THIS is apropos of Jawed Naqvi's column, 'Punditry about Muslims' (July 3), a well-written and heartfelt document.

When I read about Farah Pandith's appointment, I laughed at the irony of it all. Here is a highly accomplished woman who is eminently qualified. Yet her name is like a power-packed poem that packs a thousand images between two words.

The Pandith community of Kashmir is the very symbol of Hindu grievance in Kashmir.

They are the original Hindu inhabitants of Kashmir and were either driven out of Kashmir and live as refugees, or converted to Islam. Whether the conversion was voluntary or forced, nobody will know because it is already hundreds of years old, and it does not matter now.

But the elephant in the room that is never acknowledged by the intelligentsia (such as Mr Naqvi) is proselytisation.

This is at the heart of the problem between Hindus and Muslims (and Christians) of India.

The Christians are relentless in their drive to convert India into a Christian nation. Millions of dollars pour in from all parts of the world to help the missionaries spread the 'word of God'. The Muslims work at it too but at a far lesser level of dedication.

So in choosing a person with a name like Farah Pandith, Hilary Clinton has instantly stoked the fires of resentment in millions of Hindus who are against proselytising — not that it matters to her mission.

It may even help her in the Middle East where I am sure there are many devout Muslims who think all of India should be Islamic anyway.

But if she had any illusions of creating amity between Hindus and Muslims, she is probably in for a nasty surprise.

A person with a 'pure' Muslim name would have far better luck in my opinion.

Before you dismiss me as a 'Hindu fanatic', I ask for your indulgence, with this question How many Muslims would welcome a person who converted from Islam to Christianity as their nominated representative to bring about peace between them and the Christian community?

As for Christians accepting a converted Muslim, all we need to do is look at the travails of Mr Obama. He was never a Muslim, yet he has had to swear repeatedly his loyalty to the Christian religion.

In Ms Pandith's case it may have been her ancestors who converted, but her name leaves most people thinking she is a 'new convert'.

It is for this very reason that the Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana also would fail to evoke any enthusiasm among the Hindus in the USA or India.

He may not have converted merely in order to gain acceptance in America; he may have been genuinely attracted by the tenets of Christianity, only he can tell that.

But to digress a little, he is in the Republican Party which is notoriously intolerant and not 'Christian' in many of its ideas.

Now, I wonder who will respect such a man. A person who appears to be so obsessed with office that he is willing to renounce his own kind will not exactly be welcomed by the kind he renounced. As for the other kind he has embraced, time will tell.

B.K. VASAN
United States