|
Pakistan’s de-jehadisation
This has reference to Sanjaya Baru’s article ‘The de-jehadisation
of Pakistan’ (Dec 28). Defying national psyche, even in this
time of grave crisis that grips the country, the author’s
dogmatic hangover of international support has still not worn
off. And in the backdrop of a near-consensus among the ruling
coalition, the opposition and countrymen, his view might find
few takers. A sovereign country, howsoever emaciated it may
be, has a right to defend its sovereignty. This prerogative
is not only of the Americas and Israels of the world. Though
the US is an indispensable force to reckon with, it must be
kept at an arm’s length due to its dual policy of equipping
Pakistan and shedding crocodile tears for India. Not too close
lest we burn ourselves, not too far so we freeze. This compels
us to look beyond the US and Russia.
Europe’s indifference rules out its involvement. That leaves
with us Israel, a country plagued by the same disease of Islamic
fundamentalism. It has always empathised with us and would
have been our most strategic partner by now but for the parochial
tutelage of erstwhile governments. In a bid to please a certain
community and the demi-gods of the Gulf, we never extended
our hand of friendship. The results? Non-stop nonsense from
our neighbour, massacres in the Valley, and communal tensions.
Those who believe there is just one Jammu and Kashmir in the
country have probably not looked around. And Pakistan is a
mere facade for these forces to come under one umbrella. The
above set of activities necessitate the pounding of a territory
once and for all. The international community may hoot or
applaud, but it’s for us to act. And it’s high time we acted.
The author should have extrapolated the urgency of de-jehadisation
to the rest of India, than to Pakistan. Then his sermons on
diplomacy would have been an apt item for a Pakistani daily.
— Alok Srivastava, on e-mail
Selfish plaint
The Indian government’s decision to stop the Indo-Pak Samjhauta
Express as well as the bus service between Delhi and Lahore
was a step taken too late, though considerably justified. Considering
the clandestine support of Pakistan to terrorism this was a
fitting reply. However, it is disturbing to find that some Indians
who will not be able to travel to Pakistan to meet their relatives
are unhappy and are openly voicing their grievances that common
people are being made to suffer due to political decisions.
This certainly does not sound patriotic at a time when the entire
country needs to stand united against terrorism. Are personal
relations superior to national sentiments? After all, the said
rail and bus services were started only as Indian initiatives.
These critical Indians should give a thought to the endless
sufferings of their fellow nationals who have lost their dear
ones to terrorists attacks and those who have been compelled
to become refugees in their own country. Are fellow countrymen
not relatives or is it that blood is thicker than water?
— Amit K Vyas, on e-mail
Transfer policy
It has been the practice of many banks to not bring office bearers
of trade unions within the ambit of their transfer policy. But
transfer is an incidence, not a condition, of service. The Karnataka
high court in the All India Vijaya Bank Officers’ Association
and others vs Union of India, Ministry of Finance case has held
that employees are appointed to the post, not to the place.
In view of the above, trade union officials shouldn’t be exempted
from transfers.
— N P Kumar, on e-mail |
