Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Editorial «
Op-Ed «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

Since its birth, I have been reading, every morning with deep interest, New Age as a respectable, neutral newspaper, reflecting the realities with truth. That is why I was shocked when I saw the news piece titled ‘Cypriots mark Turkish invasion’, the misleading text which was prepared by AFP and printed in your July 21 issue.
   The fact is, they were the Cypriot Turks -not Cypriots- who celebrated the anniversary of the Turkish peace operation in northern Cyprus as the ‘31st Anniversary of Peace and Freedom’. Thus, the title ‘Cypriots mark Turkish invasion’ was completely misleading. It should be recalled that on July 14 1974, the notorious Nicos Sampson had staged a coup d’etat in Cyprus and toppled the then Archbishop Makarios with the aim of establishing his own republic and annexing Cyprus to Greece — the Enosis utopia — Cypriot Turks were on the brink of annihilation. Turkey, exercising her right as a ‘guarantor power’ emanating from the ‘International Agreements of London and Zurich’ signed in 1959-60 by Turkey, Greece and Britain, had to militarily intervene to protect the constitution of the Cyprus Republic — established by the above agreements — and safeguard the lives and property of the Turkish Cypriots who were forced by the Greeks to live in enclaves scattered all over the Island.
   The latest plan of the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan to find a comprehensive settlement to the Cyprus problem was put to referenda on both sides of the Island. Cypriot Turks voted in favour with a margin of 65 per cent while the Greek Cypriots refused it with a margin of 75 per cent. The results clearly showed that the Greek Cypriots, who still claim to be the sole representatives of the Island, did not at all want to unite and live side by side in peace and solidarity and share the Island with the Turks. It is high time the world knew the reality.
   Ferit Ergin
   Ambassador, the Republic of Turkey, Dhaka

‘His master’s (madam in this instance) voice’ . . .
   This is how Rashed Ahmed (11 July) resorts to the vilification of the Foreign Secretary personally. He also writes clearly against him “he said a lot of things, but when these are scrutinised, there will be nothing to call achievements”. He himself does not ‘scrutinize’ what he demolishes - and he is an honourable man and he claims he does not do” washing dirty linen in the public”. But he takes umbrage to a perfectly legitimate critique and analysis of apparent flaws in performance,written after due scrutiny of all relevant factors.
   Then Ahmed of course admits “ but I really do not know what “ to write, but he exercises his right ‘ as a free citizen ‘ to pen short letters basically riding on other peoples’ original thoughts and views, with no value-added dimension and worse, resorting without rhyme or reason, in personal attacks.
   Ahmed conducts background checks too of those who write somewhat differently, but he is an honourable man - conveniently hiding in anonymity. He ought at least to realise that by attacking any writer personally, he does not in any way disprove the validity of the points made in the thematic analysis. One does, however, have considerable regret that the inconsequential comments of a person without any originality and without any identity, have inadvertently been dignified with a response.
   Syed Muhammad Hussain
   On e-mail

London on July 7; Sharm el-Sheikh on July 23. And probably not the end of ‘terrorist’ attack or the last of counter terrorist hunt. An unending cycle of terror and counter terror seem to have been unleashed. And who pays the price? The ones caught in crossfire and caught in hot pursuit to kill at sight (note the point blank shooting of fallen suspect in London tube station).
   The war on terror was famously launched as war against terrorist groups; hunt them, smoke them, and kill them doctrine. As if the ‘enemy was in formation neat and lined up to be shot at; these are cowards who hide in the dark and commit dark deeds on innocent civilians with barbaric cruelty. There are other cowards too; like those who invaded a country weakened by the UN sanctions, its defences crumbled by weapons inspections, its people starved, its half a million children killed, its civilian infrastructure crumbled to nothing. If there was a cowardly act in recent history, it was on the Iraqi people imposed upon them without legal or moral cover of any kind. So there are cowards secure on their high pedestal just as cowards hiding in dark lanes and alleyways.
   The war on terror is metamorphosing into a war of ideas. That is something refreshing. So a war of ideas is best fought by clear demonstration of superiority of one over the other. Will the warriors accept that the terrorists may have the idea of legitimacy of their fight against occupation, intimidation and imperial domination? It is not evil to fight occupation, to regain sovereignty stolen, to redeem honour bruised by humiliation. A war of ideas demands equal understanding and respect, demands accommodation and space for rival ideas. Will the imperial war on terror begin to steer clear of imperial terror, of ‘shock and awe’ terror of conquest of the weak and defenceless?
   Husain
   Dhaka

I was taken aback reading the letter written by Akbar Hussain July 16 regarding Friday prayers. According to him, at a conference held in Chicago a participant demanded that it would have been better if they were allowed to offer jumma prayer on Sunday because they find no time to offer it on Friday. I would like to say that Muslims are being misguided even on a trivial issue.
   As a consequence of such ideas, a few months back a congregation was held under a woman cleric. I think, it should have been a matter of concern that no congregation can be held under any woman as it violates the basic principles of Islam.
    Muslims have been used to offering jumma prayers since the inception of Islam. And shifting jumma prayer on Sunday with a mere excuse will be a violation of fundamental Islamic rules. Perhaps, the writer has forgotten about offering prayers five times a day, which is mandatory for all Muslims. If he can offer ‘zohr’ prayer, he can offer jumma prayer at the same time. In case he is unable to do so, there’s an alternative to offer ‘zohr’ prayer.
   We should remember that saying jumma prayer isn’t obligatory for all. But it’s truly absurd to change the day on such a trifle issue. In my view, we should keep ourselves away from those who are trying to mislead us.
   Abdullah-Al-Mamun
   SM Hall, Dhaka University