Can the ongoing fighting in the Darfur region of Sudan be called a genocide? Phyllis and Sylvain Ehrenfeld (“Does the UN Have the Power to do its Job?”, IHN May 2008) have no doubts. However, the Darfur conflict has been called the first Climate Change war - and for good reasons.

For centuries, the farmers of the Darfur have allowed the Southern nomadic tribes, who bring their cattle north to the Darfur at regular intervals, to graze their animals on the farmers' lands. As long as there occurred sufficient rainfall, there was no problem. The grazing cattle of the nomads provided some fertilizer to the land - so both the farmers and the nomads benefited. When, in recent years, the normal rains failed to arrive, the farmers began to be concerned, and to protect their crops, decided to stop this ancient practice.

Genocide is defined by the UN as the killing of people because of their race, or religion, or ethnicity, or nationality. The fighting in the Darfur began and continues because of lack of rain. Calling it 'genocide', - a term denoting one of the most heinous crimes - the planned mass killings of an identifiable group of humans - cheapens its meaning. It should be used only in extreme cases where intent, planning and execution are observable.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Pfalzner
Former President HAC (Humanist Association of Canada)
Ottawa, Canada

---

Babu Gogineni ("Secularism under threat in India", IHN May 2008) jokes about the naming of the Doordarshan channel as Saptagiri just because the Balaji temple is situated there.

But many staunch secularists in India have religious names such as Manmohan, Krishna, Ramchandra. Instead of worrying about trivia such as this, Humanists should concentrate on confronting religious fundamentalism with reason and persuasion.

Persuasion can be very effective. In the USA in 1979, I witnessed a media campaign against smoking and tobacco. This year when I went there I found hardly any smokers. Persuasion works wonders!

Your sincerely,

Rakesh Kumar
India