 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 29 July - 4 August 1999 Issue No. 440 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 29 July - 4 August 1999 Issue No. 440
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
A normal response
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Travel Living Sports Time Out Chronicles People Cartoons Letters Sir- Responding to Mr Sid-Ahmed's thoughtful comments published under the title: "Normalisation" (Al-Ahram Weekly, 15-21 July), I would agree with his diagnosis but not his therapy. While correctly deploring arrogance and inequality in official Israeli-Arab relations, he stops at that and suggests that such a state of affairs justifies a rejection of any "normalisation".
Instead of seeing fairness and equality as a goal that could be furthered by all kinds of encounters, he puts them as a precondition.
This seems to me a strange, static, apolitical and non-dialectic approach towards an opponent that does not only consist of a state but also of a dynamic society. I wonder whether this attitude is really rooted in the reasons publicly advanced by its proponents -- or do we have here a rationalisation of the fear of an open intellectual confrontation with new and non-dogmatic ideas?
Do the opponents of any "normalisation" in fact aspire to a relationship based on fairness and equality, or do they still "believe" in a miraculous disappearance of an entity they love to hate, but do not know?
John Bunzl
Vienna
Austria
Not Mussolini
Sir- The person near Hitler in the picture of page 2 (Focus) of the Al-Ahram Weekly supplement (8-14 July) is not Mussolini, but his much younger son-in-law, Italian Foreign Minister Galeazzo Ciano.
Paolo Lombardini
Zamalek
Cairo
Kashmir correction
Sir- I write in connection with the article "Divided and unruly" by Mr Mahmoud Murad, which appeared in the 15-21 July issue of your esteemed newspaper.
Some of his comments, specifically on Kashmir, show at best a superficial and at worst a totally wrong understanding of the facts.
Mr Murad writes that in 1947 "with British support India was able to obstruct the implementation of the decision..." The only relevant decision regarding Jammu and Kashmir at that time was the decision of the then ruler of Kashmir, Hari Singh, to accede to India, which he did in October 1947, faced as he was with an armed invasion by tribals organised by Pakistan and supported by Pakistani regular armed forces. The accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir thereby became legally and constitutionally complete under the Government of India Act of 1935, adapted into the India Independence Act. After this accession, India sent troops to repel the invaders; there was no question of British support.
Incidentally, when the cease-fire ensued, the dividing line between Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and the part still under legal Indian control, was not called the "line of control" but the "cease-fire line". It was renamed the "line of control" following the Simla Agreement in 1972.
Mr Murad's assertion that, given the choice, Kashmir, with its Muslim majority would opt to go with Pakistan, flies in the face of the facts. Even at the time of accession to India, the largest political party in Jammu and Kashmir strongly supported the decision of the ruler to accede to secular India rather than to Pakistan. Today, in Jammu and Kashmir, the National Conference, elected democratically in a fair and free election, again rules the state. It is well-known that even those people who are disaffected with the current state of affairs, are unequivocally against joining Pakistan -- a fact acknowledged by Pakistan itself, as it continues to hold that independence for Kashmir is not an option!
Finally, when Mr Murad speaks of Kashmiris' voices having been stifled, he is right when he speaks of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, which has never seen any general election. In Jammu and Kashmir in India, people have frequently and freely exercised the right to elect a government of their choice, through numerous elections not only to the State Assembly but also to the Indian Parliament.
Pankaj Saran
Information counsellor
Embassy of India
All readers' contributions and comments should be addressed to The Editor. Fax: +202 578 6089
E-mail: weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg
E-mail correspondents are asked to give postal address. Letters may be edited for length and clarity.
