I am writing to you on the occasion of the birth anniversary of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Dr.
King could be called an American Gandhi and I am certain he would have been concerned about the recent
developments in South Asia, in particular, the role of the United Sates in regard to these developments. These developments include the armed terrorist attack on India's Parliament, which is nothing less than an assault on democracy. What would be your statement and more important, your actions, if the US Congress had been attacked by armed militants?

I have read and watched with intense interest as you undertook and completed your trip to South Asia
recently. I was born in the world's largest democracy and I am fortunate to be an active citizen of another modern democracy, that of the United States of America. Millions of Indians have tasted and practiced
democracy for a half century and more. This is an unparalleled achievement, coming as it did, after 300
years of British colonial rule. The United States did not start at such a serious disadvantage in its own
quest for democracy. India's democracy is nothing short of phenomenal, given its long period of colonial
bondage and exploitation of its natural and human resources.

It should be clearly understood by the United States Government and especially by you, Secretary Powell,
that India and Pakistan are not politically or morally equivalent. In August 1947, when the subcontinent
became finally free of British rule, India became a STATE and Pakistan became a NATION. This is a
difference of the greatest significance. Pakistan was created out of India, on the basis of a separatist
ideology anchored in religion. Muslim identity was the basis of the creation of Pakistan. Yet India,
secular, democratic India, has more Muslims living within its borders as fully equal citizens of a
sovereign democracy, than does Pakistan with its narrow minded bigoted approach to modern statehood. 
In trying to become a modern state, it achieved nothing more than nationhood.

India, by contrast chose the path of democracy and secularism. Pakistan, having broken off from India on
the basis of religion followed a predictable trajectory -- a descent down a slippery slope from Muslim identity to Islamist theocracy, barely sustained through a series of military dictatorships, (with no serious protest or sustained condemnation by the US). The bankruptcy of the concept of religious identity as
the basis of modern statehood, was proven when Pakistan broke up and Bangladesh was created from East Pakistan.

It is impossible for the US to successfully conduct foreign policy in South Asia, without fully grasping
these socio-historical circumstances that continue to influence the current political context.

I want to end with some questions and comments for you:

Q. When is the US going to call for a return to democracy in Pakistan or is the US going to continue
to support the military dictator that overthrew democracy in Pakistan?

Q. When is the US going to put its money where its mouth is and stop providing support to tyrannical and
repressive regimes in South Asia and the Middle East?

Q. Is democracy the only product that the US does not export? It grows democracy (which still needs a lot
of work) at home but has a long history of fomenting anti-democratic and anti-secular movements abroad. 
This has got to stop. The US cannot have it both ways. Specifically, you cannot continue to support General
Musharraf and pretend to support democracy in South Asia. That would be hypocritical.

Q. Let us take a step back into US history, had President Lincoln acquiesced to the breakup of the Union? The democracy of the United States would not have survived if the country had been broken up along racial lines. India made the terrible mistake of acquiescing to British and separatist Muslim separatist demands and agreeing to the breakup of India. India is continuing to pay the price for that deeply flawed decision. The innocent people of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh are continuing to pay a terrible price for the selfish ambition of the British colonial, and some post-colonial leaders. 

Q. When will the US call for Pakistan and China to vacate their armed aggression in Kashmir which is an
integral part of India? China is hardly a beacon of democracy. Recently it has taken to executing
so-called Islamic militants. The United States has maintained a silence on this point.

In contrast to China and Pakistan, political and religious freedom and secularism are the building blocks of a proud and resilient Indian democracy. These ideals are enshrined in the Indian constitution and they have been tried and tested by the ordinary people of India in the everyday struggle to keep India united against the forces of separatism. 

Q. If separatism was not in the interests of the US throughout its own history, why is the US giving tacit
approval of separatism by supporting the present regime in Pakistan? Why is the US not vocal in its
support of Indian sovereignty over its land and people? In fact, it is more appropriate for the US to
call for the repeal of Partition than for the US to support separatism or the so-called right of self determination! Should the Southern States of the United Sates have been allowed to secede under
President Lincoln? Instead of being revered as The Great Emancipator he would today be reviled as the
Great Separator.