Quite right, but…

• Fali Nariman is a great jurist with a powerful pen and a powerful voice. In ‘The Jharkhand case: wit...

• Fali Nariman is a great jurist with a powerful pen and a powerful voice. In ‘The Jharkhand case: with due respect’ (IE, March 14) he expresses worry because the Supreme Court “disturbed the delicate balance of power in our Constitution”. Neerja Chowdhury (‘Ten days that shook the system’, IE, March 14) is upset because every constitutional institution has overstepped its jurisdiction. But no one says what should have been done when parliamentary democracy was being murdered in Jharkhand. It appears, they are arguing like lawyers on behalf of a policeman who was murdering a person in

a police lock-up. Thank God, there is an alert Supreme Court in the country.

— Devendra Narain Gurgaon

• Fali Nariman’s and the Speaker’s reservations about the Supreme Court ruling over Jharkhand are understandable. The business of an assembly should ideally be conducted by its chairman and the presiding officer. However it must be borne in mind that the apex court decided to intervene only after the governor had invited Soren to form a government and gave him three weeks to arrange the necessary support. The pro-tem speaker also acted in a partisan manner by nominating an Anglo-Indian member even before the majority had been proved. When one of the three pillars of the State upsets the delicate balance, it is right for the other to try and correct it.

— J.M. Manchanda New Delhi

‘Purchased’ ministers

• How strange and pathetic that NDA’s Arjun Munda (after dislodging JMM-led UPA’s Shibu Soren government) should take oath as a lone BJP member with five independent members who were sworn in as “purchased” minister to save the BJP-led NDA government in Jharkhand. It’s a crying shame the UPA and NDA are slaves to the hands of such independents or smaller parties to form governments. Both parties must ask themselves whether forming the government is more important than cleaning up the political system.

— Bidyut K. Chatterjee Faridabad

Indian democracy

Story continues below this ad

• Apropos of K. Subrahmanyam’s ‘Call this democracy? Don’t!’ (IE, March 14), I disagree with his perception that elections in India are democratic, thanks to the EC. If elections are free and democratic, why do we need the police and army to provide tight security at the polling booths? I had visited several polling centres during the US presidential election and did not find a single policeman or security guard at the polling centres. I believe our Constitution is based on fundamentals of democracy, but in reality it has not been pursued in the right direction. — Divyesh Raythatha Dover

• With reference to your editorial, ‘A farewell to Razi’ (IE, March 14), it is indeed a sad commentary on the ‘state’ of democracy that after the imbroglio in Jharkhand only the hastily-appointed CM resigned from his post, but not the governor who had a much greater responsibility in choosing the right person for that office. Your editorial is absolutely right.

— K. R. Rangaswamy On e-mail

Strange, Sachin

• Amazing! The low sight screen was not an issue until Sachin Tendulkar had reached 50 odd runs in 70 balls. It becomes an issue when he manages 44 runs from 132 balls! Maybe he was playing on another ground until he reached his 50! It’s simple, Tendulkar was under pressure to complete his 35th century.

— Ali Nawaz Dubai