Bus to peace

THE article "Bus to Peace" by KV Prasad (February 27) fed readers about Lahore, which before Partition was a city with the glamorous Mall, Lawrence Garden, Anarkali Bazar, Bradlaugh Hall and much more.

Lahore was the most beautiful city of India — much better than the Delhi of 1947. The bus running between New Delhi and Lahore will help ease off tension between India and Pakistan which had increased after both the countries went in for nuclear blasts.

Kashmir has needlessly been a consuming problem for the two countries. Nawaz Sharif’s home compulsions which are many have again forced him to lay claim on Kashmir.

There is much more to discuss on the vexed issues between India and Pakistan — trade ties and economic stability. Kashmir is not an issue that requires talks. How can India cede its own territory? It is as of today (after Maharaja Hari Singh’s signing the Instrument of Accession) as good a territory of India as Lahore and Islamabad are of Pakistan.

In the interest of Islamabad Benazir Bhutto should see reason and not place hurdles on Sharif’s way. The absence of the three service chiefs at the time of Vajpayee’s reception tells that it is the army and not any civil authority that rules Pakistan. It’s time the two rivals, Bhutto and Sharif, buried their animosity in the larger interest of the starving millions of Pakistan. Vajpayee’s bus diplomacy is no gimmick, but a step toward normalising relations between the two countries.

S.S. JAIN
Chandigarh

II

Vajpayee visited Minar-e-Pakistan, a 60-metre-high tower erected at the site where the All-India Muslim League adopted a resolution for the creation of Pakistan in 1940. It was certainly a very positive step taken by our Prime Minister. In a way, it was homage to Quaid-e-Azam M.A. Jinnah.

Why did the Congress and the Hindus oppose the creation of Pakistan? Why do they still feel sorry and unhappy about it? This certainly creates doubts in the mind of Pakistan. This opposition to the creation of Pakistan was based on false emotions. It is rubbish to talk of traditional goodwill and amity between the Hindus and Muslims since ages. Here, I am talking about the facts as they are. Firstly, there were wars between the invading Muslims and the defending Hindu kings. This continued for 800 years, till Britishers occupied India. Then wars were not possible. Therefore, it took the shape of communal riots and disturbances. It would be unjust to blame Britishers for dividing Hindus and Muslims. The rift already existed. Any intelligent foreign ruler would have exploited it to his advantage. And this is exactly what the Britishers did.

Had Congress leaders agreed to the realistic proposal of Pakistan in a democratic manner with an exchange of population as suggested by Jinnah, millions of people would not have been killed, and the exchange of population would have been peaceful.

ANAND PRAKASH
Panchkula

Innocent victim

This refers to the article "The tragic life of Maharaja Dalip Singh" by Reeta Sharma (February 20). The writer has rightly stated that the general notion that the British system of justice is unparalleled, cannot be accepted as some kind of universal truth. This becomes clear from the kind of treatment, given to Maharaja Dalip Singh, by the British, who made the innocent Maharaja, a victim of their mean diplomacy. They made the Maharaja adopt Christianity when he was a minor and deliberately kept him away from his home-land, during the last years of his life.

Before leaving for India, the Maharaja wrote a letter to his countrymen on March 25, 1886, in which, he addressed his countrymen in the following words:

Dear Brothers! I honestly beg your forgiveness for having left the Sikh religion and adopting Christianity, because when I adopted the Christianity, I was very young and had no understanding, whatsoever. It is my heartfelt desire, that I should come to Punjab, but restrictions are placed, against my coming to Punjab..."

DEV VIDYARTHI
Noorpur

Beauty contests

This refers to Randeep Wadhera’s article "Say ‘no’ to beauty contests" (February 20). I am really quite surprised to note that when foreign girls defeated Indian lasses at beauty contests year after year, hardly any person in this country criticised such contests. However, now that some Indian girls have won the crowns, so many people have come forward to decry the concept of holding such pageants!

It should be a matter of pride for any nation if one of its citizens wins distinction at the international level.

I don’t agree with the writer’s view that "these decked-up dolls" don’t add anything positive to the country’s image. The world considers India as a land of snakecharmers, full of dirt and squalor. When some Indian girl wins a Miss World or Miss Universe title, the country surely comes in the limelight. It makes people all over the world have a positive image of India. When the film Gandhi become a hit all over the world, it generated so much interest about India among foreigners that the tourist traffic to this country suddenly registered a phenomenal increase.

SURENDRA MIGLANI
Kaithal

II

The beauty contests held at various levels do not actually represent beauty. Painted faces and vulgar physical presentation can never replace natural beauty. Beauty pageants today are nothing more than a business gimmick. When beauty can be found in simplicity, why go for beauty contests?

BRINDER KAUR
SAS Nagar