Kudos on a well-researched cover story (Burden of Peace, May 19). Our political masters spend taxpayers’ money to try to achieve what is not possible. First of all, a war cannot be fought in the summer, especially in India. Secondly, troops cannot be put on a state of high alert for an extended period of 10 months. It definitely tells on their morale. Wars have to be short and swift.
Pulak Sen, Mumbai
The troop mobilisation at the border was a right step. It was an important strategic weapon. Because of Operation Parakram, Musharraf gave his January 12 declaration and banned outfits like the Lashkar and Jaish. The US too exerted pressure on Pakistan only because of the deployment. The loss of 387 lives is absolutely regrettable. But should troops never be mobilised for that reason? Should Pakistan never be threatened? The mobilisation acted as a valuable planning exercise for the army. Many of our current soldiers have not fought any war—to think that they will crib for having to wait 10 months is nonsense. Didn’t the US fight in Vietnam for years?
Salem, on e-mail
The biggest gain of Operation Parakram was the realistic training and mobilisation of such a large force. I feel the biggest loss was one of credibility in not launching an attack on Pakistan. Pakistan is still where it was—physically and mentally. Next time we must mean business.
Anusha Singh, New Delhi
You say 387 soldiers died in mobilisation. More than 3,80,000 may die in a war. So shall we disband the army? That will prevent the loss of soldiers’ life, won’t it?
Jai Shankar, New Delhi
Troop mobilisation in India has always been politically motivated, regardless of the opinion of the general public. As it was with Operation Parakram. It is absurd to compare the attack on Parliament with the 9/11 attacks in the US. Why should hard-pressed jawans fighting politically-created insurgencies in various parts of India be made scapegoats for security lapses in Parliament or for the inappropriate response to intelligence reports on Kargil? After going through the psychological stress and demoralisation during Operation Parakram, what faith will the soldiers have left in the country’s political leadership, especially if, God forbid, a real war-like situation arises in the near future?
Uma Shankar, on e-mail
I think it’s time for Outlook to call it a day. Your reporters are naive, amateurish and largely illiterate in matters of importance. Do you know that such mobilisation casualties are a regular feature in all countries, including the First World, indeed the US? The figure of 387 is peanuts compared to what British, American and other armies suffer in the course of mobilisation.
Amit Chatterjee, Colorado, US
Imagine the US mobilising a million-strong troop on, say, Iran’s borders, only to back down after an year’s mobilisation. And then the American public finds out that close to 400 soldiers died on account of the extremely stupid and thoughtless move. Can you imagine the consequent reviling of the president and his party? Nobody is against just wars but any right-thinking person would recoil at the casual disregard for the life of a soldier being made to fight for a particular party or politician’s short-term mercenary goals.
J. Shah, Wisconsin, US
Why did the army have to undertake such suicidal and medieval mining operations in the first place? Was it worth it to lay booby-traps in our own land killing, and maiming our own jawans, and laying waste so much of our farmland? The mines, interestingly, have not killed even a single person on the enemy side!
K.P. Rajan, Mumbai
You cite one set of figures (387 killed, 1051 injured) during Operation Parakram. Defence minister George Fernandes, in his written reply to the Rajya Sabha, cites another (1,874 killed or injured). Can we as a nation not even show our respect and homage to those who died for the country by getting exact statistics or at least those that tally?
Neha Simlai, Lucknow
Outlook replies: Defence Minister George Fernandes gave figures from December 19, 2001 to October 16, 2002. Our figures include the toll during the withdrawal of troops following Operation Parakram. But we did not include soldiers killed/injured in the terrorist strikes in Kashmir.
Allow me to narrate a small incident that my uncle, a retired major-general in the army, told me. During the ’62 Indo-China war, a 20-year-old Sikh soldier from my uncle’s unit was killed. That evening, my uncle, then a major, went over to the unit to offer his condolences to the subedaar (leader) of the unit. On meeting the subedaar, my uncle began, "Afsos (regrets)...." The subedaar, his eyes moist, but without an ounce of melodrama, stopped him short, and replied, "Afsos kyon, sir? Munda kaam aa gaya (Why regrets, sir? The lad only did his duty)."
Bharatram Gaba, Mumbai
Of late, I find articles in Outlook lacking in quality and content. Burden of Peace is a classic example. Our armed forces continue to maintain vigil even during peacetime. Accidents and unforeseen incidents do take place, but there is no point exaggerating these. It amounts to misleading the readers.
K.V. Raghuram, Wayanad, Kerala
Your story once again underscores the fact that the failure to improve ties with Pakistan is costing both countries dear. Even China seems to have realised this and is now willing to develop ties with India and North Korea. India and Pakistan, however, continue to play with fire, ensuring that the world focuses on them for all the wrong reasons. In this context, the recent peace initiative comes as a breath of fresh air.
Siddharth Balakrishna, on e-mail
India gained independence 55 years ago amid poverty, illiteracy and a communally-divided society. And if you feel our country could have been a superpower without the nukes and Kashmir (Virility Unstuck, May 19), then you’re grossly mistaken. The United States did not have a common flag till 80 years into their independence. Their women were given voting rights in 1920. Fifty years is unrealistic for any nation to become a superpower, even if it’s governed by the best law and leaders. Keep heart, Outlook. We are on our way there and, believe me, our nukes will be needed later.
Abhejit Agarwal, Philadelphia, US
The very title of your article suggests your detachment from reality. Not because India is about to become a superpower but because the very idea that "India has superpower aspirations" is something that’s ascribed to us by others. Most Indians would like to see just a strong and prosperous nation, with jobs, income and security.
Shivshankar Sastry, Bangalore
I fully support K. Santhanam’s argument justifying India’s nuclear option (The Quantum Leap), but for different reasons. India, as an outsider to the unsc and its nuclear club, represents the revisionist front in geopolitics and world history. It was indeed her Manifest Destiny to challenge the geopolitical status quo but not to reduce itself to a nuclear pariah. It should instead uphold and consolidate this revisionist outlook sustained by our principled position of geopolitical idealism for which we’ve stood in world politics for half a century and our non-violent, non-aligned Afro-Asian stand of the pre-Pokhran II period.
Prof Asiananda, The Netherlands
One wonders why our journalists and analysts look for such complicated reasoning, as Anita Pratap does in Dumb Charades, Again (May 19), when the simple truths are so obvious. Look around and you will see that India’s relations with its neighbours, be it China, Myanmar, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or Nepal, are directly proportional to the degree of democracy and secular freedoms prevalent there. In the case of Pakistan, our relations were better during the times of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, when partial democracy prevailed, compared to the regimes of Musharraf, Zia, Ayub or Yahya when open wars took place.
Sanjay, New Delhi
The "pantomime", as Anita Pratap puts it, has happened too often and there’s little reason to believe things will be any different this time. But pessimism, even if justified, should not impede the effort to resolve long-standing disputes between the two nations. Naysayers cackle, they always do.
Sharjeel Noor, on e-mail
Outlook is about as credible as the National Enquirer of the US. Any web search will reveal that nearly 90 per cent of Mitch Potter’s story (the True Lies, May 19) is false. The 24-year-old doctor he quotes, Harith al Houssana, did treat Jessica Lynch but under the supervision of the Iraqis. He was interviewed by many other journalists, including Richard Parry of the London Times where he affirmed that Saddam’s fidayeen were still around till the time of the US raid. The entire article is designed to sate the virulent anti-Americanism of editor Vinod Mehta with not a thought towards objectivity.
Vijay Dandapani, New York, US
Your article Red Ants in Their Whey (May 19) illustrates very well the kind of savage and backward state West Bengal has become. There is no law and order, the much-vaunted panchayats are nothing but a formalised countryside mafia with political protection, and there’s certainly no sign of any improvement to come. What a shame for a state that could be at the forefront of development in India if only it could get out of the CPI(M) rut.
Rustam Roy, London, UK
Prem Shankar Jha in How to Bridge the Gulf? (May 19) suggests that the government must not take any step that might hurt the sentiments of Indian Muslims. Why should Muslims in India feel offended with the war in Iraq? What’s the link between Indian Muslims and Iraqi Muslims? Even in Iraq, the Muslims are not one, there are Shias and Sunnis, and Saddam butchered the Shias. So whose side are the Indian Muslims on, the Shias or the Sunnis? When that itself is open to question, it’s ludicrous to see Jha claiming that Indian Muslims may be offended by events in Iraq. Then again, who does the loyalty of the Indian Muslims lie with—India or with the other Muslims of the world? If the former, then Jha’s entire argument is irrelevant.
Vinoo Ramakrishnan, New Jersey, US
I’ve been reading Outlook for five years now, and though I’ve disagreed with many of your issues many times, I’ve always believed Vinod Mehta would never carry an article undeservingly plugging an event or person. That was till I read The Quiet Czarina (May 19). This article on Sheila Dixit reads no different from the paid ad supplement you have carried on the Madhya Pradesh government. Is this the end of independent journalism in Outlook?
Kumar Wadhwani, New Delhi
Why don’t you rename yourself The Congress Outlook? I am no bjp supporter but such blatant sycophancy irritates me. And Vinod Mehta keeps writing about lofty journalistic ideals in his diary. Look into the mirror, sir.
Ajay Prabhu, New Delhi
Your reporter seems to have written his story An Act of Bad Faith (May 19) sitting in Dhaka. Had he taken the trouble to come to Assam and assess the mood of the people, he wouldn’t have found one Assamese supporting the imdt save the Congress and its acolytes. Whereas 20 years ago, there was an agitation against immigrants, today they are in such high numbers that they can only be referred to in hushed tones. For Outlook, of course, the reality will be different because they are Muslims. Those opposed to the scrapping of the imdt called a bandh in Assam and even though backed by the government, it got no response.
Ankita Saikia, Guwahati
It isn’t an act of bad faith, just a gambit by the Congress to make the illegal immigrants vote for them.
K. Mahanta, Irving, US
It’s wonderful to read that the ‘once-rare’ one-horned rhino has again abounded the wildlife of Assam, thanks to the forest department (The Horn of Plenty, May 19). Thanks also to Outlook for covering our state.
Rupty Baruah, on e-mail
A good story indeed but I wish you also had a status report on other parks like Manas and something on the forest rangers and forest guards—the unsung heroes.
Avneesh Makkar, Maidenhead, UK
Bhaichand Patel has obviously not read Malka Pukhraj’s memoirs and needs to get his facts right (Books, May 19). Malka was certainly never the ‘rakhel’ of Maharaja Hari Singh, nor did her mother ever encourage her to be one. Nowhere in the book does one find any such reference. It only shows just how insensitive and uncouth Patel is who cannot see the difference between Pukhraj’s infatuation for a father figure and the relationship between a rakhel and her keeper.
Farazeh S., Lahore, Pakistan
I can’t believe the arrogance of Bhaichand Patel! A one-trick pony he calls her. I don’t know how you could have gotten him to review this long-awaited memoir. He quibbles with her being called Malka when it’s just the way Malika is said in Punjabi/Pahadi. Mr Patel may be very chichi and with it on the Delhi party circuit but please don’t get him to review such specialised stuff.
Gautam Babbar, Vienna, Austria
Apropos Bhaichand Patel’s review of Malika Pukhraj’s memoirs (A Tune From the Past, May 19), as one reader of ‘a certain age’, I seem to recall that Malika Pukhraj’s big hit—and one of the biggest hits in undivided India—Abhi to main jawan hun came out well before 1947. It was described as a ‘naghma’ and covered two sides of the 78 rpm record. The poet was none other than Hafeez Jalandhari, then at the height of his fame as a poet and ‘geet’ writer. The amazing success of the first ‘naghma’ brought forth some imitators, and Hafeez himself wrote another for Malika Pukhraj but it flopped. In calling Ms Pukhraj a ‘rakhel’ (mistress) and a ‘one trick pony’, Bhaichand Patel only displays his cultural and linguistic limitations. Ms Pukhraj was in the Maharaja’s service as a singer with a unique voice, and when Mr Patel reads more into the relationship he merely does what comes easy to fatuous men of bad taste. He is not aware of the reasons why she couldn’t sing in public for a long while nor has he heard or heard of her later recordings. True, none became as big a hit as that first ‘naghma’, but that does not take anything away from her artistry, her distinctive range and quality of her voice. I urge everyone to listen to her recording of Iqbal’s poem, Lala-e-Sahrai’i (The Tulip of Wilderness); it will haunt your memory for long.
C.M. Naim, Chicago, US
C. Raja Mohan’s book Crossing the Rubicon (May 19) has come at a time when the debate on wmds has reached a chaotic pitch and is a remin-der of the behind-the-scenes drama that went on as India prepared to meet its destiny to be one of the world’s unacknowledged nuclear powers. India should now leverage this status to push forward its efforts for economic supremacy.
Kiran Satya, London, UK
