Procrustes at The Hindu's Letters Edit

Procrustes at The Hindu's Letters Edit desk did not spare my letter. But, this time, the chopping went beyond fitting the body to the bed. It disfigured even the spirit.... So I sent the following letter:

Letter sent to The hindu on Dec 8 2008
Sir,
Please note that this is not for publishing. But I wish you will read it.
First of all, let me thank you for publishing my letter. But, this time, your editing has gone a bit awry. Broadly speaking, it has missed at least two points: 1. that I was referring not to the commission of the terror attack alone; and 2. that the ‘universal jurisprudence’ Burgess refers to is only an international ‘convention’ and not a covenant, and that it was invoked not in ancient times alone.
As to the details: my sentence, “Zardari's denial of Pakistan's responsibility in the recent Mumbai attack on the ground that the terrorists were ‘stateless actors’” was changed into “Zardari’s claim that the terrorists who attacked Mumbai were ‘stateless actors’”. Zardari’s denial of ‘responsibility’ applied not only to the commission of the attack but, more importantly, also to the investigation and prevention. But, the substitution of the word “claim” for “denial” and the dropping of the word “responsibility” limited the meaning to commission alone. This is repeated further down in the sentence, “the responsibility for a ‘stateless’ crime is everyone’s”. That my letter was more about investigation and prevention than about commission was clear, as is proved by the sub-title, “Time to act”, under which it has come.
Changing of my sentence, “the convention of universal jurisprudence is that a ‘stateless’ crime would make the responsibility everyone’s”, into “Under universal jurisprudence, the responsibility for a ‘stateless’ crime is everyone’s” has created two mistakes: 1. By dropping the word “convention”, you made “universal jurisprudence” appear to be an international law or covenant, which it is not yet, which made Burgess write the essay; and, 2. The “responsibility” as I used would have included ‘investigation’ and ‘prevention’, but the change would make it mean only ‘commission’.
Again, the change of “had been invoked time and again since ancient times” into “was invoked often in ancient times” makes the tool redundant. Please see the relevant part in Burgess’:
“The Roman lawmaker Cicero defined piracy as a crime against civilization itself, which English jurist Edward Coke famously rephrased as ‘hostis humani generis’ -- enemies of the human race. As such, they were enemies not of one state but of all states, and correspondingly all states shared in the burden of capturing them.
“From this precept came the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, meaning that pirates -- unlike any other criminals -- could be captured wherever they were found, by anyone who found them. This recognition of piracy's unique threat was the cornerstone of international law for more than 2,000 years”.
Lastly, by dropping the sentence, “Terrorism is more ‘stateless’ and dastardly than piracy”, the letter in print missed the connection between piracy and terrorism. Burgess had dealt with only piracy. We have to extend the “convention” of "hostis humani generis" to terrorism also to apply it to the Mumbai attack.
I very well understand the constraints of the paper’s space and the pressures under which you and your colleagues work. This note I am sending is not to blame but to explain how the editing has changed the meaning of my letter. There should end my concern and responsibility.

With thanks,
P.P.Sudhakaran.

301, East Mansion,
No.2, Hutchins Road, Cooke Town,
Bangalore 560 005.
Ph. 080 25467483

For your ready reference I am copying below the letter I sent and the letter that came in print.

My original letter:
Zardari's denial of Pakistan's responsibility in the recent Mumbai attack on the ground that the terrorists were ‘stateless actors’ is self-defeating. Unlike wars, terrorism is always a stateless act; it has only targets. Seeking its statehood, as implied in the editorial, 'Denial or worse?' (The Hindu, Dec.6), is desperate, dumb and digressive.
Actually, the convention of universal jurisprudence is that a ‘stateless’ crime would make the responsibility everyone’s. In his New York Times Op-Ed, ‘Piracy Is Terrorism’ (Dec.5, 2008), Douglas R. Burgess Jr. says that the law of "hostis humani generis" or ‘enemies of the human race’ had been invoked time and again since ancient times by governments of various states to deal with piracy in international waters. Terrorism is more ‘stateless’ and dastardly than piracy. Instead of relying on denials, Zardari should invoke this law and join the investigation proactively along with India and other concerned nations. It may eventually help him in the on-going tussle with the military establishment. Let us all wish him well.

The letter that came in print:
Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari’s claim that the terrorists who attacked Mumbai were “stateless actors” is self-defeating. Unlike wars, terrorism is a stateless act. Under universal jurisprudence, the responsibility for a ‘stateless’ crime is everyone’s. According to Douglas R. Burgess Jr. the doctrine of hostis humani generis (‘enemies of the human race’) was invoked often in ancient times by states to deal with piracy (New York Times, Dec. 5). Mr. Zardari should invoke this doctrine and join the investigations into the Mumbai terror attacks. It may actually help him in his tussle with the military establishment.