Letters to the editor

Whatever be his economic achievements by attracting the FDI in Gujarat, Narendra Modi’s government stands as a symbol of autocracy, communal hatred enacted often in horror and bestiality. If the BJP President Rajnath Singh has dropped Narendra Modi from the party’s central parliamentary board, it is not just a fear of a political rival, but it should be taken as a message to the hero of communal hatred and the so-called saviour of the Hindus. Notwithstanding the ideology of an individual or his political party, a chief minister and his government have no right to discriminate between the citizens on their religion and caste. If the state fails to ensure the conviction of the guilty, who indulged in communal savagery, it loses all its moral right to remain in power.

— Ved Guliani, Hisar

US umbrella

• Fareed Zakaria has very aptly anticipated in his article, ‘Ball in nobody’s court’ (IE, January 31), the void in the political landscape of the future world if America were to wither away into insignificance. There will be no country to welcome the endless streams of refugees from Europe, as happened during the Second World War, no overriding intervention along with Russia against the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt during the Suez crisis, no massive aid to war-ravaged Europe, particularly W. Germany, no guarantee for South Korea against being gobbled up by North Korea, no one to battle the drug lords of Colombia, no release of massive funds for natural calamities anywhere in the globe, and so on. Critics would argue that America did all this for its national interests. It is also equally true that America caused many subversions to topple inimical governments. But then nothing in nature comes as a unalloyed blessing. There can be no denying that in the last century America assumed global leadership. But then no nation in future would have the capability or boldness to play that role.

— N.K. Das Gupta, Kolkata

Corus to cricket

• If there was ever a day of contrasts, February 1 was surely it. On that day the media and even the ministers went ga-ga over the Corus deal, with some netas sporting the smile of a Cheshire cat. However the same netas came out with an ordinance forcing channels to share feeds (effectively it is only for cricket) with DD. Now how would these netas have liked it if the British government had brought in arbitrary legislation of this kind to prevent the Corus deal?

How fair is it then to bring in an ordinance after the sports telecast deal had been signed? The reason is obvious. Had the rule been made before the bidding, BCCI would not have got a good price. Now we have killed two birds with one stone.

— T.R. Ramaswami, Mumbai

Practical terror

• What a pity that the same ULFA leaders, who senselessly inspire attacks on innocent people, are themselves so scared of death that they don’t dare to come overground for direct talks with the government, identifying their fear as ‘practical problems’. At least, at a human level, they should individually realise that the cost of life is equal for everyone (‘ULFA lists “practical problems” in going for direct dialogue’, IE, February 1).

— Gaurav Dua, Delhi