Feb 03, 2004: Dear Sen. Lugar and the Washington Time
	Most of the American media agencies always repeat two errors about India 1. Place India and Pakistan on the same pedestal with "equal-equal" or parity syndrome. 2. Refer to India as “Hindu India” Senator Richard Lugar repeats the same error in his recent article published in the Washington Times. The following letter (written by Dr. Beheruz Sethna and forwarded by Ram Narayanan) provides a good statistical answer. senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov, letters@washingtontimes.com ----- Letter by Dr.Beheruz Sethna ----- Dear Sen. Lugar and the Washington Times: Re: http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040125-103752-5064r.htm Opportunity in South Asia, by Richard Lugar; The Washington Times, January 26, 2004 In the above referenced article by Senator Richard Lugar, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he makes some good points. However, I wish to point out both to the respected Senator and The Washington Times, the logical fallacy of continuing to put India and Pakistan on the same pedestal. The Senator did not specifically say that, but the article implies that these two countries are essentially on the same footing. I respectfully disagree. These are vastly different countries and the tendency of many (even many sound thinkers such as yourselves) in leadership positions to regard them as comparable, is simply not grounded in reality. At the very start, the article refers to "predominantly Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan." Let's look at the facts. Pakistan is 97% Muslim (all data in this paragraph are from http://www.factmonster.com/countries.html). I believe that such a high percentage accurately qualifies it to be labeled as "predominantly Muslim Pakistan" or as "Muslim Pakistan." No quarrel there. Now, India is 81% Hindu. Is it appropriate to refer to it in the American media as "predominantly Hindu India?" Certainly, Hindus are in the clear majority, so I am not talking about the statistical accuracy of that statement. Yet, is it an appropriate designation? If you say Yes, let me share with you another country's statistics. Approximately 84% of the United States population is Christian! Does the same logic apply here? Does the Senator and the media continuously refer to the United States as "the predominantly Christian United States?" Regardless of the statistical truth of the predominance of people of the Christian faith, it is politically feasible to refer constantly, to the U.S., as "the predominantly Christian United States?" Is it desirable to do so? So, why should the same logic not apply to characterization of India (which is actually 3% less Hindu than the U.S. is Christian?). Let us consider another comparison. How logical is it to continue to treat two countries as being similar to each other as the article seems to indicate? The GDP of Pakistan is approximately one-ninth that of India. One-ninth. To get a feel for what that means, let us look at countries which have approximately one-ninth the GDP of the United States. The GDP of Brazil is approximately one-eighth that of the U.S. and the GDP of South Korea is one-eleventh that of the U.S. Source of GDP data: http://www.photius.com/rankings/gdp_2003_0.html Would you continue to regard Brazil and South Korea as being in the same category as the United States? Would you treat either of them on par with the U.S. in your speeches, articles, and arguments? Or would you think that that which applies to the United States does not necessarily apply to Brazil and South Korea? If an author in another country made a claim that what's good for South Korea (or Brazil) is good for the United States and vice versa, or expressed the opinion that these two countries should get their act together - each being essentially in the same boat, how would such an article be perceived? How would we react to a plan for the future of those two countries, written along the same lines as the article in the Washington Times that mirrors the "equal" treatment of the United States and South Korea? Please think about these comparisons and characterizations of India the next time an article is written on India vis-à-vis Pakistan. Further, India has the fourth largest economy in the world (http://www.photius.com/rankings/gdp_2003_0.html). The U.S., China, Japan, and India are the top four. Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Russia are all behind India. Pakistan is an "economic basket case" (Richard Rapaport in the San Francisco Chronicle, Nov 13, 2001, Tilting Again) that is being propped up only with U.S. taxpayers' money. In addition, India is a vibrant democracy with a free press, a pluralistic society, which had nuclear weapons for almost a quarter of a century before Pakistan did, and never once used or threatened to use them. Pakistan is a military dictatorship with essentially state-controlled media, a state that has actively encouraged religious fundamentalism, a country that has threatened to use nuclear weapons as a first nuclear strike strategy, has been very active in nuclear proliferation, and has repeatedly lied about such illegal trade in nuclear technology. Hello; does anyone see some difference between the two? Are India and Pakistan in the same category? Is the U.S. in the same category as South Korea or Brazil? Sincerely, ----------------------- End of the letter Following is the earlier message from Ram Narayanan, that explains this “virus that overlays the executive and the legislative branch in the United States” This article by Senator Richard Lugar, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am told, is the text of the prepared opening statement delivered on January 28, 2004 at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on India-Pakistan rapprochement. It troubles me not because I found any factual errors as such in it, but because of its tendency to place India and Pakistan on the same pedestal - the "equal-equal" or parity syndrome carried too far. Unfortunately, that is a virus that overlays the executive branch in the United States and has now spread by constant association to the legislative branch. Mindsets change either very slowly or as a result of momentous events. Eventually, the only way to tackle this situation is for India to raise the quotient of its comprehensive national strength (which already is seven or eight times that of Pakistan) to such a high level (an eminently achievable task) that the United States will look silly in even trying to push the parity argument. Also, on the non-proliferation issue, it's uttterly ridiculous to put Pakistan and India in the same box. The record speaks for itself so loudly! Then again, describing India as "predominantly Hindu" in the context of Kashmir being described as "Muslim majority" while not factually wrong is politically inappropriate. India is a multi-religious secular democracy. America probably has a much larger percentage of Christians as compared to the percentage of Hindus in India. No one refers to pluralistic democracies in religious terms. Would Senator Lugar or other members of the legislative branch or the media constantly harp on the theme that the United States is a "predominantly Christian United States"? India has more Muslims than Pakistan. Equally important, does Senator Lugar wish to equate America's relations with a country ruled by a uniformed General with what President Bush and others acknowledge to be the most populous democracy in the world?