Indian students clarify article
We are writing this in response to Ms. Rebecca Markway’s article, “Analyzing Global Conflicts,” which appeared in The Reveille Thursday, Feb. 27.
We have to point out that some of Mr. Leonard Ray’s comments are totally wrong. India is not ruled by a Hindu fundamentalist government but, in fact, by a coalition of secular parties. The American news media tries to treat India and Pakistan as if they were somehow on par. This is truly a disservice to the American public. Even though they may look similar in many ways, they are worlds apart. India is the largest democracy in the world, unlike Pakistan, which is a dictatorship. This is true not only now but to a large degree has been the case for the past 56 years, since India gained independence. To call India a Hindu country is entirely erroneous. Even though a Muslim nation was carved out of India, the Indian people decided to establish a pluralistic secular country. Pakistan, on the other hand, is a virtual theocracy where Islam is the state religion. In numbers, India is second only to Indonesia in Muslim population, and more Muslims live in India than in the entire Arab world. In fact, the current president of India, as noted in the same article, is a Muslim.
Regarding Kashmir, the people of Kashmir chose to stay with India — they are Indians — and they elect a government in Kashmir, despite death threats from the terrorists. The argument that India should give up Kashmir just because it is a Muslim majority state is irrational and totally baseless.
We also are extremely disappointed The Reveille published a mean potshot taken by an “unnamed” Pakistani student. It is inexcusable that The Reveille, which caters to the entire LSU student community, chose to print such a ridiculous statement that discredits the people of an entire nation. Such irresponsible journalism would only cause a rift in the relations between the Indian and Pakistani students.
Indian Students’ Association
American media ignorant to India
It is appalling that The Reveille published an article on global conflicts and called it “Analyzing Global Conflicts.” I feel that the title itself is a misnomer, as there is no analysis and everything is basically hearsay. I want to comment especially about the India-Pakistan conflict.
First of all, the statement that India is ruled by Hindu fundamentalists stinks of propaganda and injustice to the world’s largest democracy. The party that rules India is called Indian Nationalist Party and not Hindu Nationalist Party. India has successfully separated religion and state and there is nowhere in our constitution that states we are a Hindu country, although we are more than 85 percent Hindu. Most amusing is the fact that you called India ruled by Hindu fundamentalists and then listed our President, Abdul Kalam, who is a Muslim. Isn’t that funny? Pakistan, on the other hand, has never had a strong democratic system, and the present ruler got into power by overthrowing a democratically elected government.
It just amazes me that in spite of being on the right side of history and giving the world a great man such as Gandhi, the ignorance of the American media on India and its policy and history is laughable. India continues to have one of the largest Muslim populations in the world, and they are an extremely contributing minority to our country. By calling us a Hindu fundamentalist country, you are not only debasing our democratic system but also devaluing the contributions of many Muslims in our country who are held in high esteem. All our top movie stars are Muslims and our cricket team has two extremely talented Muslims who contributed to a big victory against Pakistan on March 1. I could go on forever, but is anybody in America listening?
Srinath V. Ekkad
Faculty Adviser — Indian Students Association
Citizens must persist in anti-war fight
Unless you’re one of the converted, you might be hopelessly resigned to the notion that obliterating thousands of people is inevitable. If you’re one of the converted, you’re happily resigned to this notion.
Both resignations are frightening because they’re just that — resignations. Barring key exceptions, the American citizenry has resigned from its post.
Let’s look at The Reveille for a few examples: When dealing with one of the most serious moments in (post) modern history, a university newspaper has become government propaganda. If it weren’t for the few instances of erudite responses from letter writers, there would be very little democratic discussion.
But let’s also think about the letters cheering the war and the dissolution of civil liberties: We’ve service people supporting the end of free speech. Such people are fighting for freedom? If so, they might want to review the Federalist Papers, the Rights of Man, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We’ve others parroting such slogans as “Lead, follow, or get out of the way,” sentiments that lack complexity and any hint of honoring citizenship in a democratic republic.
Also, the misinformation abounding about those who protest the war and its consequences is mystifying, to say the least. Two great Americans — whose messages have been watered down and appropriated by their enemies — were against a sad war 40 years ago. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X — devout students of American history, Thomas Paine, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and moral philosophy — knew that the war in Vietnam was about conquest, not freedom. There are many differences between then and now, but this remains: a war to subordinate a country is not about freedom. And if you want a better argument than mine, I recommend Stanley Kubrick’s film “Full Metal Jacket.”
If you’re actively against the war — and I’ve met many of you — it’s you who’re waging combat for the freedoms that make America a hopeful possibility instead of an easily sold commodity.
Ben Lanier-Nabors
Graduate Student — English
America must avoid war with Iraq
The past few months I have felt confused and overwhelmed by the impending war on Iraq. I have examined both sides, saturated myself with information and thought about the consequences and achievements that a war can bring and the reasons for it. I have come to a decision. I cannot support a war that I believe can be avoided. Simply put, I believe the richer the U.S. becomes, the more it wants and has to protect. There is an imbalance in American interests. But what can I do? I will not use slander against the Bush administration or our troops; it is not patriotic. I call for independence, the basic reason our nation was formed.
Ultimately, we can survive without the oil in Iraq and not lead ourselves to a path of self destruction as Middle East leaders expect us to. So, I will protest this war by not using my vehicle or other oil unless it is unavoidable or unsafe. Yes, this will be inconvenient and tiresome, but no matter how small the difference, I, personally, will be slightly less dependent on our self-made enemy. Disagree if you would like and argue that this war is about homeland security or part of the war against terrorism or American values even, but first think about why we have been entrenched in this chaos in the first place. Ask yourselves why are we the target anyway? No matter how hard, debilitating and inconceivable it is, we need to change and become more self-sufficient. We have the technology, let’s use it. In my opinion, not using a vehicle is the first step in becoming basically free.
Carly Cannino
Senior — History
Lott comments racially insensitive
How can you say, let alone even write, in the University paper that Senator Lott’s comments at Strom Thurmond’s birthday party were not intended to be offensive. What positive, non-offensive information could a person of color take from a speech that states if a segregationist was elected president, “We wouldn’t have all these problems all these years.” I don’t know about you but those words coming out of the mouth of a man who grew up in the very volatile state of Mississippi, where a 14-year-old Emmett Till was lynched, represent his true thinking. But I guess that’s how Senator Lott uses his “conservative political correctness,” instead of just stating the “problems” that the country could have avoided over these years — you know, those little things such as affirmative action, school integration and dreadful Civil Rights act.
Maurice Wesley
Junior — Accounting
Athlete’s anti-war stance irks student
Tuesday morning I was getting ready to leave for school when I saw a piece on Sportscenter about a women’s basketball player from Manhattanville College that has taken her anti-war stance to a new level. Before all of her team’s basketball games, Toni Smith turns her back on the American flag as a way of political protest.
I was absolutely furious to see this because the American flag is not a symbol of how well our government makes decisions, it is a symbol of our freedom and those who died trying to preserve it. I am definitely in favor of free speech and being able to express your opinion no matter what it is, but to turn your back on the flag is taking this too far. We all enjoy the benefits of what those before us fought so hard to accomplish. So, next time you see Toni Smith on the news enjoying her 15 minutes of fame, remember the picture of all of the white cross graves that represent lives lost protecting our flag.
Kyle Silvio
Junior — Management
Taking issue with anti-war liberals
This little letter is addressed to all you Liberals out there who are against the imminent war with Iraq. What planet do you come from? I have been more than just a little disgusted by some of the comments made in protest to the war, especially those about “the plight of the Iraqi people.” So what these Liberals are saying is that the Iraqi people are in better hands with a brutal, sadistic dictator like Saddam Hussein than an intermediate democratic installation.
Let’s first analyze the positive aspects of the war for the people of Iraq. United Nations sanctions for food and medical supplies would be lifted, affording the Iraqi people an opportunity to step into the 21st century. By the way, the sanctions exist because of Saddam’s refusal to comply with United Nations disarmament policies; I’m sure you all remember when he tried to take over Kuwait in 1991 and then kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq in the late 90s. People in Iraq would be able to do what you do every day of your life, say and do as they please. They have no rights except the ones that Saddam decides to give them, which is really nothing at all.
And then there is my favorite argument, the one about the oil. Only a naïve liberal could be under the assumption that the profits received from oil in Iraq ever reach Iraqi people. It, along with the profits, belongs to and is specifically controlled by Saddam!
Now let’s look at the negative aspects. Oh wait, there aren’t any.
Xavier Grilletta
Senior — Construction Management
Free Speech Alley behavior deplorable
I write in order to point out the disappointing behavior of people in Free Speech Alley. Nobody is a stranger to its bold messages and exercises in free speech (go figure). This week, I witnessed an amazing spectacle of stupidity. Most have written The Reveille in order to complain about the evangelists’ message, but I would like to complain about the people who mocked the evangelizing families and were willing to act inappropriately in front of CHILDREN! I know this is no place for a child, but the fact remains that they were there, and that didn’t stop people from saying things such as “f***” or “s***,” and engaging in idiotic activities like eating the Bible, which is not so much an insult as it is stupid, seeing as no real sustenance can be gained by it. If the people there really cared about the well-being of those children, they would have offered a more mature example of what college is like.
I would encourage people to consider that those children have been raised their whole life to believe that college is full of immoral people that live in sin and won’t respect Christians. While I have come to believe that this is not always true, the people that go to Free Speech Alley to mock and jeer have done little more than confirm their [the evangelists’] wildest notions about college life. “This kind of behavior is typical at LSU!” said one evangelist. I would say that most people aren’t bent on destroying somebody’s faith in God, or in the Bible.
I would sincerely hope that these people are not the representatives of academia, which practices tolerance of ALL views. If these are the same people that scream for tolerance of atheism, Marxism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism etc., it would seem only fair that they practice the same tolerance toward others with views that are less popular. However, these people don’t want tolerance, or even free speech. They want only their views tolerated, and only their speech allowed.
J.T. Jacobs
Freshman — Architecture