Sniper attack

Sir — Swapan Dasgupta’s “Personal is political” (May 7) is all snide innuendo. It is obvious that the author decides against a frontal attack on Rahul Gandhi, learning from the way the constant harping on Sonia Gandhi’s foreign origins boomeranged on the Bharatiya Janata Party. So even as Dasgupta accepts that restraint has been the hallmark of Indian political discourse — not because personal vilification is beneath him or the BJP, but because voters don’t like it — he manages to reveal that Rahul has an MPhil without (or so he implies) a BA or BSc degree, and that while at Cambridge, Rahul used his mother’s last name. So what? It is obvious that security was a consideration for Rahul’s alias and if Cambridge thought Rahul Gandhi was good enough, then so be it. Surely, Dasgupta is not questioning Cambridge’s entrance criteria? Such attempts to “help” voters make “informed choices” are contemptible and may put off voters who are no fools — whatever Dasgupta may think.

Yours faithfully,
Gayatri Sengupta, Calcutta

Brute force

Sir — The statement of the American defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that the “abuse” — he was careful not to describe it as torture — of Iraqi prisoners were “isolated” incidents, does not hold water. If this was indeed the case, how could there be 25 custodial deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan (“America reels under prison scandal”, May 6)? Even if what Rumsfeld says were true, it greatly damages the image of the United States of America in the Arab world. The Bush administration justifies the war in Iraq on the grounds of its possessing weapons of mass destruction and for ousting Saddam Hussein, whom it adjudged an evil dictator, murderer and torturer. But despite having searched all over Iraq, the Americans have failed to locate any WMD.

In reality, what has happened in Iraq is the replacement of one “dictator, murderer and torturer” with another. Needless to say, reports of the torture of Iraqi prisoners will not help “win the hearts” of the Iraqi people, as George W. Bush loves to say. Such acts of torture, made worse by poverty, alienation and despair, will end up encouraging terrorism. The torture of prisoners has got widespread publicity in west Asia and put many of the Arab rulers in an awkward position. Moreover, the goodwill that ordinary Americans enjoy in this area is being frittered away by the thoughtless and shortsighted policies of the US government. The situation can only be improved if the US government takes remedial measures to restore their confidence in the coalition. A similar exercise carried out by General MacArthur in Japan after World War II was a resounding success . Perhaps, in a few years, the Iraqis too will look back with gratitude to the Americans for having restored democracy in the country.

Yours faithfully,
Anwar Sheikh, Calcutta

Sir — The torture in Abu Ghraib prison reflects the breakdown in the chain of command in the US military. It was a deliberate ploy to sexually humiliate the prisoners to soften them up for interrogation (“Digital camera strips America of its pride”, May 7). The application of third degree methods by interrogators of the victorious side — who know that the rules no longer apply — is a routine affair in war, but such sexual abuse of prisoners for titillation is abhorrent. A war on terrorism is a war on ideas and to win it, the US must preserve the credibility of the ideals it stands for. From the notorious black hole of Guantanamo Bay to the numerous detention centres run offshore by the CIA to put them beyond the jurisdiction of the US courts, abuse is everywhere routine. One cornerstone of this new US policy seems to be to outsource the task of interrogating those believed to have terrorist links to countries where torture is routine — like Syria or Egypt.

Yours faithfully,
Pronab Kumar Haldar, Calcutta

Sir — The claims of some officials in the US — that the pictures of American soldiers humiliating their prisoners were staged — are ludicrous. Such atrocities could not have been perpetrated with the prisoners’ assent — unless they were drugged, of course. But Donald Rumsfeld and his men will get away scot-free, despite their blatant violation of the Geneva Convention and the norms laid down by Amnesty International — thanks to their iron grip over the United Nations and utter disdain of the civilized world.

Yours faithfully,
Abhinav Dasgupta, Calcutta

Sir — On the heels of the horrific incidents in the Abu Ghraib prison come news of British soldiers committing similar atrocities on hapless Iraqi prisoners in Basra. Charges of violating human rights have been levelled against the Indian army too in Kashmir, and the Russians in Chechnya. Nobody in their right mind can condone such torture. Yet, the problem will not go away soon. The problem is that armies are designed and trained for using overwhelming force when dealing with opposition.

Yours faithfully,
Kangayam Rangaswamy, via email

Sir — What is interesting about the photographs of torture in Abu Ghraib prison is that they show women soldiers sexually abusing male prisoners. Now it can be safely said that women, given the opportunity, are as likely to descend to sexual abuse as men.

Yours faithfully,
Kaushik Roy, via email

Sir — Why has The Telegraph wasted so much space on the report, “Family stands up for soldier” (May 8), endeavouring to create sympathy for Lynndie England, the American soldier involved in the sadistic torture of Iraqi prisoners? Actions speak louder than words. England’s obvious enjoyment of the degradation she inflicts on the hapless Iraqis gives the lie to her family and friends who try to their utmost to defend her. If anyone merits sympathy, it is the unfortunate Iraqis at the receiving end of this female psychopath’s attentions. Sadly, even their names will forever remain unknown.

Yours faithfully,
Biswapriya Purkayastha, Shillong

Sir — Donald Rumsfeld has taken the responsibility for the abuses in Abu Ghraib and has apologized. But who is really responsible? A plaque under the statue of the former US president, Harry Truman, read, “The buck stops here”. As the chief of the US armed forces, George W. Bush is the one who should be held responsible for this outrage. One can only hope that the American people vote for John Kerry as the next president in November and restore credibility to the shattered image of the US.

Yours faithfully,
Prashant Solomon, New Delhi