Lengthening shadow

editorial ‘Word for word’ was interesting. I agree that the parliamentary debate was enlightening...

• The editorial ‘Word for word’ was interesting. I agree that the parliamentary debate was enlightening, but our politicians kept getting distracted by reports of the alleged horse-trading. Had these debates been without the reality or fiction of horse-trading, they would have had genuine democratic relevance. However, if there has actually been any horse trading, it will fall like a shadow over the next general elections, given that the polls are due soon anyway.

— Kedarnath R. Aiyar

Mumbai

UPA’s legacy

• The Lok Sabha debate will produce a winner, be it the government or the opposition. But, before the consequences of the trust vote, it is necessary to study what has all along been at stake for India. Any attempt by India to withdraw from the civilian nuclear deal with the United States at this point will be seen as reneging on an international treaty.

Such a disastrous move would, indeed, place India at par with Iran and North Korea in the eyes of the most powerful nation on earth. As a breach of trust and commitment to a cause, its ramifications will be long and significant.

— R.P. Subramanian

Delhi

Party first

Story continues below this ad

• This refers to the editorial ‘Two cheers’. I don’t agree that Somnath Chatterjee has upheld the dignity of the speaker’s chair. In fact, he has done the opposite by clinging to it and defying the party which he represents in the Lok Sabha. After losing the support of almost 60 Left MPs, Chatterjee has also lost the status of a “unanimous” speaker. It is not correct to see the CPM as making a point of prestige out of the controversy. It is a point of party discipline and Somnath Chatterjee cannot be an exception to that.

— M.C. Joshi

Lucknow

Never learners

• The saddest part of the nuclear drama is that political parties like the Shiv Sena, the RLD and others believe that the deal is in the interest of the nation, but cannot cast their votes in support of the government behind the deal due to political compulsions. Why is it so difficult for these parties and others that are downright opposed to the deal that India’s energy production is far too inadequate? And that the nuclear deal would have solved such a fundamental problem to some extent?

—B.K. Chatterjee

Faridabad

On common ground

• All governments, including that led by the party L.K. Advani belongs to, failed to keep their word to the aam aadmi. No Union or state government in this country has ever delivered fully. Politicians have always put themselves first, their parties next and the nation last on their list of priorities. Providing electricity, roads, water, agriculture and irrigation to all, as envisioned in the UPA-Left Common Minimum Programme, is old ground where everybody has failed.

— R.J. Khurana

Bhopal