Premium
This is an archive article published on November 28, 2004

Express your voice

• I was surprised to see the Sunday Express cover story (‘Who called whom’, November 21) as it is once again a futile effort ...

.

I was surprised to see the Sunday Express cover story (‘Who called whom’, November 21) as it is once again a futile effort to dig the dirt on the Gujarat riots. What exactly is your reporter trying to tell through this story? That Jaideep Patel, towards whom he is trying to point a finger, should not have ventured out of his house, shut his cellphone and cut off communication with the world? I can tell you with authority that had he done that, your story would have been, ‘VHP leader sits at home, while the city was burning’! By the way, which photograph are you going to use when the next story of ‘Second shot at justice’ appears in your paper, as your star photograph of Zaheera Sheikh has fallen flat. I am keen to see.
Shrinivas Deo

I have always avoided reacting to Tavleen Singh’s Fifth Column. Several times I have felt that she writes about her own feelings and opinions rather than giving facts. But her latest column (‘The Communalism Divide’, November 21) is so misleading that I feel I should respond. She says Hindu fundamentalism is dead. I do not think so, in fact it is stronger than ever. Maybe the BJP is down and out but Hindu fundamentalism is equally strong within the Congress as well. The 1984 riots were instigated and fanned by the Congress. They were carried out by Hindus, maybe they were not called fundamentalists but what kind of people can massacre a community just because one or two members of a community committed a crime? The Bombay riots of 1993 were another example of Hindu fundamentalism. The city burnt for an entire two months and the Congress government sat and fiddled.

Ms Singh, the law should deal with all equally. Why don’t you write about the Hindus who committed the riots and are still walking free? Whether Kashmiri Pandits or Muslims, they are all refugees in their own land. When we deny them a life without dignity, we are denying them constitutional rights.
Raj Khalid

Story continues below this ad

Tavleen Singh says churches were not burnt in Gujarat and nuns were not raped in Jhabua. Archbishop of Delhi Alan de Lastic had met L K Advani, home minister of India, at the time, regarding rape of nuns. When the Ambassador of USA met Advani, Advani said 12 of the 24 rapists were Christians, which was untrue. What next? Will Tavleen Singh say Graham Staines and his two sons were not burnt alive?
Vincent Augustine D’Souza

I agree with Tavleen Singh when she identifies the imbalance in NGOs’ approaches and the need for emphasis on communalism of kinds other than Hindutva. But in trying to strengthen her stand, she says that in her travels she sees a dangerously radical mood among the ordinary Muslims that manifests mainly as rage against the US. I can only say that there’s something wrong in her travels and understanding. By terming the current mood of discontent towards the US among all a Muslim feeling, she has tarnished the entire community.
Gaurav Dua

This is in reference to ‘Commotion in Kanchi’ (November 21). An attempt is being made to divert the attention of Hindus from the greatest assault on them by claims by the media that it is not an attack on Hinduism, but a correct and laudable legal action against a Brahmin priest who has amassed Rs 5,000 crore and intruded into areas of politics and government. The press and our visual media seem to be trying to whip up the anti-Brahmin bogie of Periyar days again. The Brahmins are a voiceless minority in Tamil Nadu, with Dravidian parties ruling.
K Vijayan

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement