. What does that possibly mean? Does the Lashkar–e-Taiba (LeT) hold the fire when a registered bus pass? Should the LeT terrorists decide how, when and where we travel in our country? The country is tired of this contrivance called ‘balance view’. While it is the Government’s prerogative to decide on the response to this dastardly attack, the citizens of India, should not let our collective anger subside with time. Inaction is not an option post Amarnath, for reasons more than revenge.
The terrorist attack on the Amarnath pilgrims has enraged the nation. There have been calls for decisive action against the terrorists. The Valley has shown unprecedented unity in taking stand against the terrorists. A salute to Salim Sheikh the driver who drove the bus through showering bullets till it reached the military camp. Time has come to wage war against terrorism. Silence will result in more deaths.
Nullify UN Resolution
(Tightening the Screw, June 18); This refers to article titled ‘Tightening the Screw’ by Deepak Zazia in Organiser, giving details of activities by separatists, Pakistan based militants and many other factors responsible for the situation in Kashmir. In my opinion, in addition to very strong action against anti-national elements, including stone throwers, India must nullify the UN resolution of plebiscite. The fact is that Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir had acceded to India as per provision made in the Independence Act of 1947, passed by the British Parliament, vide which, rulers of the states were given full powers to decide their future. It is worth mentioning, that Jinnah and the Muslim League had insisted for such a provision. Therefore neither Nehru had any authority to agree for plebiscite, nor Pakistan can have any dispute. Therefore, the present Government headed by BJP, must move a new resolution in the UN, to cancel the previous resolution, more so because Pakistan has failed to comply with the requirement of removing its occupation from the occupied areas of Jammu and Kashmir. Moreover India can make its claim in the UNO over CHT (Chittagong Hill Tract) in Bangladesh, which had 97 per cent Buddhists, and Tharparkar District of Sindh which had Hindu majority. And lastly, President rule should be imposed in Jammu and Kashmir, and Muslims be de-franchised in the whole of Bharat.
ANAND PRAKASH, Panchkula, Haryana
The pro-Kannada agitation in Bengaluru has unfortunately turned into a hate-Hindi campaign. The demand of Kannada enthusiasts to promote the use of their language at public places is understandable, but the uncouth manner in which they have been going around to do so, is condemnable. They have begun to wipe out signboards in Hindi and demand that Hindi songs be not played in public places such as malls and gymnasiums. Lumpen elements in the name of promoting the Kannada language have even resorted to intimidation. There is no doubt that the local language signboards too should be there, but to demand that Hindi ones should be wiped off, is ridiculous. Bengaluru is a cosmopolitan city and is home to people across the country — especially those who are employed in the information technology sector Hindi is a common binding language, besides being the national language. There is no harm in Hindi signboards being present at public places. Besides Kannada is among the country’s classical language with a rich culture, and is hardly under threat from Hindi or any other language, or from English for that matter.
BIBHU PATEL, Odisha
The provocation for the barbaric action , of lynching a Kashmiri Muslim police officer, Mohammed Ayub Pandith, was that his name on the uniform read as ‘M A Pandith’, probably a Kashmiri Pandit. It was the worst form of duplicity and criminality: On the one hand the separatist claim that they are not against the Kashmiri Pandits. On the other hand they do not hesitate to lynch their own co-religionist, despite of the fact that he was at the mosque on the last Friday of the holy month of Ramzan, to protect them. If Islam is a religion of peace, how can any sane jihadi kill someone in the name of Islam?
M RATAN, Delhi
Fake Gau Rakshaks
The Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi’s statement, that the killing of people in the name of cow protection is unacceptable is welcome and has come at an appropriate time when there have been rising instances of lynching in various parts of the country. Hopefully, the Prime Minister’s declaration will put some sense into the fringe elements who take law into their own hands and harm innocent people on the basis of rumours. In the past too Prime Minister had openly condemned such activities. Just months ago he lashed out fake gau rakshaks, who in the name of cow protection, are hell-bent to destroy social harmony.
RAMINDER SINGH, Punjab
The persons who are intercepting the cows being taken for slaughter or smuggled out are being described as vigilantes, as violent fanatic Hindutva people. In all the states where the activities of the so called Hindu vigilantes are being reported, there are laws governing the slaughter as well as sale of cows and bulls. Unfortunately, these laws are not being enforced, a duty of the Government. Since the Government is not enforcing, in the nature of not merely whistle–blowing, the cow protection activists are in the field apprehending the law-breakers. The action of the cow vigilantes is exactly similar to those of NGOs and Left Liberals who day-in and day-out give statements, organise meetings, describe themselves as defenders of human rights, freedom of expression and civil rights etc. If there could be vigilantes in defence of human rights, civil liberties, freedom of expression in respect of all of which there are constitutionally enacted laws and rules, why can’t there be vigilantes for cow protection in respect of which there are laws but not enforced by governments? Violence, especially killings by non-state actors can of course not be allowed to erupt.
Dr T H CHOWDARY, Secunderabad
Wrong move by the US
In the year 2015 Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi articulated India’s environment commitments by taking the lead in drawing up a sustainable path to development through the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions for climate change. In the spirit of the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, he called upon the developed countries to provide access to finance and technology to enable emerging economies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The following year, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change acknowledged differentiated responsibility for developing nations which led to signing of the historic Paris climate change agreement. By pulling out of the agreement the US President Donald Trump has not only refused to honour the developed world’s obligation on climate change but also put the developing world in a double jeopardy. It is unfortunate that instead of exploring potential for energising international policies and linkage between external finance and climate action, the Trump Administration has taken a myopic position. For a powerful economy such as the US to show its back to what is arguably the most important issue facing humanity is condemnable.
SHREYANS JAIN, Delhi