_______________ THE SADDHU FROM TEXAS BY ANNE CUSHMAN (04/02/98)
	I can't tell you how surprised and entertained I was to read Anne Cushman's piece in Wanderlust about Charan Das, the saddhu from Texas. I too had several encounters with Charan Das over the course of several years. I met him for the first time in Delhi in early 1990 -- he was a friend of the man I was then seeing, and he kept a supply of his books in my friend's room while he was off wandering. Every once in a while, he would turn up in Delhi and visit my friend (and his books). I too was initially perplexed when he referred to himself as "we," especially when he told me that "we've been thinking of returning to the U.S. to study comparative religion at Harvard." (I admit, that was hard for me to picture.) The two things I remembered the most clearly were that he always had a large supply of the latest magazines, including the relatively expensive international editions of American magazines, and he went to cultural programs almost nightly. My friend and I ran into him one rainy night at an Indian classical music concert. We'd been planning to take the bus home, but Charan Das and his friend insisted on a taxi. Public displays of affection are nearly unheard of in India, but taxis don't count. My friend could put his arm around me without fear. (We had already mastered the art of holding hands under my shawl in autorickshaws.) They invited us for dinner also, but we refused. Charan Das' friend was insistent, but Charan Das was more sanguine. "They want to get back," he said. "Let them." I was a bit embarrassed, but we didn't have a lot of time alone and didn't want to waste any. Soon after that, Charan Das left again to wander, and I didn't see him again before I left India. Flash forward nearly four years. In December 1993, several months after I returned to India as a Fulbright scholar, I met some friends at a Japanese flute concert at the India International Centre, one of Delhi's swankier intellectual spots. When we were leaving, I suddenly saw a familiar, gray-dreadlocked, lungi-clad figure. "Oh my God, I know that man," I said. I approached him and introduced myself again. He looked at me for only a moment before smiling beatifically. "Of course I remember," he said. "All that cuddling and loving in the taxi." By that point, I barely remembered the taxi ride, but it all came flooding back. I was mildly mortified. We talked for a while, out in the IIC parking lot. He gave a friend of mine advice on how to extend his visa. (It involved traveling to Lucknow and finding a particular guru.) He also said that he was having visa trouble of his own and would probably have to leave India. That's the only time I saw him, and I wondered what would happen to him if he had to return to the U.S. Now, more than four years later, I'm glad to have found out. Thanks for making my morning. -- Sue Dickman
_______________ FISH OR CUT BAIT BY JONATHAN BRODER (04/02/98)
	Jonathan Broder's one-note "when in doubt, blame Israel" screeds are becoming tiresome and are a blot on an otherwise fine magazine. Broder needs to be reminded that the only reason there is a Jerusalem or refugee "problem" is because the Arabs rejected the original 1947 U.N. partition plan (which Israel accepted) that would have given the Palestinian Arabs their state and made Jerusalem an international city 50 years ago. The 1967 war was also a direct result of the Arab refusal, which continues in some quarters today, to recognize any Jewish rights at all in Israel. What, precisely, does Israel owe the Arabs for winning the wars that they have forced it to fight? I agree that the consequences have been tragic for all concerned. However, do not the Arabs themselves bear some responsibility for all of this? The fact that there is an agreement of any kind at all between Israel and the PLO is a source of great hope, and Arafat has made some promising sounds. This is not a one-way street, and compromises on both sides are necessary. However, Broder seems to think that anything less than total Israeli capitulation to every Arab demand will make the Arabs so mad that they will start another war (for which Israel will again be to blame, naturally). If recent history is any indication, however, a sincere attempt by Arafat to live up to his side of the bargain would leave Netanyahu with no leg to stand on. The people of Israel would not support him if they thought that real peace with the PLO was possible. However, Arafat is on record as stating (to Arab audiences only, of course; he is nothing if not careful) that the demand for the redivision of Jerusalem and the forcible introduction of large numbers of Arabs within the pre-1967 borders of Israel is just one phase of the original PLO plan for the staged "liberation" of all of Palestine. This means nothing less than the destruction of Israel, either by force or by internal destabilization. So long as he persists in talking out of both sides of his mouth and coddling the murderers of Jews, he has no right to complain about Netanyahu. It is true that someone needs to fish or cut bait, but it is not Clinton: It is Arafat. -- Earl Hartman
_______________ SECOND THOUGHTS BY SALLIE TISDALE (04/02/98)
	Sallie Tisdale's article was an interesting look at the rural "gun culture" from the point of view of someone who grew up with it. She makes some good points about taking guns for granted, and yet I can't help but feel her conclusion -- "We'll get ourselves killed, and our children will get themselves killed, because you can 'get guns anywhere,' because all kinds of people can and do get guns and shoot them" -- is too simplistic. Thirty or 40 years ago, gun control effectively didn't exist, and guns were even more common than they are now, and yet atrocities like the recent schoolyard massacres didn't happen. I think by focusing on guns we're missing the larger picture: What's wrong with our children and the way we're raising them? -- David Ramsey Despite what Sally Tisdale suggests, in fact "nice guys" hardly ever kill anyone -- whether accidentally or deliberately, with guns or without. The vast majority of murderers have histories of prior violent crime, substance abuse, sexual abuse and so on. They are not "nice people" who suddenly went wrong. As for gun accidents, the rate has been plummeting for almost all of this century. And when accidents do happen, they're usually among the same kinds of people who commit murders, suggesting that they are probably not accidents at all. Ms. Tisdale is thus unlikely to be killed by a nice guy. Her snide column, on the other hand, may annoy a few people who have never done anything to harm her -- and likely never will. -- Glenn Reynolds SALON | April. 7, 1998