This is what I sent The Hindu on 25.3.09:
PM asks for Mr.Advani’s record.
Sir,
It would be appreciated if Mr.Advani answers Dr.Manmohan Singh’s poser about his track record as Home Minister, and, if one may add, also as Leader of the Opposition. He is seen, instead, to repeat ad nauseam a taunt that Dr.Singh is the weakest ever PM of India. Psychology of taunt, as in the case of name-calling, is that it would give the taunter a false sense of being above the blame. If Mr.Advani wants the voters to believe that he would make a ‘strong’ PM, he may attempt it with the support of his track record. P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore.
This is what it published on 26.3.09 under the title, "unfortunate":
Mr. Advani, besides telling Dr. Singh about his track record as Home Minister, should also explain his performance as the Leader of the Opposition instead of repeating ad nauseam that Dr. Singh is the weakest Prime Minister India has seen. If Mr. Advani wants the voters to believe that he can make a “strong” Prime Minister, he can convince them by producing his track record.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Advani: NDA lost in 2004 because of over-confidence, wrong slogans
This is what The Hindu reported on 3.3.2009
Advani: NDA lost in 2004 because of over-confidence, wrong slogans
New Delhi: Bharatiya Janata Party’s prime ministerial candidate L.K. Advani on Monday said the National Democratic Alliance lost the 2004 general elections because of “over confidence” and use of wrong slogans like “India Shining.” Addressing a conference of the BJP’s traders’ cell here, Mr. Advani said that after being in power for six years and giving good governance under the prime ministership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, NDA was confident of forming the next government.
“The impression even among the opponents and foreign analysts was that we will win....but we lost...one, due to over-confidence and, secondly, using some wrong slogans like India Shining,” he said. Mr. Advani, who was the then Deputy Prime Minister, said this slogan was used by BJP’s opponents who asked the voters if they really felt India was shining.
“Our opponents went to the people and asked them if their homes were shining...everybody has his own problems...there is so much poverty in the country, farmers have their problems... they said where is India shining?” he quipped. Taking a dig at the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance, Mr. Advani said they won the 2004 polls with the support of the common man.
“Five years down the line, we get reports that so many Indians have become billionaires. On the other hand, Indian Statistical Institute has said the number of people below the poverty line has gone up by 5.5 crore from 3.5 crore in the last five years,” he said.
Advani: NDA lost in 2004 because of over-confidence, wrong slogans
New Delhi: Bharatiya Janata Party’s prime ministerial candidate L.K. Advani on Monday said the National Democratic Alliance lost the 2004 general elections because of “over confidence” and use of wrong slogans like “India Shining.” Addressing a conference of the BJP’s traders’ cell here, Mr. Advani said that after being in power for six years and giving good governance under the prime ministership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, NDA was confident of forming the next government.
“The impression even among the opponents and foreign analysts was that we will win....but we lost...one, due to over-confidence and, secondly, using some wrong slogans like India Shining,” he said. Mr. Advani, who was the then Deputy Prime Minister, said this slogan was used by BJP’s opponents who asked the voters if they really felt India was shining.
“Our opponents went to the people and asked them if their homes were shining...everybody has his own problems...there is so much poverty in the country, farmers have their problems... they said where is India shining?” he quipped. Taking a dig at the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance, Mr. Advani said they won the 2004 polls with the support of the common man.
“Five years down the line, we get reports that so many Indians have become billionaires. On the other hand, Indian Statistical Institute has said the number of people below the poverty line has gone up by 5.5 crore from 3.5 crore in the last five years,” he said.
Advani insults the voters
The letter sent to The Hindu on 3.3.2009
Mr.L.K.Advani’s opinion that the NDA lost the 2004 elections because of overconfidence and wrong slogans is an acute oversimplification, like saying a battle was lost for want of a horseshoe nail. That the NDA deserved to win and would have won except for the two minor indiscretions verges on the delusional. Election results are too complex to be explained away with simple causes. Blaming a slogan for losing an election is an insult to the electorate.
I am sure it won't be published
4.3.2009
As expected, The Hindu did not publish. Amen!
Mr.L.K.Advani’s opinion that the NDA lost the 2004 elections because of overconfidence and wrong slogans is an acute oversimplification, like saying a battle was lost for want of a horseshoe nail. That the NDA deserved to win and would have won except for the two minor indiscretions verges on the delusional. Election results are too complex to be explained away with simple causes. Blaming a slogan for losing an election is an insult to the electorate.
I am sure it won't be published
4.3.2009
As expected, The Hindu did not publish. Amen!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
CEC equal or superior to EC
I sent the following letter to The Hindu on Feb.9,2009 in response to Justice S.Mohan's article,Chief Election Commissioner: equal or superior,(Feb.9). It was not published. There were no letters on the article.
Sir,
The question whether the CEC is equal or superior to the ECs has been complicated unnecessarily. "Chief Election Commissioner: equal or superior" (Feb.9) is a case in point. Article 324(5) states clearly that the CEC can initiate a proposal to remove an EC and never the other way. To that extent the CEC is superior to the ECs, if it can be called superiority; but it goes no further.
The CEC has suo motu powers only to make a proposal to remove an EC, not to actually remove an EC. Though such a proposal is a prerequisite, the decision to remove rests entirely with the President of India. Unlike as in the case of Parliament bills submitted for approval, the President is not under any constitutional obligation to accept CEC's proposal. The whole confusion was created when the BJP claimed that such a proposal would be ‘binding’ on the President. Where is such a clause in Article 324(5)?
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore
Sir,
The question whether the CEC is equal or superior to the ECs has been complicated unnecessarily. "Chief Election Commissioner: equal or superior" (Feb.9) is a case in point. Article 324(5) states clearly that the CEC can initiate a proposal to remove an EC and never the other way. To that extent the CEC is superior to the ECs, if it can be called superiority; but it goes no further.
The CEC has suo motu powers only to make a proposal to remove an EC, not to actually remove an EC. Though such a proposal is a prerequisite, the decision to remove rests entirely with the President of India. Unlike as in the case of Parliament bills submitted for approval, the President is not under any constitutional obligation to accept CEC's proposal. The whole confusion was created when the BJP claimed that such a proposal would be ‘binding’ on the President. Where is such a clause in Article 324(5)?
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Justice Markandey Katju on caste system
The letter I sent to The Hindu on Friday, 9.1.2009
Justice Markandey Katju on caste system
Sir,
The certitude with which Justice Markandey Katju has explained the origin, nature and future of caste system (The Hindu, Jan.8 and 9), especially the prediction that it will be destroyed in the next 20 years, has the stamp of a visionary. But scholarly opinion is sure to dispute many of his inferences.
Caste ‘system’ was never static and is so complex that generalizations about it are extremely hazardous. Castes did not originate the same way or at the same time, or ever possess uniform characteristics all over South Asia. Never was there a strict correspondence between castes and their generally assumed identificatory markers such as ‘varnam’, physical features, occupation, hierarchy, pollution rules, customs or rituals.
The rigidity and definitiveness of the ‘system’, except at the ritually highest levels, was a colonial construct occasioned by the census studies in the 19th century.
As to the prediction that castes will be destroyed: they will only get refurbished; for our slogan already is, ‘Cast your vote, vote your caste’.
P.P.Sudhakaran,
Bangalore
The Hindu published the following edited version on Saturday:
The caste system is so complex that it is difficult to draw generalisations on it. Castes did not originate in the same manner or at the same time, or possess uniform characteristics, across South Asia. Nor was there a strict correspondence between castes and their generally assumed markers such as physical features, customs and rituals. As for the prediction that castes will be destroyed in a decade or two, they are likely to be reinforced in future for our people’s slogan is: ‘cast your vote, vote your caste.’
P.P. Sudhakaran,
Bangalore
Justice Markandey Katju on caste system
Sir,
The certitude with which Justice Markandey Katju has explained the origin, nature and future of caste system (The Hindu, Jan.8 and 9), especially the prediction that it will be destroyed in the next 20 years, has the stamp of a visionary. But scholarly opinion is sure to dispute many of his inferences.
Caste ‘system’ was never static and is so complex that generalizations about it are extremely hazardous. Castes did not originate the same way or at the same time, or ever possess uniform characteristics all over South Asia. Never was there a strict correspondence between castes and their generally assumed identificatory markers such as ‘varnam’, physical features, occupation, hierarchy, pollution rules, customs or rituals.
The rigidity and definitiveness of the ‘system’, except at the ritually highest levels, was a colonial construct occasioned by the census studies in the 19th century.
As to the prediction that castes will be destroyed: they will only get refurbished; for our slogan already is, ‘Cast your vote, vote your caste’.
P.P.Sudhakaran,
Bangalore
The Hindu published the following edited version on Saturday:
The caste system is so complex that it is difficult to draw generalisations on it. Castes did not originate in the same manner or at the same time, or possess uniform characteristics, across South Asia. Nor was there a strict correspondence between castes and their generally assumed markers such as physical features, customs and rituals. As for the prediction that castes will be destroyed in a decade or two, they are likely to be reinforced in future for our people’s slogan is: ‘cast your vote, vote your caste.’
P.P. Sudhakaran,
Bangalore
Saturday, December 13, 2008
We hate politicians most
Thanks to J.Atlas, Psychohistory, Newsletter, 13.12.2008:[Humor shows us who we hate and who is our target.
Here's a nasty piece against politicians. J ATLAS]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five surgeons are discussing who makes the Best patients to
operate on.
The first surgeon, says, 'I like to see accountants on my
operating table because when you open them up, everything
inside is numbered.'
The second, responds, 'Yeah, but you should try electricians!
Everything inside them is color coded.'
The third surgeon, says, 'No, I really think librarians are
the best, everything inside them is in alphabetical order'
The fourth surgeon chimes in: 'You know, I like construction workers...Those guys always understand when you have a few
parts left over.'
But the fifth surgeon shut them all up when he observed:
"You're all wrong. Politicians are the easiest to operate on".
There are no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains and no spine,
and the head and the ass are interchangeable.
Here's a nasty piece against politicians. J ATLAS]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five surgeons are discussing who makes the Best patients to
operate on.
The first surgeon, says, 'I like to see accountants on my
operating table because when you open them up, everything
inside is numbered.'
The second, responds, 'Yeah, but you should try electricians!
Everything inside them is color coded.'
The third surgeon, says, 'No, I really think librarians are
the best, everything inside them is in alphabetical order'
The fourth surgeon chimes in: 'You know, I like construction workers...Those guys always understand when you have a few
parts left over.'
But the fifth surgeon shut them all up when he observed:
"You're all wrong. Politicians are the easiest to operate on".
There are no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains and no spine,
and the head and the ass are interchangeable.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Procrustes at The Hindu's Letters Edit
Procrustes at The Hindu's Letters Edit desk did not spare my letter. But, this time, the chopping went beyond fitting the body to the bed. It disfigured even the spirit.... So I sent the following letter:
Letter sent to The hindu on Dec 8 2008
Sir,
Please note that this is not for publishing. But I wish you will read it.
First of all, let me thank you for publishing my letter. But, this time, your editing has gone a bit awry. Broadly speaking, it has missed at least two points: 1. that I was referring not to the commission of the terror attack alone; and 2. that the ‘universal jurisprudence’ Burgess refers to is only an international ‘convention’ and not a covenant, and that it was invoked not in ancient times alone.
As to the details: my sentence, “Zardari's denial of Pakistan's responsibility in the recent Mumbai attack on the ground that the terrorists were ‘stateless actors’” was changed into “Zardari’s claim that the terrorists who attacked Mumbai were ‘stateless actors’”. Zardari’s denial of ‘responsibility’ applied not only to the commission of the attack but, more importantly, also to the investigation and prevention. But, the substitution of the word “claim” for “denial” and the dropping of the word “responsibility” limited the meaning to commission alone. This is repeated further down in the sentence, “the responsibility for a ‘stateless’ crime is everyone’s”. That my letter was more about investigation and prevention than about commission was clear, as is proved by the sub-title, “Time to act”, under which it has come.
Changing of my sentence, “the convention of universal jurisprudence is that a ‘stateless’ crime would make the responsibility everyone’s”, into “Under universal jurisprudence, the responsibility for a ‘stateless’ crime is everyone’s” has created two mistakes: 1. By dropping the word “convention”, you made “universal jurisprudence” appear to be an international law or covenant, which it is not yet, which made Burgess write the essay; and, 2. The “responsibility” as I used would have included ‘investigation’ and ‘prevention’, but the change would make it mean only ‘commission’.
Again, the change of “had been invoked time and again since ancient times” into “was invoked often in ancient times” makes the tool redundant. Please see the relevant part in Burgess’:
“The Roman lawmaker Cicero defined piracy as a crime against civilization itself, which English jurist Edward Coke famously rephrased as ‘hostis humani generis’ -- enemies of the human race. As such, they were enemies not of one state but of all states, and correspondingly all states shared in the burden of capturing them.
“From this precept came the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, meaning that pirates -- unlike any other criminals -- could be captured wherever they were found, by anyone who found them. This recognition of piracy's unique threat was the cornerstone of international law for more than 2,000 years”.
Lastly, by dropping the sentence, “Terrorism is more ‘stateless’ and dastardly than piracy”, the letter in print missed the connection between piracy and terrorism. Burgess had dealt with only piracy. We have to extend the “convention” of "hostis humani generis" to terrorism also to apply it to the Mumbai attack.
I very well understand the constraints of the paper’s space and the pressures under which you and your colleagues work. This note I am sending is not to blame but to explain how the editing has changed the meaning of my letter. There should end my concern and responsibility.
With thanks,
P.P.Sudhakaran.
301, East Mansion,
No.2, Hutchins Road, Cooke Town,
Bangalore 560 005.
Ph. 080 25467483
For your ready reference I am copying below the letter I sent and the letter that came in print.
My original letter:
Zardari's denial of Pakistan's responsibility in the recent Mumbai attack on the ground that the terrorists were ‘stateless actors’ is self-defeating. Unlike wars, terrorism is always a stateless act; it has only targets. Seeking its statehood, as implied in the editorial, 'Denial or worse?' (The Hindu, Dec.6), is desperate, dumb and digressive.
Actually, the convention of universal jurisprudence is that a ‘stateless’ crime would make the responsibility everyone’s. In his New York Times Op-Ed, ‘Piracy Is Terrorism’ (Dec.5, 2008), Douglas R. Burgess Jr. says that the law of "hostis humani generis" or ‘enemies of the human race’ had been invoked time and again since ancient times by governments of various states to deal with piracy in international waters. Terrorism is more ‘stateless’ and dastardly than piracy. Instead of relying on denials, Zardari should invoke this law and join the investigation proactively along with India and other concerned nations. It may eventually help him in the on-going tussle with the military establishment. Let us all wish him well.
The letter that came in print:
Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari’s claim that the terrorists who attacked Mumbai were “stateless actors” is self-defeating. Unlike wars, terrorism is a stateless act. Under universal jurisprudence, the responsibility for a ‘stateless’ crime is everyone’s. According to Douglas R. Burgess Jr. the doctrine of hostis humani generis (‘enemies of the human race’) was invoked often in ancient times by states to deal with piracy (New York Times, Dec. 5). Mr. Zardari should invoke this doctrine and join the investigations into the Mumbai terror attacks. It may actually help him in his tussle with the military establishment.
Letter sent to The hindu on Dec 8 2008
Sir,
Please note that this is not for publishing. But I wish you will read it.
First of all, let me thank you for publishing my letter. But, this time, your editing has gone a bit awry. Broadly speaking, it has missed at least two points: 1. that I was referring not to the commission of the terror attack alone; and 2. that the ‘universal jurisprudence’ Burgess refers to is only an international ‘convention’ and not a covenant, and that it was invoked not in ancient times alone.
As to the details: my sentence, “Zardari's denial of Pakistan's responsibility in the recent Mumbai attack on the ground that the terrorists were ‘stateless actors’” was changed into “Zardari’s claim that the terrorists who attacked Mumbai were ‘stateless actors’”. Zardari’s denial of ‘responsibility’ applied not only to the commission of the attack but, more importantly, also to the investigation and prevention. But, the substitution of the word “claim” for “denial” and the dropping of the word “responsibility” limited the meaning to commission alone. This is repeated further down in the sentence, “the responsibility for a ‘stateless’ crime is everyone’s”. That my letter was more about investigation and prevention than about commission was clear, as is proved by the sub-title, “Time to act”, under which it has come.
Changing of my sentence, “the convention of universal jurisprudence is that a ‘stateless’ crime would make the responsibility everyone’s”, into “Under universal jurisprudence, the responsibility for a ‘stateless’ crime is everyone’s” has created two mistakes: 1. By dropping the word “convention”, you made “universal jurisprudence” appear to be an international law or covenant, which it is not yet, which made Burgess write the essay; and, 2. The “responsibility” as I used would have included ‘investigation’ and ‘prevention’, but the change would make it mean only ‘commission’.
Again, the change of “had been invoked time and again since ancient times” into “was invoked often in ancient times” makes the tool redundant. Please see the relevant part in Burgess’:
“The Roman lawmaker Cicero defined piracy as a crime against civilization itself, which English jurist Edward Coke famously rephrased as ‘hostis humani generis’ -- enemies of the human race. As such, they were enemies not of one state but of all states, and correspondingly all states shared in the burden of capturing them.
“From this precept came the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, meaning that pirates -- unlike any other criminals -- could be captured wherever they were found, by anyone who found them. This recognition of piracy's unique threat was the cornerstone of international law for more than 2,000 years”.
Lastly, by dropping the sentence, “Terrorism is more ‘stateless’ and dastardly than piracy”, the letter in print missed the connection between piracy and terrorism. Burgess had dealt with only piracy. We have to extend the “convention” of "hostis humani generis" to terrorism also to apply it to the Mumbai attack.
I very well understand the constraints of the paper’s space and the pressures under which you and your colleagues work. This note I am sending is not to blame but to explain how the editing has changed the meaning of my letter. There should end my concern and responsibility.
With thanks,
P.P.Sudhakaran.
301, East Mansion,
No.2, Hutchins Road, Cooke Town,
Bangalore 560 005.
Ph. 080 25467483
For your ready reference I am copying below the letter I sent and the letter that came in print.
My original letter:
Zardari's denial of Pakistan's responsibility in the recent Mumbai attack on the ground that the terrorists were ‘stateless actors’ is self-defeating. Unlike wars, terrorism is always a stateless act; it has only targets. Seeking its statehood, as implied in the editorial, 'Denial or worse?' (The Hindu, Dec.6), is desperate, dumb and digressive.
Actually, the convention of universal jurisprudence is that a ‘stateless’ crime would make the responsibility everyone’s. In his New York Times Op-Ed, ‘Piracy Is Terrorism’ (Dec.5, 2008), Douglas R. Burgess Jr. says that the law of "hostis humani generis" or ‘enemies of the human race’ had been invoked time and again since ancient times by governments of various states to deal with piracy in international waters. Terrorism is more ‘stateless’ and dastardly than piracy. Instead of relying on denials, Zardari should invoke this law and join the investigation proactively along with India and other concerned nations. It may eventually help him in the on-going tussle with the military establishment. Let us all wish him well.
The letter that came in print:
Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari’s claim that the terrorists who attacked Mumbai were “stateless actors” is self-defeating. Unlike wars, terrorism is a stateless act. Under universal jurisprudence, the responsibility for a ‘stateless’ crime is everyone’s. According to Douglas R. Burgess Jr. the doctrine of hostis humani generis (‘enemies of the human race’) was invoked often in ancient times by states to deal with piracy (New York Times, Dec. 5). Mr. Zardari should invoke this doctrine and join the investigations into the Mumbai terror attacks. It may actually help him in his tussle with the military establishment.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Zardari's denial
Letter sent to The Hindu on Saturday, 6th Dec. 2008.
Sir,
Zardari's denial of Pakistan's responsibility in the recent Mumbai attack on the ground that the terrorists were ‘stateless actors’ is self-defeating. Unlike wars, terrorism is always a stateless act; it has only targets. Seeking its statehood, as implied in the editorial, 'Denial or worse?' (The Hindu, Dec.6), is desperate, dumb and digressive.
Actually, the convention of universal jurisprudence is that a ‘stateless’ crime would make the responsibility everyone’s. In his New York Times Op-Ed, ‘Piracy Is Terrorism’ (Dec.5, 2008), Douglas R. Burgess Jr. says that the law of "hostis humani generis" or ‘enemies of the human race’ had been invoked time and again since ancient times by governments of various states to deal with piracy in international waters. Terrorism is more ‘stateless’ and dastardly than piracy. Instead of relying on denials, Zardari should invoke this law and join the investigation proactively along with India and other concerned nations. It may eventually help him in the on-going tussle with the military establishment. Let us all wish him well.
P.P.Sudhakaran,
Bangalore.
Sir,
Zardari's denial of Pakistan's responsibility in the recent Mumbai attack on the ground that the terrorists were ‘stateless actors’ is self-defeating. Unlike wars, terrorism is always a stateless act; it has only targets. Seeking its statehood, as implied in the editorial, 'Denial or worse?' (The Hindu, Dec.6), is desperate, dumb and digressive.
Actually, the convention of universal jurisprudence is that a ‘stateless’ crime would make the responsibility everyone’s. In his New York Times Op-Ed, ‘Piracy Is Terrorism’ (Dec.5, 2008), Douglas R. Burgess Jr. says that the law of "hostis humani generis" or ‘enemies of the human race’ had been invoked time and again since ancient times by governments of various states to deal with piracy in international waters. Terrorism is more ‘stateless’ and dastardly than piracy. Instead of relying on denials, Zardari should invoke this law and join the investigation proactively along with India and other concerned nations. It may eventually help him in the on-going tussle with the military establishment. Let us all wish him well.
P.P.Sudhakaran,
Bangalore.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
New Window of Opportunity for India and Pakistan
New Window of Opportunity for India and Pakistan
Zardari government is only one of the four main power centres in Pakistan, others being the army, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), and the radical Islamist groups you aptly mentioned as terror industry. International engagements with Pakistan can and ought to be with only the government, which is but the weakest power centre of all. That was why the unambiguous commitment made before the world media by the highest functionaries of the Pakistani government to send the ISI Chief to India for a joint investigation into the Mumbai terror attack was later broken, most probably under pressure from other power centres.
In contrast, the power centres other than the government are unaccountable to the international comity as they are operating from behind the curtain. Each one of them has, however, its own vested interests and private agendas. The army owns and deals in real estate and other lucrative businesses on an unimaginably large scale. Though an organ of the army, the ISI functions very much as an independent entity and works in tandem with the terror industry.
Until 9/11, the differences among the power centres did not show as their interests could converge against their only acknowledged enemy – India.
But, after 9/11, Pakistan had to put up with two sets of terrorists on its soil, namely Al Qaeda and Taliban on its western border with Afghanistan and Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba on its eastern border with India. The then President of Pakistan, Gen. Musharraf, given only a Hobson’s choice, joined the global ‘fight against terror’, but tried to draw a distinction between the two, calling the western groups alone ‘terrorists’ and the eastern groups ‘Kashmiri freedom fighters’. The Mumbai attack, from all available accounts, was planned and executed with the eastern group’s involvement.
For a brief but reliable account of this involvement, and also for the profile of the real life terrorist caught while in action, which may be of interest to the List, please see:
http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/02/stories/2008120259961000.htm
Even if Zardari’s government is willing, it cannot act against the interests of the other power centres. Indeed, the sheer audacity and havoc of the Mumbai attack has opened a new window of opportunity, and India should take the initiative to use it to stabilize its relationship with Pakistan. It should understand the peculiar power equations in Pakistan and refrain from targeting and cornering Zardari alone over his shifting positions and hollow excuses. Zardari needs to be carried along in an intense diplomatic engagement by India. He is any day a better bet than Musharraf. Let us hope the U.S. and other major world players will help them along.
Suzarin
Letter sent to Psychohistory on 4.12.08
Zardari government is only one of the four main power centres in Pakistan, others being the army, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), and the radical Islamist groups you aptly mentioned as terror industry. International engagements with Pakistan can and ought to be with only the government, which is but the weakest power centre of all. That was why the unambiguous commitment made before the world media by the highest functionaries of the Pakistani government to send the ISI Chief to India for a joint investigation into the Mumbai terror attack was later broken, most probably under pressure from other power centres.
In contrast, the power centres other than the government are unaccountable to the international comity as they are operating from behind the curtain. Each one of them has, however, its own vested interests and private agendas. The army owns and deals in real estate and other lucrative businesses on an unimaginably large scale. Though an organ of the army, the ISI functions very much as an independent entity and works in tandem with the terror industry.
Until 9/11, the differences among the power centres did not show as their interests could converge against their only acknowledged enemy – India.
But, after 9/11, Pakistan had to put up with two sets of terrorists on its soil, namely Al Qaeda and Taliban on its western border with Afghanistan and Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba on its eastern border with India. The then President of Pakistan, Gen. Musharraf, given only a Hobson’s choice, joined the global ‘fight against terror’, but tried to draw a distinction between the two, calling the western groups alone ‘terrorists’ and the eastern groups ‘Kashmiri freedom fighters’. The Mumbai attack, from all available accounts, was planned and executed with the eastern group’s involvement.
For a brief but reliable account of this involvement, and also for the profile of the real life terrorist caught while in action, which may be of interest to the List, please see:
http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/02/stories/2008120259961000.htm
Even if Zardari’s government is willing, it cannot act against the interests of the other power centres. Indeed, the sheer audacity and havoc of the Mumbai attack has opened a new window of opportunity, and India should take the initiative to use it to stabilize its relationship with Pakistan. It should understand the peculiar power equations in Pakistan and refrain from targeting and cornering Zardari alone over his shifting positions and hollow excuses. Zardari needs to be carried along in an intense diplomatic engagement by India. He is any day a better bet than Musharraf. Let us hope the U.S. and other major world players will help them along.
Suzarin
Letter sent to Psychohistory on 4.12.08
Monday, November 24, 2008
Threats of extinction
This letter I sent to Deccan Herald. Even if it is not published, the editor may read it. That will serve my purpose.
Sir,
The Edit’s (Threats of extinction, Nov.23) concern about preserving earth’s biodiversity may be shared by many, but it may not carry conviction as its facts are doubtful. One instance is the claim that one in four of all species on earth is facing extinction. So far only about two million species have been catalogued, of which, according to a World Conservation Union study reported by the BBC in Nov. 2004, only 15,589 species are threatened with extinction. This is only about one in one hundred and twenty.
Furthermore, while the species known now are only of the already explored habitats, about two thirds of earth’s habitat, the deep-sea or ‘benthos’, remain unexplored. How many species live there is a guess that varies wildly between 10 million and 100 million. With such a scrappy knowledge about even the size of earth's biodiversity, let alone their symbiosis, it is hazardous to generalize that all flora and fauna on the “entire earth are interconnected in the web of life”.
Lastly, the “balance of life”, lost when dinosaurs and thousands of other life forms perished but “replaced” after about 30 million years that the Edit refers to, is a romantic notion, not a scientific fact.
Sir,
The Edit’s (Threats of extinction, Nov.23) concern about preserving earth’s biodiversity may be shared by many, but it may not carry conviction as its facts are doubtful. One instance is the claim that one in four of all species on earth is facing extinction. So far only about two million species have been catalogued, of which, according to a World Conservation Union study reported by the BBC in Nov. 2004, only 15,589 species are threatened with extinction. This is only about one in one hundred and twenty.
Furthermore, while the species known now are only of the already explored habitats, about two thirds of earth’s habitat, the deep-sea or ‘benthos’, remain unexplored. How many species live there is a guess that varies wildly between 10 million and 100 million. With such a scrappy knowledge about even the size of earth's biodiversity, let alone their symbiosis, it is hazardous to generalize that all flora and fauna on the “entire earth are interconnected in the web of life”.
Lastly, the “balance of life”, lost when dinosaurs and thousands of other life forms perished but “replaced” after about 30 million years that the Edit refers to, is a romantic notion, not a scientific fact.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The Hindu did not disappoint
The Hindu did not disappoint. It did not publish the letter about Swamy. Fine. What is baffling is the captive behaviour of The Hindu when it comes to Swamy. Perhaps, a quid pro quo for helping in the withdrawl of a bunch of defamation suits filed against it by Jayalalithaa in 2004, or as an investment for a future help when Swamy and the BJP and Jayalalithaa team up on the winning side in the next elections. Swamy can be a nasty adversary if you are on the other side. Ram has already predicted in an interview he had with Advani that the P.M. in waiting would be the next P.M. Who is cleverest is not too difficult to guess.
Yesterday is behind. Ahead is tomorrow. so, I sent a suggestion to the Readers' Editor of The Hindu. Here it is:
Dear Readers’ Editor,
As you know, almost all the reputed newspapers all over the world publish on their website all their readers’ letters that are not scurrilous or defamatory, though, for obvious reasons, they print only a select few. May I ask why The Hindu does not follow that practice?
The feeling I get is that The Hindu expects its readers to choose only the topics it favours and respond only the way it approves. Those who sense this and would die to get their letters published might willingly or grudgingly oblige. But do you think this is right for a paper that is known as ‘liberal and left-leaning’ and is interacting with its readers through a Readers’ Editor?
Regarding the editing of the letters, I believe the Letters column can be maintained as an insulated sand-box where the readers can be left to express their views freely sans any censoring except to weed out the outrightly boorish.
Regarding the letters that cannot be printed for want of space, I suggest The Hindu may post them on its website.
Always appreciative of the great work you are doing,
P.P.Sudhakaran
P.S. I am a retired Professor of History
Yesterday is behind. Ahead is tomorrow. so, I sent a suggestion to the Readers' Editor of The Hindu. Here it is:
Dear Readers’ Editor,
As you know, almost all the reputed newspapers all over the world publish on their website all their readers’ letters that are not scurrilous or defamatory, though, for obvious reasons, they print only a select few. May I ask why The Hindu does not follow that practice?
The feeling I get is that The Hindu expects its readers to choose only the topics it favours and respond only the way it approves. Those who sense this and would die to get their letters published might willingly or grudgingly oblige. But do you think this is right for a paper that is known as ‘liberal and left-leaning’ and is interacting with its readers through a Readers’ Editor?
Regarding the editing of the letters, I believe the Letters column can be maintained as an insulated sand-box where the readers can be left to express their views freely sans any censoring except to weed out the outrightly boorish.
Regarding the letters that cannot be printed for want of space, I suggest The Hindu may post them on its website.
Always appreciative of the great work you are doing,
P.P.Sudhakaran
P.S. I am a retired Professor of History
Friday, October 17, 2008
Subramanian Swamy is wrong again
This is the letter to the Editor, The Hindu, I sent on 17.10.2008. It certainly won't be published. Hence this posting:
Sir,
In “An agenda for long-term stability” (Oct. 16), Subramanian Swamy argues that occasional financial crises are necessary to purge toxins from the market-economy system and suggests a few interventional reforms to resolve the present crisis and prevent future crises. He closes this discourse with a political remark that those reforms require “a new government with a new mandate”.
To take his economics alone seriously: his model market is that of the U.S., which is a product of Reaganism of the early 1980s, a fundamentalist vision of capitalism that believed in ‘leaving the market alone to regulate itself’. Even after intervening with the ‘bailout’ plan, President Bush announced that it was intended not to kill free market but to save it. Is Swamy also advocating a ‘regulated free market’, which is but an oxymoron?
There are other problems as well. The present crisis, the last and the worst in a series of crises in a short span of time, proves that market economy is an extremely volatile system. But Swamy claims that economic theory is now developed to such a level of sophistication that it can even predict and prevent crises. How come then that it failed in the present crisis?
Swamy says that market economy, like human body, needs occasional treatment to cure ailments. So, like human body, market economy too will perish eventually, whatever the treatment. And even a ‘long-term’ cure can go only that far and no farther, whether it is a new government or a new mandate.
Sir,
In “An agenda for long-term stability” (Oct. 16), Subramanian Swamy argues that occasional financial crises are necessary to purge toxins from the market-economy system and suggests a few interventional reforms to resolve the present crisis and prevent future crises. He closes this discourse with a political remark that those reforms require “a new government with a new mandate”.
To take his economics alone seriously: his model market is that of the U.S., which is a product of Reaganism of the early 1980s, a fundamentalist vision of capitalism that believed in ‘leaving the market alone to regulate itself’. Even after intervening with the ‘bailout’ plan, President Bush announced that it was intended not to kill free market but to save it. Is Swamy also advocating a ‘regulated free market’, which is but an oxymoron?
There are other problems as well. The present crisis, the last and the worst in a series of crises in a short span of time, proves that market economy is an extremely volatile system. But Swamy claims that economic theory is now developed to such a level of sophistication that it can even predict and prevent crises. How come then that it failed in the present crisis?
Swamy says that market economy, like human body, needs occasional treatment to cure ailments. So, like human body, market economy too will perish eventually, whatever the treatment. And even a ‘long-term’ cure can go only that far and no farther, whether it is a new government or a new mandate.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Disqualifying the Speaker
This is what The Hindu actually published of my letter on disqualifying the Speaker:
If Mr. Chatterjee voluntarily forfeited his membership of the CPI(M), what was the need for the party to expel him? Casting a vote is an extraordinary device that the Speaker uses only when there is a deadlock in the House.
P.P. Sudhakaran,
Bangalore
If Mr. Chatterjee voluntarily forfeited his membership of the CPI(M), what was the need for the party to expel him? Casting a vote is an extraordinary device that the Speaker uses only when there is a deadlock in the House.
P.P. Sudhakaran,
Bangalore
Politicians must be accountable
This is a letter the Deccan Herald published.
Politicians must be accountable
Sir,
The editorial, Playing Politics (DH, Aug 1), occasioned by the objectionable comments made by Ms Sushma Swaraj about the recent bomb blasts, was timely.
Such comments, whether well considered or off the cuff, are made by our politicians day in and day out. Some of them had been downright boorish and personal, like the “Sikhandi” one used by a former central minister against the Prime Minister.
The revulsion such utterances cause to the sensitive and sensible among the public apart, from where do the mouthers of those indecent and unproven abuses made in public and to the public, draw immunity?
The targets of such attacks, for obvious reasons, are usually found to ignore them, as did the Prime Minister, but the people have every right and reason to demand accountability from the disruptors of their sensibility. May I request DH to start a forum that will at least highlight such utterances and invite readers’ responses?
P P SUDHAKARAN
Bangalore
Politicians must be accountable
Sir,
The editorial, Playing Politics (DH, Aug 1), occasioned by the objectionable comments made by Ms Sushma Swaraj about the recent bomb blasts, was timely.
Such comments, whether well considered or off the cuff, are made by our politicians day in and day out. Some of them had been downright boorish and personal, like the “Sikhandi” one used by a former central minister against the Prime Minister.
The revulsion such utterances cause to the sensitive and sensible among the public apart, from where do the mouthers of those indecent and unproven abuses made in public and to the public, draw immunity?
The targets of such attacks, for obvious reasons, are usually found to ignore them, as did the Prime Minister, but the people have every right and reason to demand accountability from the disruptors of their sensibility. May I request DH to start a forum that will at least highlight such utterances and invite readers’ responses?
P P SUDHAKARAN
Bangalore
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Case for Speaker’s disqualification
This is the comment I sent to The Hindu on the article "Case for Speaker’s disqualification” by V. Venkatesan, dated July 30, 2008. The article was written to attack Mr.Chatterjee to please someone. It is a dumb article.
I am sure, it won't be published.
The “Case for Speaker’s disqualification” by V. Venkatesan (July 30) assumes that Mr.Somnath Chatterjee had “voluntarily given up his membership” of the CPI(M). But, since Mr.Chatterjee, unlike Dr.Barbosa, did not resign from the party, the argument, it seems, is that by defying the party whip, he had voluntarily forfeited his membership. If that is true, what was the need for the CPI(M) to dismiss him from the party?
A whip is usually issued to demand voting on a certain side or abstention, but it cannot cover a Speaker as he does not normally have the right or obligation to vote. Casting vote is an extraordinary device he can use only to break a deadlock in the House.
According to PART V, CH.II, ARTICLE 94 of the Constitution, Speaker’s office will be vacated only in two contingencies: through resignation, or through removal by a resolution moved after a minimum of fourteen days’ notice and passed by a majority of the Members present in the House. Defying party whip is not one among them. It goes further to state that even when “the House of the People is dissolved, the Speaker shall not vacate his office until immediately before the first meeting of the House of the People after the dissolution”. Equating him with the other Members of the House is, therefore, incorrect.
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore
I am sure, it won't be published.
The “Case for Speaker’s disqualification” by V. Venkatesan (July 30) assumes that Mr.Somnath Chatterjee had “voluntarily given up his membership” of the CPI(M). But, since Mr.Chatterjee, unlike Dr.Barbosa, did not resign from the party, the argument, it seems, is that by defying the party whip, he had voluntarily forfeited his membership. If that is true, what was the need for the CPI(M) to dismiss him from the party?
A whip is usually issued to demand voting on a certain side or abstention, but it cannot cover a Speaker as he does not normally have the right or obligation to vote. Casting vote is an extraordinary device he can use only to break a deadlock in the House.
According to PART V, CH.II, ARTICLE 94 of the Constitution, Speaker’s office will be vacated only in two contingencies: through resignation, or through removal by a resolution moved after a minimum of fourteen days’ notice and passed by a majority of the Members present in the House. Defying party whip is not one among them. It goes further to state that even when “the House of the People is dissolved, the Speaker shall not vacate his office until immediately before the first meeting of the House of the People after the dissolution”. Equating him with the other Members of the House is, therefore, incorrect.
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The Hindu is moving towards the Right
The WorldPress gives The Hindu's political affiliation as 'left-leaning independent', which is no more its affiliation. I sent the following suggestion to it on July 15, 2008.
http://www.worldpress.org/newspapers/ASIA/India.cfm
Hello,
I am a retired Professor of History, and a regular reader of The Hindu from about 1954 onwards. I feel that your assessment that The Hindu is a “left-leaning, independent” paper needs revision. Of late, its choice of topics for editorials and their slants, and the selective highlighting of events, political parties and personalities during the last one year are such that a reassement would be the first option. Or, it should be at least kept under observation.
A reassessment of the affinity of its readers also may be made. I feel that The Hindu is now cozying up to the Right. When the Editor-in-Chief himself chooses to interview the Right's self-anointed "Prime Minister in waiting", asking only soft questions and trying to please him with an out of context prediction that his party would come to power in the next elections, it cannot be seen as a simple courtesy.
At present, The Hindu gives prominence to the Left Parties also along with the Right, but that is not sustainable for long, because, the Left and the Right are poles apart in Indian politics. Especially in their views on religion. The Hindu, for all that one could read in its pages, has chosen to be on the Right.
Yours faithfully,
P.P.Sudhakaran
http://www.worldpress.org/newspapers/ASIA/India.cfm
Hello,
I am a retired Professor of History, and a regular reader of The Hindu from about 1954 onwards. I feel that your assessment that The Hindu is a “left-leaning, independent” paper needs revision. Of late, its choice of topics for editorials and their slants, and the selective highlighting of events, political parties and personalities during the last one year are such that a reassement would be the first option. Or, it should be at least kept under observation.
A reassessment of the affinity of its readers also may be made. I feel that The Hindu is now cozying up to the Right. When the Editor-in-Chief himself chooses to interview the Right's self-anointed "Prime Minister in waiting", asking only soft questions and trying to please him with an out of context prediction that his party would come to power in the next elections, it cannot be seen as a simple courtesy.
At present, The Hindu gives prominence to the Left Parties also along with the Right, but that is not sustainable for long, because, the Left and the Right are poles apart in Indian politics. Especially in their views on religion. The Hindu, for all that one could read in its pages, has chosen to be on the Right.
Yours faithfully,
P.P.Sudhakaran
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
India's Sovereignty and the Left's hypocrisy
The latest joint statement issued by the Left Parties has dropped some of its earlier reasons for withdrawing support to the government, like the apathy towards India-Iran gas pipeline, and mentions only three major reasons. Of those three, however, the first and the third are over one and the same concern – India losing its sovereignty. Even in voluntary international agreements, there will be mutual commitments that will inevitably impinge on sovereignty. The Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Co-operation that India signed with the Soviet Union in August 1972 is a case in point. It was between equal parties with identical mutual obligations. Even then, by signing it India forfeited its claim to non-alignment and agreed not to enter for the next twenty years into any obligation, secret or public, with other States, which was incompatible with the Treaty or might cause military damage to the Soviet Union. Was that O.K with the Left?
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore.
This was sent to The Hindu. I am sure it won't be published.
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore.
This was sent to The Hindu. I am sure it won't be published.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Irrelevant Left
Sir,
Please not that this is not for publication, but just to bring to your notice a letter I had sent to you for publication. You did not publish it, and I don’t complain. It was much much longer than what you would prefer, but don’t you usually trim long letters the way you want? Why I chose to write this postscript to an unpublished Letter is because I feel that the Letter was not that dumb to be dumped. But, your decision has to be right.
I wrote it because I felt that the Left Parties, especially CPI(M) and CPI, were following a terribly incorrect political course. Among the self-righteous, self-serving utterances and actions of Indian political parties, theirs alone are somewhat sane. If they too self-destruct? They are surely carrying their Cold War obsession with the US into the much changed present world. This has vitiated even their valid objections to the 123 Agreement.
They should have remembered that as political parties, they are irrelevant in every State other than W.Bengal, Kerala and Tripura. How they will fare even in those States in the next elections is uncertain. The Third Front they are so keen on resuscitating again is still in the incubator. All its sympathisers are players with some base only in lone States. SP has now walked out on the Left. I thought Deccan Herald would have done a good service to Indian politics by articulating a caution to the Left Parties, especially after it had chosen to publish the Editorial, ‘Clear the air’.
I am giving the letter for reference only, not for publication.
Sir,
The Editorial, Clear the Air (June 27, 2008), rightly addresses the Central Government to decide the issue of signing the 123 Agreement sooner than later. But the issue is sure to simmer at least till the next general elections because of the Left parties’ inflexible opposition. They have threatened to withdraw support and precipitate early elections. They are canvassing among the parties inside and outside the UPA to block the government from winning a contingent vote of confidence, and have announced their decision to vote on the BJP side if needed. Do such extreme threats and frenetic activities bode well for the Left parties themselves? Do they believe that the signing of the agreement is a now or never event, which can be blocked permanently if they can block it now?
The fact is that the Left cannot block the agreement now or ever if the government decides to sign it and face the consequences, including the Left’s vindictiveness, as they come. The Left leaders themselves would be knowing that their larger-than-life role and bargaining power in the present dispensation are products exclusively of the 2004 elections, which may not be available after the next general elections. They would also be knowing that the BJP is currently trivializing the agreement only to appropriate it when it comes to power next. It is quite possible that India will sign the agreement if the NDA, or a UPA with no need for Left’s support, gets power next, and the US keeps the offer alive. What will the Left’s present objections come to then? Perhaps, to a big loss of face and credibility. Reality being such, a pragmatic option for the Left would be to take a long term shot at the issue and save some political grace for themselves.
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore.
Prof. P.P.Sudhakaran (Retd.)
301, East Mansion,
No.2. Hutchins Road,
Cooke Town,
Bangalore 5.
Ph. 25467483.
Please not that this is not for publication, but just to bring to your notice a letter I had sent to you for publication. You did not publish it, and I don’t complain. It was much much longer than what you would prefer, but don’t you usually trim long letters the way you want? Why I chose to write this postscript to an unpublished Letter is because I feel that the Letter was not that dumb to be dumped. But, your decision has to be right.
I wrote it because I felt that the Left Parties, especially CPI(M) and CPI, were following a terribly incorrect political course. Among the self-righteous, self-serving utterances and actions of Indian political parties, theirs alone are somewhat sane. If they too self-destruct? They are surely carrying their Cold War obsession with the US into the much changed present world. This has vitiated even their valid objections to the 123 Agreement.
They should have remembered that as political parties, they are irrelevant in every State other than W.Bengal, Kerala and Tripura. How they will fare even in those States in the next elections is uncertain. The Third Front they are so keen on resuscitating again is still in the incubator. All its sympathisers are players with some base only in lone States. SP has now walked out on the Left. I thought Deccan Herald would have done a good service to Indian politics by articulating a caution to the Left Parties, especially after it had chosen to publish the Editorial, ‘Clear the air’.
I am giving the letter for reference only, not for publication.
Sir,
The Editorial, Clear the Air (June 27, 2008), rightly addresses the Central Government to decide the issue of signing the 123 Agreement sooner than later. But the issue is sure to simmer at least till the next general elections because of the Left parties’ inflexible opposition. They have threatened to withdraw support and precipitate early elections. They are canvassing among the parties inside and outside the UPA to block the government from winning a contingent vote of confidence, and have announced their decision to vote on the BJP side if needed. Do such extreme threats and frenetic activities bode well for the Left parties themselves? Do they believe that the signing of the agreement is a now or never event, which can be blocked permanently if they can block it now?
The fact is that the Left cannot block the agreement now or ever if the government decides to sign it and face the consequences, including the Left’s vindictiveness, as they come. The Left leaders themselves would be knowing that their larger-than-life role and bargaining power in the present dispensation are products exclusively of the 2004 elections, which may not be available after the next general elections. They would also be knowing that the BJP is currently trivializing the agreement only to appropriate it when it comes to power next. It is quite possible that India will sign the agreement if the NDA, or a UPA with no need for Left’s support, gets power next, and the US keeps the offer alive. What will the Left’s present objections come to then? Perhaps, to a big loss of face and credibility. Reality being such, a pragmatic option for the Left would be to take a long term shot at the issue and save some political grace for themselves.
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore.
Prof. P.P.Sudhakaran (Retd.)
301, East Mansion,
No.2. Hutchins Road,
Cooke Town,
Bangalore 5.
Ph. 25467483.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Indian Left's hubris
Sent to the Letters to the Editor, Deccan Herald on June 27.
Sir,
The Editorial, Clear the Air (June 27, 2008), rightly addresses the Central Government to decide the issue of signing the 123 Agreement sooner than later. But the issue is sure to simmer at least till the next general elections because of the Left parties’ inflexible opposition. They have threatened to withdraw support and precipitate early elections. They are canvassing among the parties inside and outside the UPA to block the government from winning a contingent vote of confidence, and have announced their decision to vote on the BJP side if needed. Do such extreme threats and frenetic activities bode well for the Left parties themselves? Do they believe that the signing of the agreement is a now or never event, which can be blocked permanently if they can block it now?
The fact is that the Left cannot block the agreement now or ever if the government decides to sign it and face the consequences, including the Left’s vindictiveness, as they come. The Left leaders themselves would be knowing that their larger-than-life role and bargaining power in the present dispensation are products exclusively of the 2004 elections, which may not be available after the next general elections. They would also be knowing that the BJP is currently trivializing the agreement only to appropriate it when it comes to power next. It is quite possible that India will sign the agreement if the NDA, or a UPA with no need for Left’s support, gets power next, and the US keeps the offer alive. What will the Left’s present objections come to then? Perhaps, to a big loss of face and credibility. Reality being such, a pragmatic option for the Left would be to take a long term shot at the issue and save some political grace for themselves.
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore.
Sir,
The Editorial, Clear the Air (June 27, 2008), rightly addresses the Central Government to decide the issue of signing the 123 Agreement sooner than later. But the issue is sure to simmer at least till the next general elections because of the Left parties’ inflexible opposition. They have threatened to withdraw support and precipitate early elections. They are canvassing among the parties inside and outside the UPA to block the government from winning a contingent vote of confidence, and have announced their decision to vote on the BJP side if needed. Do such extreme threats and frenetic activities bode well for the Left parties themselves? Do they believe that the signing of the agreement is a now or never event, which can be blocked permanently if they can block it now?
The fact is that the Left cannot block the agreement now or ever if the government decides to sign it and face the consequences, including the Left’s vindictiveness, as they come. The Left leaders themselves would be knowing that their larger-than-life role and bargaining power in the present dispensation are products exclusively of the 2004 elections, which may not be available after the next general elections. They would also be knowing that the BJP is currently trivializing the agreement only to appropriate it when it comes to power next. It is quite possible that India will sign the agreement if the NDA, or a UPA with no need for Left’s support, gets power next, and the US keeps the offer alive. What will the Left’s present objections come to then? Perhaps, to a big loss of face and credibility. Reality being such, a pragmatic option for the Left would be to take a long term shot at the issue and save some political grace for themselves.
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
What is happening to The Hindu? What follows is self-explanatory. This is not an isolated sloppiness. I shall post more on the issue on a daily basis. This is what I sent its Readers’ Editor on 14.6.08.
Dear Readers' Editor,
The matter I wish to bring to your notice is not an isolated error, but a sample of a pattern of errors the Karnataka - Bangalore edition carries almost every day. I am afraid, the problem is systemic.Here is the sample:The Hindu Online edition, Saturday, Jun 14, 2008Karnataka, Bangalore.
"Chain-snatchers have a field day"
Staff Reporter
BANGALORE: In just over an hour on Friday evening, five women, all pedestrians, lost over 200 gm of gold when two motorcycle-borne miscreants snatched their chains, across four police station limits. The incidents took place in Subramanyanagar and Malleswaram police limits in North Division, and Seshadripuram and Vyalikaval police limits in Central Division. The police suspect said [?] that the same duo could have been involved in all the five chain-snatching cases. The police said that the chain-snatching spree that commenced around 7.15 p.m. ended at Seshadripuram police limits by 8.20 p.m. The police said that both rider and person riding pillion were wearing helmets during the chain-snatching incidents, and in at least three cases, the victims could not identify the vehicle. Miscreants struck on Malleswaram 5th Main, 9th Cross, around 7.45 p.m. when they snatched two gold chains from Saraswani (39) who was returning home with her child. Saraswani lost her “mangalasutra” and a chain, together weighing 100 gm. The police said that the bike-borne duo chose to strike at her at a dimly lit place on the 9th Cross. Two cases of chain-snatching were reported in the Central Division. In Vyalikaval police limits, the culprits snatched the chain of a 58-year-old woman on Vyalikaval 3rd Main Road around 8.20 p.m. The police said that Malathi R. Rao was walking with her husband when the duo came from the opposite direction and snatched the gold chain weighing around 60 gm. Around 8.45 p.m., the culprits snatched a 20 gm gold chain from Kala (21) while she was walking with her mother Susheelamma on Seshadripuram Pipeline Road. “In both the incidents, the victims were unable to identify the vehicle or the vehicle number as they were in a state of shock,” ACP R. Lakshmana told The Hindu. The police said that both the places were crowded when the incident took place, and that no one bothered to chase the culprits. Two cases of chain-snatching were also reported in Subramanyanagar police station limits. Women were robbed of their gold chains in Gayatrinagar and Milk Colony, details of which were not available." As you might have noted, there were, altogether, five incidents, but the reporter could get details of only three. The details mentioned are about the victims, the amount of gold lost and the time of the incidents. The amount of gold lost in the three known incidents add up to 180 gms. but the report begins by saying that altogether over 200 gm of gold was lost. The time mentioned for the three known incidents were 7.45 pm., 8.20 pm., and 8.45 pm., but, the report begins by saying that they commenced around 7.15 p.m. [and] ended at Seshadripuram police limits by 8.20 p.m. Are these "significant errors"? You may decide. I feel that they certainly do not deserve a formal correction note. But, such errors and sloppy compositions appearing repeatedly may erode The Hindu's credibility with its readers. Should we care? I wish The Hindu family as a whole, that includes the readers, should.
With best wishes,
Suzarin
Dear Readers' Editor,
The matter I wish to bring to your notice is not an isolated error, but a sample of a pattern of errors the Karnataka - Bangalore edition carries almost every day. I am afraid, the problem is systemic.Here is the sample:The Hindu Online edition, Saturday, Jun 14, 2008Karnataka, Bangalore.
"Chain-snatchers have a field day"
Staff Reporter
BANGALORE: In just over an hour on Friday evening, five women, all pedestrians, lost over 200 gm of gold when two motorcycle-borne miscreants snatched their chains, across four police station limits. The incidents took place in Subramanyanagar and Malleswaram police limits in North Division, and Seshadripuram and Vyalikaval police limits in Central Division. The police suspect said [?] that the same duo could have been involved in all the five chain-snatching cases. The police said that the chain-snatching spree that commenced around 7.15 p.m. ended at Seshadripuram police limits by 8.20 p.m. The police said that both rider and person riding pillion were wearing helmets during the chain-snatching incidents, and in at least three cases, the victims could not identify the vehicle. Miscreants struck on Malleswaram 5th Main, 9th Cross, around 7.45 p.m. when they snatched two gold chains from Saraswani (39) who was returning home with her child. Saraswani lost her “mangalasutra” and a chain, together weighing 100 gm. The police said that the bike-borne duo chose to strike at her at a dimly lit place on the 9th Cross. Two cases of chain-snatching were reported in the Central Division. In Vyalikaval police limits, the culprits snatched the chain of a 58-year-old woman on Vyalikaval 3rd Main Road around 8.20 p.m. The police said that Malathi R. Rao was walking with her husband when the duo came from the opposite direction and snatched the gold chain weighing around 60 gm. Around 8.45 p.m., the culprits snatched a 20 gm gold chain from Kala (21) while she was walking with her mother Susheelamma on Seshadripuram Pipeline Road. “In both the incidents, the victims were unable to identify the vehicle or the vehicle number as they were in a state of shock,” ACP R. Lakshmana told The Hindu. The police said that both the places were crowded when the incident took place, and that no one bothered to chase the culprits. Two cases of chain-snatching were also reported in Subramanyanagar police station limits. Women were robbed of their gold chains in Gayatrinagar and Milk Colony, details of which were not available." As you might have noted, there were, altogether, five incidents, but the reporter could get details of only three. The details mentioned are about the victims, the amount of gold lost and the time of the incidents. The amount of gold lost in the three known incidents add up to 180 gms. but the report begins by saying that altogether over 200 gm of gold was lost. The time mentioned for the three known incidents were 7.45 pm., 8.20 pm., and 8.45 pm., but, the report begins by saying that they commenced around 7.15 p.m. [and] ended at Seshadripuram police limits by 8.20 p.m. Are these "significant errors"? You may decide. I feel that they certainly do not deserve a formal correction note. But, such errors and sloppy compositions appearing repeatedly may erode The Hindu's credibility with its readers. Should we care? I wish The Hindu family as a whole, that includes the readers, should.
With best wishes,
Suzarin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)