|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | COMMENTARY | SNAFUspheres | |||
|
November 12, 1998
SPECIALS
|
'In India, we do not want the army to solve the situation, we let the politicians play God'
How Readers reacted to Varsha Bhosle's recent columns
Date sent: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 17:07:13 -0800 (PST) Another marvelous piece by Varsha. Although "B" in BJP normally denotes "Bharatiya," at times, though not often, it changes to "Budhdhu," too. Saraswati puja, teaching ideals to kids was an excellent idea, but making Sanskrit mandatory may not be. What baffles me is the political immaturity shown by such acts. How about trying those Marxists in Bengal for treachery based on their memo on not teaching historical facts simply because they may offend Muslims? Please keep up your impartial writing, Varsha! Prakash
Date sent: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 16:54:08 -0600 I am a regular reader of your column. So far, I agreed with the thrust of your columns. This one too, with one exception. You maintain Sanskrit is a defunct language, hence irrelevant for students to learn. At one time, I held that view too. But later as I reflected on why we Indians can copy and imitate and sometimes even outshine in reproduction of, original ideas of Westerners but never (very rare is my meaning) have we come up with original ideas and products of our own, I arrived at a conjecture. None of what we learn in English is at the core of our cerebral foundations. The most fundamental internal functioning of our brains is still mired in Indianess. And if any brilliant work was ever done (leaving literature) in an Indian language, it was only in Sanskrit. So our drawback is, we do not understand the strong points of our Indianness to extend it and develop on it. The only Sanskrit an Indian intellectual other than litterateurs, knows is just religious. The people who can understand and read Sanskrit have been only linguists or again connected with literature -- and -- they cannot take technical advantage out of it. I do not mean to say there is tremendous wealth out there which we do not recognise -- but whatever is, we can easily relate to and own up and extend; which I cannot say of the expertise we get using English. I surely accept that Sanskrit need not be made mandatory learning to every student. But there is tremendous justification in making the knowledge of Sanskrit widespread. And, there is a black advantage (like black magic) -- Hindus who cannot unite in any other idiom (language, dress or even religion), will have a truly unifying idiom in Sanskrit.
C S R Jawahar
Date sent: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 10:26:05 -0500 For a change you have written something which makes sense. Please continue writing on topics which matter to us, the common people. Balan
Date sent: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 00:17:10 +0530 Nice article, Varsha. Bitter truth. What can we do? I would love to see an India where the army is respected and looked up to because they risk their lives for the protection of the country. It's sad.
Date sent: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 18:36:23 +0000 The armed forces of a nation should be the ultimate guarantors of the human rights of its citizens. Human rights violations, if carried out by armed forces personnel, cause grievous harm to the respect and dignity in which the state is held by its citizens, and bring into question the very legitimacy of the state. As an abstract principle, this is as applicable to India, as it is to Chile, China, or the USA. Varsha Bhosle has utterly distorted the moral message of A Few Good Men. The film does NOT condone a commander's right to illegally kill one of his soldiers because in his judgment that soldier is not physically fit. The moral message of that film is exactly the reverse of what Bhosle would make us believe. I am certain most people are astute enough to realise that justifying an army's human rights abuses is tantamount to accepting military dictatorship. Having said all this, I would like to categorically state that the human rights record of the Indian armed forces is impeccable. At the same time, it should not be above scrutiny. Dr Eklavya Sareen
Date sent: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 17:12:27 -0000 In a recent nationwide opinion poll, some 85 per cent of the Indian people voted to trust the armed forces, in comparison to other organisations such as politicians, bureaucrats, ... What sucks is not India, but the hypocrites that pervade parties like the Congress and the UF -- who unfortunately have the power to raise their corrupt opinion, and who unfortunately do not posses the ability to respect sincere and dedicated men/ women fighting for our country. I strongly advise you from making blatant statements like 'India sucks.' The soldiers are doing their job, with guns in hand, for their country. The least that you can do for your country, being a writer with a pen in hand, is not to degrade your country. Why don't you do your job, by educating the people with facts and figures, instead of showing your personal and unwarranted frustrations?
Date sent: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 08:11:36 -0800 There has to be a balance between a man in uniform and a civilian. In India today the armed forces are used to quell civil disobedience, the police has become the tool of repression for the politicians who run the country. I belong to a long list of armed forces personnel and their families, and there is neither respect, pay or a career left in it. The lowest time for the armed forces was under Mulayam Singh Yadav. In America once you retire from the armed forces, one gets a veteran status, this entitles the veteran to low cost loans to buy business or property, free college education, preference in federal and state jobs, life-long health benefits and more. A dead soldier is buried with honours and his widow and children are provided with pension and continuation of medical benefits. In India, we do not want the army to solve the situation, we let the politicians play god. The most crooked of the politicians are also those who suddenly talk of human rights abuses. I personally know of over a dozen officers and men who have died while on duty, with the death goes the benefits. Let the armed forces be run by the generals and take the politicians out of it. The Indian armed forces at present are doing a fine job so they need our moral and financial support to continue to do well.
Date sent: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 15:26:00 -0000 Great article as usual!! Instead of recognising the sacrifices of the armed forces, "we" make them suffer at the hands of human rights activists. Real surprising, when the same people (rights commission) do not raise their voice when terrorists kill innocents in cold blood in Doda and elsewhere. Your article is quite in syncro with Arun Shourie who writes in The Asian Age. Even he has the same question put forward in his column, "Who decides the degree of treatment to be applied on the terrorist?" It's quite amusing when he points out a police inspector narrating the situation where the kidnapper is arrested but the hostage, who is a female, is still missing and he asks whether he should offer a cup of tea to the kidnapper or should he use third degree treatment to reveal the location of the hostage. He is really wonderful comparing the three antisocial elements -- a normal thief, a criminal and a terrorist with reference to the degree of human rights. All in all this article has a different beat. You know what I mean! Mahesh
Date sent: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:20:01 +0800 Well said Varsha! Keep up the good work. Those men in green need all the support they can get. Vikas Bhandari
Date sent: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 18:58:58 -0500 (EST) While I completely agree with Varsha's basic thesis, I feel compelled to point out that her sentence -- "Why do US students think that joining the armed forces is a mark of distinction that sets them a notch above their peers?" is not exactly true anymore. It may have been once upon a time, but not anymore. As a matter of fact, the US army is in dire need of new personnel, to the point where they've launched a *very* aggressive advertising campaign (television, radio, print media) geared towards attracting new recruits. They've even considered lowering educational requirements for new recruits at the private rank. The reasons for this are many, not the least of which is the strong liberalism that has crept up in American academia (which trains the best and the brightest), which looks at the army with revulsion. But perhaps the more important reason is the spate of scandals of late -- sexual harasment, racial incidents, gay bashing, etc. The image of the army has been greatly tarnished by all this, as a result of which the army is probably not seen with the kind of respect these days as it used to be. So while the majority of Americans still respect (greatly) their armed forces, they're not quite as willing anymore to become a part of it. The only exception is West Point, but that's another story... Abhijit
Date sent: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 14:05:45 -0700 What is the point of this article?
Date sent: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 15:07:05 -0800 I read Varsha Bhosle's column titled "A Few Good Men" with interest. She poses some questions about the US armed forces and recruitment. So I thought I'd chip in with some information/opinion. The US armed forces seem to be a resort of last option for many. And since here, you're kicked out of your home at the age of 18, the army/navy/marines/air force's promise to allow you to make enough money for college is tremendous motivation. From a recruit's family's point of view, it's a wonderful way to keep the kid off the streets. To get back to the subject -- another typical recruit (commissioned) is someone who barely limped through college. To the extent that s/he was inherently unemployable or destined to mediocrity. The armed forces with its teamwork focus offers such a person an opportunity to acquire a different set of skills (obviously he/she was not cutout to acquire the skills that a college education supposedly imparts). A few years in the armed forces and presto - you are inherently more employable. Suddenly, everyone is willing to gloss over your pathetic scholastic achievements and attach tremendous weight to your military career. Even top MBA schools want you.... The armed forces serve as training ground for several young people, only a fraction of who actually make the armed forces their career. But the experience is carried throughout life... Sudhama Gopalan
Date sent: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 15:01:19 -0600 Good one. I was reminded of the movie I saw recently... Dil Se. In this film, a flashback is shown while the heroine narrates an incident of rape on her and her family, at the hands of the army. Then she says that because of this traumatic incident, she joined the separatist movement. Then the camera pans back and we see at least hundred young girls in combat fatigue. I was so outraged by this scene. It, at least to me, conveyed that the army has raped at least these hundred or so girls. That is utter nonsense. I am not saying that a couple of instances of the army's heavy handedness have not occurred. But the temerity of the director (Mani Ratnam) to show that army has no other activities but to rape women in troubled areas, is just too much. I haven't seen his other movies (like Roja) but I was told that every one of his movies had some kind of objectionable references about the armed forces. The army is always unwilling to get involved in internal affairs of the country and rightly so. One cannot expect the army to use force against those whom it's supposed to protect. And when army goes to solve the problems politicians created, it's condemned for its actions.
Date sent: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 12:35:00 -0800 No, India does not suck, but Varsha sucks. There is a saying, neem hakim khatra-e-jaan which roughly translates to "a mediocre doctor is dangerous to life." Varsha has no idea about the discipline in security forces, she just spent a day or two with soldiers and sat down to write about their plight. An irresponsible writer and a neem-hakim are no different. At least, Varsha, you should have put down the facts right. Colonel Jessup ( A Few Good Men) took the responsibility because anyone in security forces is disciplined to do so, not just in America but everywhere else. They are responsible for their action, good or bad. Not like you, cursing the situation you live in and putting the blame on everyone else who cannot defend themselves. You talked about the movie, now let's talk about the reality: *US mariners were court marshalled and found guilty in Italian gondola death incident involving civilians. *A US mariner was handed over to civilian judges in Japan for running down a girl, a civilian. This is the other face, responsible and disciplined face of the security forces. Their own superiors handed justice to these people. And this is how security personnel are trained. Varsha recently has developed the habit of looking at the things superficially and casting blames based on half facts. Did you happen to know that during the times of the Communists in Russia when KGB had supreme powers, people got rid of their personal enemies? Just like Punjab in the eighties, there are registered cases where people settled their personal feuds in the dark of night and put them on terrorists. The role of humane societies is of a watchdog to save unsuspecting civilians from any such atrocities, which are committed under the disguise of authority and can never be questioned. Since you don't like them, it does not mean that they are a useless burden on this country. In all the democratic countries of the world, the supreme head of armed forces is always a civilian; ever wondered why? A soldier is trained to be ruthless to kill enemies and disciplined at the same time to spare civilians. Humane societies play a role to make sure the soldiers are disciplined enough. Believe me Varsha, in America also there are people and societies that are very critical of the security forces and the government. It doesn't make them unpatriotic. Remember Mohammed Ali, he was Cassius Clay (to your chagrin) when he fought the government against his draft. Wish it opens your eyes. Saif
Date sent: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 15:34:14 -0500 Just like to ask Bhosle if she actually saw the movie. What I understood from the movie was Jessup didn't intentionally kill Santiago, he died because he was allergic to something in the gag. I would appreciate if somebody didn't twist the story to suit their theme. You tend to distrust these writers with anything they write in the future once they have succumbed to distorting facts or as in this case fiction. It leaves a bad aftertaste. Sanjiv
Date sent: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 12:23:58 -0800 I admit that Indian universities are a 'bit' off the line. But they do that as they have a lot of people willing to join and not enough seats to accommodate them. Whereas here in America there are lots of seats but no one willing to study -- rather having a difficult time. As they have a very hard life - students especially -- as soon as you are 15-16 you start working -- maintaining finances etc... that leaves them with no time/money to pursue education (for many of them). There are people who study --slog-maintain themselves -- but it is real tough. So please do not take potshots at our universities. I like your column a lot and that's what I look for each time I read Rediff. Rajesh Shenoy
Date sent: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 15:01:14 -0500 Let me begin by pointing out some of Bhosle's factual errors and erroneous assumptions. First, school and college students in the US are not enamoured of the military as Bhosle very confidently states. I happen to report on the US military and I know the military is facing problems recruiting people into different services. In fact this year two of the four services have not met their recruitment goals. Unlike Bhosle's assumption that youngsters in the US enter the military for patriotic reasons, the fact is in an overwhelming ratio of cases the decision to join the military is purely economics and self-interest -- good education, an opportunity to see the world and a comfortable lifestyle. Second, Bhosle states that the marines are the only voluntary force, which is wrong. None of the four services -- the army, the navy, the air force and the marines -- have a compulsory draft. The US military is a completely voluntary force. Conscription in the US military was ended during Nixon's term. Now the ideological debate about human rights. While I agree that the physical and geographical security guaranteed by the armed forces is the basis of other rights enjoyed by a citizenry, to dismiss human rights as irrelevant or paint those who talk about human rights as unpatriotic is completely absurd. The question of human rights abuses by armed forces is even more pertinent today than it was perhaps a decade or two back. At one time human rights abuses by the military used to refer to the treatment of prisoners of war. But today we have a situation where the police force, answerable to a locally elected government, has been completely marginalised and is incapable of dealing with the scale of terrorism within one's borders. The military, which used to be confined to its barracks and set out only to fight a war on the border, today patrols the cities and is increasingly brushing up against citizens it was designed to protect. The army is unused to this new role and needs to be trained to work with citizens. If citizens' rights are abridged as a result of an army taking on a policing function, human rights activists are right in protesting such an encroachment. Human rights is not a third world or a first world concept. It is a basic, universal right. It's no use for rights' abusers and writers like Bhosle to say the military protects the rights of its citizens in the abstract while trampling all over it in reality. Ignorant American citizens condoning Clinton's bombing of Sudan do not make it right for armies anywhere in the world to squash the rights of innocent citizens. That's syllogism at its worst. The question remains, who is innocent? That is for the courts and juries to decide. An army officer exercising bad judgment on a battlefield or in a terrorist hold-out has to accept that s/he made an error in judgment. The challenge is to preserve and fight for the human rights of innocents and civilians even as the military fights terrorists. To the rhetorical question of the former DGP of Maharashtra, "Do terrorists recognise human rights?" I say they don't, that's why they are called terrorists. The reason a police force is called as such is because it's presumed to be a disciplined, trained force that works within the borders of laws. Maybe human rights activists are getting embroiled in local, domestic politics and that is regrettable. It is not very different from our reservation policies that have gotten twisted out of shape in political play. But neither of the situations mean we can get rid of the system wholesale. To overlook laws designed to protect human rights, as Ms Bhosle suggests, would turn police forces and the military into an armed band of brigands no different from bounty hunters of the American West. Gopal Ratnam |
| 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 |
|