|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | COMMENTARY | THE OUTSIDER | |||
|
December 1, 1998
ELECTIONS '98
|
'It is rather disgusting to see a columnist supporting Bal Thackeray on cricket'
How Readers responded to Saisuresh Sivaswamy's recent columns
Date sent: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:06:13 -0500 This is an excellent article and should be given to everybody who is ready to use violence for religion. I am a Hindu and not moderate in the sense that I don't oppose the building of a Ram temple in Ayodhya, and this is not the point to discuss here. The violence and the divide between human beings, as depicted is very heartrending. It will not be wrong to lay the responsibility of what happened in Ayodhya on the BJP, but other political parties use it to woo Muslim votes. If you don't do justice even to small segment of people (by this I mean the small segment of hard core Hindus and Muslims), they will resort to violence and everybody will get engulfed in it. What we need is justice and it should be understood/explained to all. Toward this act nobody is doing anything. I will try but I am not sure of the facts. Thanks to our politician and the media. 1. Muslims have allowed the building of a temple in Krishan Janamabhoomi though there is a small mosque beside it. What is wrong in that? Let them feel good too. They have acted nicely and brotherly. This should be taught to Hindus. 2. Ram occupies a special place in Hindu religion. So it is not just a case of temple/mosque. If Hindus lie about it, they will be the greatest losers. They believe in it because it is in Ayodhya. That should be sufficient for a brotherly Muslim to let him build a Ram temple there. Explain this to Muslims. There have been many temples destroyed by Muslim rulers. This act will also act like Murraham ("ointment") for it. 3. All other temple/mosques should remain as they are. Even if they have been built on temples, let our brothers worship in it because what are we going to gain by it -- another temple? We can build it anywhere else. In case of a Ram temple, it is not just another temple -- it becomes important. Vijay
Date sent: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 11:06:41 -0500 It is rather disgusting to see a columnist supporting Bal Thackeray on the cricket issue with Pakistan. Does Saisuresh think the Pakistani cricketers are sponsoring terrorism in India? It is the government and the army of Pakistan which is hell bent on keeping relations between the two nations at a low level, so that they can justify their existence. Every government in Pakistan gets elected on the India-threat bogey. Only people to people contact will lessen the tension between the two nations, of which the cricket matches are a part. The people of the two countries should know that the other does not want to destroy them, so that they can elect a government that finally wants to make peace. Any government that takes a soft line with India will have no chance in Pakistan. The same can be said for any Indian government that seeks a compromise on our Kashmir stand. It's time both nations realise that they are bleeding each other dry by this confrontation, and the only persons benefiting are the politicians; and in Pakistan the army too. It is ridiculous to say that Bal Thackeray is opposed to the tour because of the Bombay blasts. He was opposed to sporting contacts long before the blasts occurred. Saisuresh should check out his facts before supporting a person like him. From his name it appears that Saisuresh is a South Indian. Is he aware that in the late sixties and early seventies, this same "home spun politician" was responsible for beating up and harassing hundreds of South Indians in Bombay in his earlier avatar of " Maharashtrian Hriday Samraat." Did the South Indians also burst bombs in Bombay? Only after he found that his anti non-Maharashtrian rhetoric was not getting him to power, did this chameleon turn himself into a "Hindu Hriday Samraat." This self confessed admirer of Hitler should leave no rational person fooled.
Date sent: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:59:18 -0600 Bravo... You said it just right. No one in their right senses would dream of playing a game with a guy who, say, teases his sister, wife, etc. No one will play with a thief who tried to break into one's house. Then, why play with the country engaged in proxy war with India? Defies me ...
Date sent: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:44:29 -0700 An article par-excellence. Is that you Sai? I thought Rediff made a mistake in publishing the author's name. Great article. This, for sure, will have many takers. Sameer
Date sent: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 21:59:10 EST I congratulate Mr Sivaswamy for an excellent article. Pakistan is our enemy from the day of its birth -- for the formation of Pakistan was based on hatred for everything that India stands for. For example India stands for love and respect for all religions, whereas Pakistan stands for hatred for everything other than your own religion. It is because of this that even Shia and Ahmediya Muslims are discriminated in Pakistan, and of course non-Muslims are no body in Pakistan. The BJP is the only party that understands this. Advaniji is very right in his analysis. That is why the current government, unlike Congress led governments, will not yield anything on the table to Pakistan. Vajpayeeji has clearly stated that we want to regain what is ours through bilateral talks rather than war. I am glad that the BJP-led government is making the army ready so that diplomacy can be supported by military strength. Of course, it is going to take time and sacrifice to clear the mess that the Congress party has done -- ranging from Partition to Kashmir to Ladakh and the resulting Chinese aggression.
Ravinder Gupta
Date sent: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 21:43:38 +0000 Cricket is a sport of gentlemen. Terrorism is not. Let your RAW and Pakistan's ISI play this blood sport (has this writer been to Karachi lately?). Kashmir will have to be resolved some day soon no matter what. In the mean time let the people of the two countries at least enjoy cricket, Lata Mangeshkar, Junoon, Urdu poetry, and most of all their two precious meals a day (if they are lucky). By the way most Pakistanis do not hate Indians and are not out to destroy them. But we sure like it when on a rare occasion our cricket team beats yours. Ras H Siddiqui
Date sent: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:01:31 -0500 Saisureh Sivaswamy is so right. We cannot play ball games and try to be normal when the Pak establishment wants to see the end of Bharat. They are very clever with smoke screens and are still eating into the vitals of our country. Apart form all the terrorist activities, they even tried to destabilise our economy by sending counterfeit currency. Even today I read news of finding Indian currency in onion cartons that we imported from Dubai. Instead of playing cricket with that country, we need to play hard ball with Pakistan. We need desi scholars and desi experts to do some hard thinking on this problem, and device some long term and short term goals and implement those plans immediately. We do not need to pretend that we are making friendship overtures to that country. Pakistan can never be friend to us. So, let's start playing hard ball with that country and let them feel some pinch from us also. Be like Ashoka and Shivaji. Not like Nehru and not at all like Lefties who are unpatriotic to the country.
Date sent: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 17:00:21 -0800 Saisuresh mentions that US does not engage in any sports activities with its enemies like Iran. It's very disheartening to note that being a journalist he does not possess enough knowledge of certain facts. At least he should check some facts before supporting his argument with an example. His example was totally wrong. In fact in the World Cup soccer 1998 played in France, US did face Iran and they played the match without fighting with each other in the field. US or Iran did not boycott the match, because it was a very important moment for both the teams and they didn't let politics get into the match. Sports and politics cannot be mixed, in fact if possible sports like cricket being so famous at the grass root level in both the countries of India and Pakistan, should help in bridging the people of the two countries together -- even if both the governments can't seem to get along. Why cricket, even music is another universal language. Pakistani singers are such a hit in India as is Bollywood in Pakistan. Let's keep politics and what the two governments think out of our normal lives, and let there be maximum interaction and exchange of culture and relations. I have a Pakistani colleague at work; we both don't spit in each other's face just because out governments can't get along. I think Saisuresh Sivaswamy needs to meet some Pakistani people and then he'll see that they are just as civil and kind hearted as Indians, and not generalise on the whole Pakistani nation as terrorists just like certain narrow minded people like Bal Thackeray do. Our country could have easily done without such people. Ashok Balakrishnan
Date sent: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:29:44 +0530 The article is well written and the points well articulated. However the article in general, is quite sentimental. One thing we must realise is that the Western world perceives Pakistan as a small brother being bullied by the big brother India, especially with Pakistan saying that they exploded the bomb only because India did. So we must not send out any signal to the world which adds to this feeling. The Western world has conveniently ignored the proxy war waged by Pakistan that is bleeding India every day. We have also failed to expose Pakistan as a "rogue" country (The only support we have been able to muster is to make every visiting dignitary say that "Indo-Pak related issues like Kashmir are a bilateral matter"). The world (Western) wants India and Pakistan to talk (which we know, will anyway end up in a deadlock), as they fear that a nuclear war is imminent in case of an Indo-Pak conflict. So talk we must. We should follow a policy of "mooh me raam raam, bagal me choori" policy, where we talk sweet (look sincere but give nothing away) for the world to see that India has moved on from its Pokhran days, and "has become more responsible," while beefing up our own counter-terrorism activities. A case in the point is Israel. Israel and Palestinians have talked and talked, while the Jewish settlements in "occupied" territory keep extending (the rate may have probably come down). Basically Israel always does something that is in its national interests -- doesn't give a damn to the world but it does "talk" for the world to see and appreciate. Any sporting event, especially cricket, will serve as a strong bridge between the people of the two countries. Here I would like to clearly distinguish between the "people" of Pakistan and ISI (whose backbone we must break soon -- not just talk, but practically break). We must not put any hurdle to hosting such events. This will help keep general external anti-India sentiments at bay and paint a picture of a move towards normalcy. If we resort to being sentimental, and "dig up" pitches on the eve of cricket matches, it will send wrong signal to the world, in general. It is true that all Indians, especially, the Bombay blast victims will not like to have anything to do with the perpetrators of terrorism. But this anger should be channelised to weed out the ISI agents from the country (and not all Muslims). A symbolic protest like banning Indo-Pak cricket match will probably soothe many souls, but will not serve the ultimate aim of weeding out terrorism. There are lot of "constructive" things that parties like the Shiv Sena with a formidable number of "dedicated" cadre, can do to check and weed out terrorism in their backyard -- Bombay, and such measures can be replicated throughout the country.
Date sent: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 05:24:31 PST I think the question here is not of sacrificing national interest at the altar of sport, but one of sacrificing national pride, respect for our country in the name of sports. Tell me, suppose there are two neighbours X and Y living side by side in a colony. Neighbour X's family members beat up or throw stones at neighbour Y's family members everyday, sometimes even killing some of them. Would neighbour Y send their kids to play cricket with neighbour X's kids? Bal Thackeray is right as ever. He may get carried away in many of the things he talks about, but I'd say in matters related to Pakistan he is almost always dead right in his opinions. This was a good article by Saisuresh. Arjyo Sarkar
Date sent: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:05:48 PST An excellent article. I fully subscribe to the author's views. For several years now, I am just fed up with watching the pathetic politicking of the Indian government on relations with Pakistan and BCCI's indiscretion and misjudgment. I do not support Bal Thackeray on every issue, but I am totally on his side when it comes to Pakistan. I do not even for a moment believe that there CAN be peace between India and Pakistan after noting the amount of hate the average Paki has towards India. There has to be a war between the two nations if all the pending issues in the Indian subcontinent have to be resolved decisively. Jit
Date sent: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 09:55:44 -0500 (EST) I can fully understand Bal Thackeray's anger, and being from Bombay myself, I have a very good recollection of the damage caused by those serial blasts in one afternoon. It really is quite incredible that we should continue to have sporting, cultural and other ties with a country that is so obsessed with bringing us to our knees. If you think about it though, it's not very surprising that they are that way. Pakistan was created with an anti-India sentiment, so it's obvious that the same anti-India sentiment is going to be their reason for existence. It's not correct to compare India and Pakistan with the US and the USSR, because there are a number of very fundamental differences. Firstly, the Cold War was a war of ideology, one of communism and atheism versus capitalism and a nation that "trusts in God." Secondly, this difference in ideology was accentuated by the fact that the two superpowers had absolutely NOTHING in common with each other, not even an association over any respectable period of time. The only time they knew of each other as nations was in the World War, after which they only grew further apart. Thirdly, the Cold War was fought over a divide, one that was caused by differences that were ideological, geographical, cultural, religious and demographic. It was really very simple for the US and the USSR to completely cut off from each other, since they never had much in common anyway.
Unfortunately for India, this is not the case. Regardless of the fact that
Pakistan is "raping India black and blue" (the phrase I think is very
melodramatic and unnecessary), the two countries have much in common,
including just about all the aspects that kept the US and the USSR apart
-- culture, demographics, geography, religion. It's practically impossible
to cut off all ties with Pakistan, because India and Pakistan, like it or
not, are closely intertwined due to their history, all the way from
thousands of years ago to the recent past.
Unfortunately, most of our politicians have shown that to
bring this feeling of outrage under control is far beyond the borders of
their vision and thinking. In such a situation, it falls on the cultural,
religious and sporting ambassadors of both countries to ensure that the
commonality between the two countries is not overshadowed by the acts of
terror. If you cut off these links as well, then the only thing in common
between India and Pakistan is the ISI, and that's a very disturbing
thought.
And so, though I can understand why Bal Thackeray is doing what he's
doing, that is no solution. It only aggravates an already difficult
problem. His solution makes sense for an enemy that is halfway across the
world, not for one that's right on our doorstep. I have absolutely no idea
how to solve this problem. If I did, I could write a book on terrorism and
make millions!
But I do know that this attitude of cutting off all links
is only going to make the problem worse, because that's going to reduce to
nothing the common heritage of the PEOPLE of India and Pakistan. That in
turn means that the view of the "other" as a faceless enemy is going to be
reinforced, which is going to create more problems. To allow this to
happen out of shortsighted anger and outrage would be to play right into
the ISI's hands. This battle cannot be fought with bluff and bluster, we
have to be a little more intelligent about it. This article makes
absolutely no positive contribution to that goal.
Sreenivas Ramaswamy
Date sent: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 11:24:33 -0500
You enumerated so many points to show that Pakistan is an enemy of this
country. Ok! I see some point in what you say. Now I will ask you a
question -- 'Why don't you advise military action against Pakistan?" What do you think? Why haven't we done that yet?
The last thing India wants to do in the arena of international diplomacy,
is to internationalise the Kashmir issue. (Read the official position of
India on Kashmir. We have been saying at all fora that Kashmir is a bilateral
issue not a international issue, we don't' need any mediation on this).
Let 's say we decided not to play cricket with Pakistan. What are the
repercussions of this step? Then it's not cricket alone, all other sports.
Then it's not sports alone, this boycott spreads to all other fields quickly
as Pakistan is bound to reciprocate equally on all fronts. And all this
leads to diplomatic relations between both the countries being cut-off. And
what next? This gives impetus to western countries projecting
ourselves as on the brink of war and therefore the nuclear catastrophe is
imminent. And all of a sudden Kashmir becomes a hot topic in the international
fora. That's what the Indian government is trying to avoid.
It's just not stop playing cricket. You are just short of saying -- Let' go
to war with Pakistan. I am not saying we should never go to war with
Pakistan. It's all together a different subject. The problem here is
Pakistan waging a proxy war, not a explicit one. We have to deal with the
problem on the same lines.
We have to consider in much more serious detail before we start to
destroy the bilateral relations because it has wide ranging international
ramifications. And finally I will answer your question --You know what!
When you are playing a good guy's role, you have to act to like a good guy.
And we are good guys. Don't you think so?
Sri
Date sent: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 21:26:26 -0500
There is a new breed of fundamentalism growing -- the secular
fundamentalism. So, we had Muslim fundamentalism which Hindu
fundamentalism stood up to fight, and now we have secular fundamentalism
standing up to fight Hindu fundamentalism. I am just one more in the
latter category.
Trade between India and Pakistan continues. Your Thackeray might not
be aware of it, but he may be travelling in a rash whose axle were
made by a machine which had its parts imported from Pakistan.
Ghazals are my favourite music and I wouldn't stop listening to it
just because it was sung across the border.
Would you ask for a ban
on noodles and Maggi or other foods with Chinese origin?
Our politicians haven't been able to find a solution to this.
Don't bore me with your rhetoric. Are you planning to join the Rajya Sabha
on the Shiv Sena's ticket? If you already have, please ignore my ignorance.
Politics isn't my forte.
Date sent: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 19:31:52 +0530
I am quite convinced that in countries like India, Pakistan and Latin
American countries -- where sport signifies personal egos it is not
advisable to have teams of belligerent nations playing competitive
sport. I have been against the Pak-India matches ever since the early
80s when they were resumed after many years. I was sure these
matches would lead to increased tension between the two countries and
this has come true.
Coming from a cricket playing school in Bombay, I remember as a child how
important it was that my school (non-Muslim) win against a Muslim
school! It was not cricket but the ego of a psyche itself.
At a more grown up level, if you ask Indian and Pakistani spectators
they will not openly admit to having such feelings, but a little more
investigation will prove how deeply rooted are the religious feelings of
both countries and how these get mixed with accomplishments on the
field.
Omaramar
|
| Tell us what you think of these letters | |
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH |
TRAVEL
SHOPPING HOME | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | HOTEL RESERVATIONS PERSONAL HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | FEEDBACK |
|