Just like a woman

Sir — Ashok Desai’s article, “Of Sonia and Marta” (March 23), appeared a trifle pointless. He begins by comparing the women politicians in India, and telling us why he thinks Sonia Gandhi “is worth taking a bet on” in the coming elections. Then he looks around for “the ideal female politician” outside India and zeroes in on Marta Sahagún de Fox. She is the wife of the Mexican president, Vicente Fox, and that is about her only claim to fame. But the details of their backgrounds, courtship and marriage, sadly, do not explain why a country like Mexico cannot benefit from globalization unless it improves its infrastructure. What is Desai trying to drive at? Is his article about Sonia Gandhi, or about the worthlessness of women in politics, or is it about the evils of globalization? More important, is Señora Marta the only woman in politics worth a mention? Hasn’t Desai heard of Aung San Suu Ki or Chandrika Kumaratunga, who has more to show than a president-husband?

Yours faithfully,
Madhumanti Mukherjee, via email

Partners in crime

Sir — With the United States of America around, there are plenty of free lunches in international politics (“US lifts Musharraf sanctions”, March 26). By offering the “major non-Nato ally” status to Pakistan, and now by lifting all the sanctions on it, the Americans have killed several birds with one stone. Domestic pressure from hardliners in Pakistan was making it difficult for US forces and officials to have free access to every nook and corner of that country. As a return of favour, Pakistan has already given five airbases and landing rights to the US forces in the name of fighting terrorism. Americans will soon establish bases all over Pakistan to keep an eye on al Qaida and nuclear proliferation. With feet firmly in Pakistan, Americans will be able to counter Chinese dominance in south Asia.

Now that Pakistan has access to the latest military technology from the US, the arms race between India and Pakistan can only intensify and turn the subcontinent into a nuclear flashpoint. The race will not only keep the American defence industry healthy but also tie both India and Pakistan to the US’s little finger. Wouldn’t it be much easier for the two neighbours to solve the Kashmir problem through dialogue and avoid getting embroiled in this larger problem?

Yours faithfully,
Govind Das Dujari, Calcutta

Sir — Surely Colin Powell does not believe that an alliance between the US and Pakistan will protect the world from the scourge of terrorism (“Ally Pak in US arms”, March 19). Powell’s comments in Islamabad — to the effect that the US will now consider Pakistan as its major ally outside of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization — is rhetoric at best. The subtext of his comments is that a US-Pak alliance will protect the US and those countries which are useful to the Americans. Not that India needs the help of either Pakistan or the US in tackling terrorism. The US’s double standards are for everyone to see. The way it attacked, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, regimes which it had once helped install for its own benefit was witnessed by the rest of the world. In the process, it has played with the lives of millions who refused to be bullied by a foreign power. The world is on the verge of losing whatever little peace it has to the US’s “peace” operations.

When thousands of civilians are killed by terrorists in Kashmir, the US prescribes “restraint and dialogue”. However, when terrorists kill people on US soil, restraint must be thrown to the winds, and attacks launched against the suspected country, no matter what proof (or the lack of it) there is against the latter. This is exactly how thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanistanis, including women and children, have been killed over the last two years. Who does Colin Powell think he is fooling? Maybe General Pervez Musharraf, but certainly not India.

Yours faithfully,
Ullas Pradhan, Cuttack

Sir — These are times when what you reap may not be consonant with what you had sown. One’s sins and immoral acts, rather than his good deeds, are likely to be rewarded. Is there any other way of explaining Pakistan’s new-found status as the US’s major non-NATO ally? All that the new designation is intended for is to make it easy for Pakistan to access the American arsenal and military knowhow. And this after knowing that the chief of Pakistan’s nuclear establishment has been passing on nuclear technologies to south-east Asian countries. The US would have branded any other country a “rogue state” for much less.

The laws of Nato suggest that an attack on any member of the organization is to be treated as an attack on all of them. The mention of “Nato” in the new status bestowed on Pakistan — not a major ally, but a major “non-Nato” ally — implies that the US expects other Nato countries to treat Pakistan as favourably as it has done. May good sense prevail on the remaining Nato members, and on the rest of the world. Else, soon countries will start sponsoring terrorism and trading nuclear technologies, since that seems to be the guaranteed means of becoming the US’s non-Nato ally.

Yours faithfully,
Jang Bahadur Singh, Jamshedpur

New track

Sir — Many college-goers like myself are inconvenienced by the absence of a local train service between Bandel and Burdwan. The railway authorities should take note of this and introduce new trains immediately.

Yours faithfully,
Anirban Mandal, Chinsura

Sir — South-eastern railways do not operate train services between Sealdah and Dankuni via Raj Chandrapur and Andul. The railway authorities have introduced a Howrah-Sealdah train but it is completely useless. The Sealdah station is one of the busiest in the country and new trains should start plying on this route by using the excellent railway track link.

Yours faithfully,
Asoke Kumar Chatterjee, Belmuri, Hooghly