India’s loss at the BRICS summit
Apropos of the news report “PM Narendra Modi takes on Pakistan at BRICS, terms it mothership of terror” (FE, October 17), it is a matter of serious concern that despite the Modi talking tough at the BRICS Summit in Goa, by clearly pointing out that the “most serious” direct threat to regional security was cross-border terrorism, whose “mothership” was a country in India’s neighbourhood that nurtures the mindset that terrorism is justified for political gains, India miserably failed to convince the other member-states on the matter. It is really unfortunate that big-brother China has repeatedly come to the rescue of the rouge state of Pakistan as the Goa declaration didn’t refer either to the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), which is headed by Masood Azhar, the man India believes was behind the Pathankot terrorist attack, or the Hafiz Saeed-led Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) that is considered to have hatched and executed the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks. Though it did name such groups as the Islamic State, Jabat-al-Nasra, the Syrian Islamist rebel group, and other UN designated groups but the plea of Amar Sinha, India’s chief negotiator in the BRICS, that “India couldn’t get a consensus on naming Pakistan-based terrorist outfits since it doesn’t concern all the BRICS countries” is totally untenable. How come? Are South Africa and Brazil directly affected by the activities of Islamic State, Jabat-al-Nasra, the Syrian Islamist rebel group, etc? Shouldn’t the terrorism be condemned in all its manifestations whether it directly affects any nation or not. Incidentally, JuD also happens to be one of the UN designated group and it should accordingly have also been specifically identified in the said joint declaration. The moot questions is: If India could not convince such a small group such as the BRICS, how does it plans to win its ‘war on terror’ at the UN? Does this not imply the failure of the Indian diplomacy even in the home turf? Though we have again missed the bus, hopefully, tomorrow will be an easier battle. Vinayak G, Bengaluru
Nobel for Dylan
This is in reference to the news items on the Nobel prize awarded for literature this year. Through out our civilisation, often, what voluminous tomes conveyed at length has also been encapsulated in few couplets by gifted men and women. Folk singers, bauls, balladeers and nomadic soothsayers have dealt with profound aspects, both of human foibles as well as its lofty reach and breadth of perception. Bob Dylan, by virtue of modern day ease of communication and travel, was able to personally reach out to millions across the globe through his passion. That said, lengthier chroniclers have added enduring substance to thoughts of the era, to be profitably revisited through generations. They will remain precious and relevant. The Nobel committee this time walks an untrodden path, and, to that extent, we evolve further.
R Narayanan, Ghaziabad