Hypocritical attitudeThis is with reference to 'Kashmiri Pandits, Sri Lankan Tamils and Indian hypocrisy', (July 31). Kudos on a most judiciously balanced political comparison about North Indian Kashmiri Pandits vis-a-vis South Indian Sri lankan Tamils. The exodus of Kashmiri Pandits was not ethnic, they preferred migration. Amongst the states they migrated to, Maharashtra proved to be the most beneficial as special provisions for admissions to Kashmiri migrant's children were given. Most of this younger generation, after acquiring educational qualifications, preferred to go abroad to seek their fortune leaving behind their old/ailing parents. These old people, even if they feel like going back, may not be able to accommodate their living style there now. This is not true about Sri Lankan Tamil migrants. Ethnic violence and coercive behaviour of the Sri Lankan government forced them to migrate. The language was also one of the hurdles they faced. Therefore the line ‘It is hypocrisy to ignore the Tamils but harp on the Pandits’  speaks volumes about the  hypocritical attitude of the government.— RM Deshpande, via email

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

IIThe article 'Kashmiri Pandits, Sri Lankan Tamils and Indian hypocrisy' reflects the writer's distorted perspective.  He should spend time to re-look at the issue and then comment. He should be judicious in exercising the option he has to use the national media  space. Kashmiri Hindus and Sri Lankan Tamilians cannot be in the same league. Sri Lankan Tamilians are native to Sri Lankan and not Indian migrants. India can only raise concern on the atrocities committed on them, equating them to Kashmiri Hindus is not fair. It is ethnic cleansing in Kashmir that has driven out Kashmiri Hindus from Kashmir. The hardships faced by Kashmiri Muslims are nothing compared to what Kashmiri Hindus are going through. Kashmiri Muslims atleast have their homes. Do kashmiri Hindus have that privilege? —Yogee Verma, via email

IIII read 'Kashmiri Pandits, Sri Lankan Tamils and Indian hypocrisy'  and felt very sad at the analogy drawn between two incomparables. Though the erstwhile Hindustan was divided into 3-4 countries geographically, the process could not divide the countries culturally and ethnically. Hence any upheaval in any neighbouring country upsets some community in India. It is needless to mention that Sri Lanka is sovereign nation. However, responsive reaction of Indian Tamils for the cause of Sri Lankan Tamils is taken as natural but when Pakistan or Bangladesh does for Indian Muslims we term it as interference in internal matters. Hence, I feel comparing two issues that of Sri Lankan Tamils and Kashmiri pandits, would be a unjust and unfair. —TRS Bahal, via email    

IVThe arguments presented by the writer in 'Kashmiri Pandits, Sri Lankan Tamils and Indian hypocrisy' with respect to Kashmiri pandits and Sri Lankan Tamils don't cut much ice. First, Sri Lanka is not a part of India and hence whether we like it or not, we are truly not allowed by international protocol to interfere. Second, Tamils have suffered the backlash due to a separatist movement which morphed into terrorism. Kashmiris are paying a price of separatist movements of the majority community in Kashmir. Third, it is erroneous to equate the suffering of the Pandits with the local Muslims. Either it is the writer's naivety or he is desperately trying to justify his logic. The Sri Lankan Tamils and Kashmiri Pandits suffer due to different reasons. As for addressing problems of Kashmiri Muslims, shouldn't the population help itself through the democratic process? Bihar was misgoverned for more than 5 decades and so are few other states. Does that give the people of that state the right to blame the Centre for all it's ills and start a separatist movement? The population of Kashmir should stop chasing the chimera of an independent state. This is the message that the entire country, especially the intellectuals and the media ought deliver. — Ketan Patel, via email