M A I L B A G

Dealing with Pakistan’s proxy war

Apropos of K. F. Rustamji’s write-up “War threat.....”, (June 15), the author has been a witness to Pakistan’s two-decade long proxy war against our country. He knows about its Islamisation agenda carefully drawn by religious extremist organisations with tacit support of the regimes whether military or civilian. He is also aware of the jehadi international network with its stronghold in Pakistan’s proliferating Islamic seminaries sponsored in unison with Islamic organisations inside and outside Pakistan. He is also in full knowledge of the enormous funding and ideological (Wahhabi) input made by the world’s most retrograde, autocratic monarchy (supported by the world’s most powerful democracy) to the jehadi institution and movement.

But despite this chunk of irrefutable information at his command, the writer tries to reduce the magnitude of the war of civilisations to the insignificance of “infiltration” in Kashmir and builds his theory on that assumption. What a stupendous exercise in self-delusion! One whose ancestors had to face the same scourge after the battles of Nehavand and Qadissiyeh 14 centuries ago is expected to have a wide historical canvas. Most probably his friend across the border, Mr Ardasher Cawasji, could furnish him with nuggets of useful information if he has missed the opportunity of reading his community’s history.

War is one of the strategies of survival and perpetuation. Great nations do not ask for war, nor do they run away from it when it has to be fought. India offered peace to its neighbour not once, but many times. Islamabad takes it as our weakness and hence its perfidy.

K. N. PANDITA, Jammu

Objectionable report

The report “More Kaluchaks is Pak message to ultras” (June 16) is highly objectionable as it makes baseless and unsubstantiated allegations against Pakistan. The report, which is the figment of the imagination of your correspondent, alleges that Pakistan is advising “terrorists” in Kashmir to “do more Kaluchaks”.

You will recall that Pakistan had condemned the Kaluchak tragedy in the strongest terms and stated categorically that this deed could only have been perpetrated by the enemies of Pakistan.

The President of Pakistan, Gen Pervez Musharraf in his speech to the nation while condemning the Kaluchak terrorist attack said that “Whosoever is involved in such terrorist attacks also wants to destabilise Pakistan”. He also pointed out that there had been terrorist attacks within Pakistan but “we did not blame India for these attacks”. President Musharraf reiterated that “Pakistani soil would not be allowed to be used for terrorism against anybody” and “Pakistan will never allow the export of terrorism anywhere in the world from within Pakistan”.

You will agree that there is need for de-escalation of tensions between our two countries. Unfortunately, speculative reports which are contrary to facts and which make baseless allegations, only serve to create misunderstanding and consequently heighten tension. We must not forget that the media has a crucial role to play in the creation of a climate in which all disputes between our two countries can be solved peacefully through the process of dialogue.

KAMRAN ALI KHAN, Minister (Press), Pakistan High Commission, New Delhi

CBI on Tehelka

Apropos the editorial “Avoidable Tehelka” (June 28), I have to state as under:

(i) It is totally wrong to assume that the searches conducted by the CBI in the Saharanpur case were an “attempt to browbeat the Tehelka team”. The CBI got this case from the U.P. government and re-registered it on 03.06. 2002. The searches were conducted after firmly establishing with oral and documentary evidence that the person Pankaj mentioned in the F.I.R. was Mr Kumar Badal, who is an employee of Tehelka. The CBI is investigating the case professionally and strictly in accordance with the law. The search is an aid to investigation sanctioned by the law.

(ii) There was no restriction on the movement of Mr Tarun Tejpal or anybody else on the day of searches. The CBI was not even aware that Mr Tejpal was to be examined in the Commission of Inquiry that day. On being told by Mr Tejpal that he was to appear before the Venkatswami Commission, the SP of the CBI who was heading the search party requested him to proceed to the Commission in case he desired so. However, he had decided not to go. In any case, the examination had taken place on 27.06.2002 without being hampered in any manner by the searches.

(iii) The CBI is unable to understand how a search operation of six to eight hours conducted strictly within the ambit of law has in any manner interfered with or influenced the proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry or Mr Tarun Tejpal’s testimony there.

(iv) There was no question of any show of power, as stated in the editorial. The searches were conducted after adopting all prescribed procedures and without disturbing anybody.

S. M. KHAN, Dy Principal Information Officer, CBI, New Delhi