Attempting an ambush

Sir ? There is not one thing about the American first families that is not fake ? be it the much-celebrated ?family values? or, in this instance, family vibes (?Laura gets desperate?, May 3). For all one knows, the transformation of the first lady into a funny, forthright partner of the world?s most powerful man could be the clever handiwork of her spin-doctors, who feel it is time Laura Bush shed her schoolmarmish image. She might have been trained to show how ?sweet? the American president still is ? taking on the world?s terrorists and yet going to sleep at 9 pm sharp. But does she realize that for a large part of the world?s population it is not surprising to know that a man who could be sitting in a montessori school, looking completely lost while his financial capital was being bombarded, could also have tried to milk a ?male horse??

Yours faithfully,
M. Srivastava, Calcutta

Wild dreams

Sir ? In ?A cry in the wilderness? (April 29), Ashok Mitra ignores reports from the international media about the terror build-up in Bangladesh over the last five years. The fanning out of Islamic fundamentalist groups in villages and district towns has been reported extensively. How can we turn a blind eye to all that? Besides, how do we differentiate between Muslim economic migrants and prospective terrorists? Should we then treat all migrants at par? If Inter-Services Intelligence machinations were entirely a figment of the imagination, how do we explain the attacks on Indian targets? And who said accepting fleeing Maoist insurgents as also the Nepali renegades will not create disturbances in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar in the future? The real and present danger to the nation are not more important than Mitra?s obsessions with humanitarianism. Which is why chief ministers meet to discuss security, not land reforms.

Yours faithfully,
Susenjit Guha, Calcutta

Sir ? Ashok Mitra has two contentions. One, the Congress as well as the sangh parivar have violated secularism guaranteed by the Constitution by denying asylum to Bangladeshi refugees. While Hindus are welcomed, Muslim migrants are treated as aliens on Indian soil. This discrimination is patently wrong. Perhaps a Supreme Court ruling on the matter can clear the air about the status of Bangladeshi refugees and pave the way for an open border. Second, Mitra alleges that in Maharashtra, the cry over Bangladeshi infiltrators is politically motivated to harass Indian Muslim citizens. There is substance in this allegation. In Maharashtra, even valid documents are sometimes reportedly seized by the police who are hellbent on harassing members of the minority community. Once a policy of the Hindu right, it is now supported by the Congress-Nationalist Congress Party government in the state to ensure the Maratha stranglehold over the financial capital of India.

Yours faithfully,
Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

Sir ? Does Ashok Mitra?s heart go out to the Bangladeshis just because they speak his language? Jawaharlal Nehru may have got emotionally carried away by making the declaration Mitra reminds us of, but why should India bend over backwards to accommodate his wishes? Mitra is right in asserting that Bangladeshi migrants are different from extremists. But how can India take on this added population when it cannot cope with its own numbers?

Yours faithfully,
Jang Bahadur Singh, Jamshedpur

Sir ? Ashok Mitra?s plea to open up India?s borders is ultra-humanistic and glosses over present exigencies. Globalization may have re-defined the notion of the modern nation-state, but it still needs to be contextualized. Fresh thinking is vital for India?s diplomacy but Mitra?s suggestions do not qualify to be called so. ?Porous borders?, ?less stringent immigration laws? are inanities. Every country reserves the right to implement these concepts selectively to suit its own interests. At this juncture India is staring at a behemoth of terrorism. No goal will be served if Mitra?s advice was followed.

Yours faithfully,
Shiladitya Chetia, Guwahati

Sir ? Since when did a staunch Marxist like Ashok Mitra develop his fascination for civil liberties? It is hypocritical to talk about individual rights when communist governments around the world have been such pioneers of tyranny. Mitra?s shameless defence of Pakistan and Bangladesh in matters of cross-border infiltration and terrorism is a blot on how educated Indians perceive national security. Vocally anti-American, Mitra naturally brings in the CIA. But was it the CIA that killed BSF officer Jeevan Kumar? And what about the 2001 attack on the Indian parliament?

Mitra forgets that India is materially not much better off than Bangladesh. There is no way it can accept the constant inflow of economically useless immigrants. We have had millions of illegal immigrants, most of them not the Hindus India promised to house. It also seems curious how Mitra totally ignores the plight of the law-abiding, tax-paying citizens of India.

Yours faithfully,
Aruni Mukherjee, Coventry, UK