Accepting foreign funds
Neither does the Centre seem willing to donate more to Kerala nor is it accepting liberal donations from foreign countries (“Accept ₹700 cr. UAE offer or compensate us, says Kerala,” August 23).
Policies are designed by us and can be changed according to the circumstances and needs of the people. At a time when the people of Kerala have lost their homes and livelihoods and are eagerly awaiting basic necessities, the Modi government’s reluctance to accept the UAE’s donation seems harsh.
Kshirasagara Balaji Rao,
Hyderabad
On the one hand, the State government’s stance shows the Indian government in poor light. It conveys the idea that India is incapable of meeting its own citizens’ urgent requirements and has to depend on others. On the other hand, the Centre does not seem to have understood the full gravity of the situation in Kerala; its contribution is meagre. Though the statement of the External Affairs Ministry, that the government will meet Kerala’s needs through domestic efforts, sounds good on paper, the fact is that rehabilitation has to be undertaken on a war footing.
The State needs a lot of funds to repair the damaged infrastructure and help people rebuild their lives. Perhaps the Centre could treat the offer of assistance from other countries as loans to be reimbursed later. This way the Centre will not be compromising on the nation’s self-esteem and will also help the State limp back to normal.
V. Subramanian,
Chennai
Warmth and outrage
It is really surprising that Navjot Singh Sidhu’s gesture has invited such stinging criticism by sections of the media and from many people (“‘If we don’t want goodwill, then why have embassies?’”, August 23). Both the past NDA government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee and the present NDA government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi have done a lot to build good relations with Pakistan. Vajpayee travelled to Lahore by bus; Mr. Modi landed in Lahore on a surprise visit and hugged the then Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif. Given that jingoism is growing by the day, Mr. Sidhu could also go to different parts of India and give speeches on the importance of building an atmosphere where there is no room for hatred.
Katuru Durga prasad Rao,
Hyderabad
Mr. Sidhu says that Pakistan Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa told him that Pakistan was contemplating opening a passage from Dera Baba Nanak to Kartarpur Sahib to facilitate pilgrims to pay obeisance on the occasion of the 550th Parkash Diwas. As Mr. Sidhu’s visit was neither political nor official, it is curious why the Army Chief told him this and why Mr. Sidhu came back and announced this initiative.
Bhagaban Nayak,
Ganjam
Much to be desired
The article raises a pertinent question: why do Indians settled abroad do great academic work while their counterparts in India lag behind (“In search of greatness”, August 23)? The reasons are not far to seek. Universities and workplaces outside India offer more freedom to do great work and are not influenced by political clout as is the case here. Right from our education system to government control of education, the lack of a vibrant culture of scientific research and education in our universities, and allocation of funds, there is much to be desired. We need a paradigm shift in teaching methods. We also need to encourage questioning and independent thinking.
R. Prabhu Raj,
Bengaluru
Not a theocracy
To suggest imprisoning a person for life for acts of sacrilege against holy texts is preposterous (“Retrograde move”, August 23). India is not a theocratic state to take offence on behalf of religious groups and punish people for perceived or factual slights to religious texts. It should only concern itself with maintaining law and order when there are tensions between religious groups.
D. Ramesh,
Secunderabad
The decision is unfortunate. First, what constitutes sacrilege is itself ambiguous. Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code criminalises “deliberate and malicious acts to outrage religious feelings.” How do you prove that an act was deliberate and not ignorant? Does everyone follow what these holy texts preach? Won’t omissions also be considered sacrilegious? And now the Cabinet wants to introduce a new section! Such regressive provisions are against the idea of secularism, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Shreyashi Panja,
New Delhi