Letters to the editor

Privilege and pomp• SHEKHAR GUPTA’S article ‘Vain, Insensitive, Pompous’ (IE, May 5) will warm the heart of the aam aadm...

Privilege and pomp

• SHEKHAR GUPTA’S article ‘Vain, Insensitive, Pompous’ (IE, May 5) will warm the heart of the aam aadmi. As a youngster in Karachi before independence, our leaders would proclaim from the house tops that the ceremonial regime followed by the British would be abolished. But today this aam aadmi is being humiliated by being repeatedly reminded who the real rulers of the country are. But what satisfaction can anybody possibly get by flouting his/her position? This is nothing but a display of selfish pride. No other country allows such practices. In what moment of weakness did Sonia Gandhi allow her son-in-law’s name to figure in the privileged list? Rulers can only know the problems of the aam aadmi by rubbing shoulders with them and what better place to do this than in an airport queue? Such official privileges should be completely banned through law. All right-thinking people will appreciate such a move.

— R. Singh, Delhi

Bridge of fears

• ONE is unable to understand the rationale of the opposition to the Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project (‘Ram Sethu rocks Lok Sabha again’, IE, May 5), which will drastically cut the sea route between our eastern and the western coasts. Valmiki’s Ramayana mentions in Yudha Kand, Dwavinsh Sarg, that the army of Lord Ram constructed a hundred yojan long and ten yojan wide bridge over the sea in five days. Unlike the common belief emanating from some of the later writings, that the bridge was constructed as an earth-filled passage, the Ramayana states that the ‘Vaanar Sena’ felled innumerable trees for the construction (shlokas 55 to 59, 64 and 65). The subsequent shlokas state the method of construction. Shloka 60 mentions that, huge ‘vaanars’ uprooted elephant-sized rocks and moved them to the sea (shlokas 55, to 62, 64 to 66, and 67).

But what appears as a continuous submerged ridge in aerial photographs, is apparently one of the reefs, as are found elsewhere. The objection to dredging the existing channel on religious grounds is, therefore, not understood. As for the tsunami threat, in the past few centuries, there has just been one devastating tsunami. It is, therefore, a very low probability threat. Can we stop our nuclear programme merely on the presumption that one of them may some day blow up? The third objection is the fear of losing the thorium-enriched sands of Kerala. Will dredging a few feet really matter? The sea west of the channel expands in width, and the impact of a tsunami is unlikely to ravage the western coast.

— M.M.P. Kala, Dehra Dun