Kashmir Coverage Stirs Up Concern
The Opinion page article ``Route to Peace in Kashmir,'' Nov. 17, contains several controversial statements.
First, the author states that ``in the summer of 1965, [Pakistan] sent lightly armed Pakistani troops ... to wreak havoc in the valley.'' I find it unprofessional for the author to present opinions as facts. While the above view is believed by many, that does not change the fact that it is only a view.
Another problem is the description of some Kashmiris as ``loyal Indian citizens.'' Kashmir is a disputed territory. Therefore, Kashmiris cannot be ``loyal'' to a country, because they do not belong to any one country. If Kashmiris siding with India are ``loyal Indian citizens,'' can they not also be viewed as disloyal Pakistani citizens, since their citizenship is under dispute? The author's language shows a bias toward the Indian argument for Kashmir. Faraz Zaidi, Memphis
I am a citizen of Kashmir, India. I was residing in Srinagar, Kashmir, until the close of November 1989 and am now on a visit to my children working in the United States.
The sensational disappearance of the holy relic enshrined at Hazaratbal occurred in December 1963, not in December 1964 as mentioned in the Nov. 17 article.
There were no so-called communal or sectarian riots in Kashmir following this mishap. There were sustained demonstrations of protest in which members of the Hindu minority community participated spontaneously.
There were anti-Hindu riots in what was then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), and communal tensions in Calcutta erupted subsequently. These later were speedily controlled by the state authorities of Indian West Bengal.
I am deeply attached to the land of my birth and to its people of all religious persuasions, so I am distressed at the current tragic situation prevailing there. S. L. Pandit, Bourbonnais, Ill.