Tags:
Journalism of Courage
8226; Tavleen Singh8217;s indiscriminate criticism of Sonia Gandhi, in her column 8216;8216;Where is the inner voice now?8217;8217; is reflective of her bias. She holds Sonia responsible for the ills that have plagued us for decades. She alleges that the Congress president enjoys the position of the actual PM. She challenges her inner voice and accuses her of entertaining dignitaries from within and outside the country. She condemns her for allowing journalists and photographers to her door and suggests that she engineers these photo-sessions for publicity. This is malicious and offensive. The truth is that Sonia has never over-stepped her office to undermine that of any of her party colleagues 8212; the PM included. She does not covet attention from either the media or visiting dignitaries. They flocked to her much before her days as an active party worker, in fact during those days when she was said to be media-shy. Tavleen cannot look upon this as a violation of the decree of her inner voice. Sonia is party president, but she does not possess a magic wand that can make the rot that has seeped into the veins of India disappear with the wave of her hand. Next, she8217;ll blame her for a failing monsoon.
Archana Dalmia
8226; Sonia8217;s 8216;8216;inner voice8217;8217; does seem to have disappeared. One year is enough time to take stock of the functioning of any government. Perhaps it does not matter who the real PM is. What matters is that the government should function. And sadly, it is not doing so. First, decision-making is slow, as every matter has to be vetted by Sonia. Second, sycophancy rules Congress so an honest opinion is rare. Third, Manmohan Singh is too gentle to be assertive. Fourth, the UPA has compelling reasons to accommodate tainted ministers like Laloo Prasad Yadav.
Dr F S K Barar
Mahesh Kumar
8226; This is with reference to an item in Soli Sorabjee8217;s column, 8216;8216;Commission of Inquiry Reports8217;8217;. After every communal riot, accident or scam, inquiry commissions are appointed, which usually make inordinate delays in submitting their reports. As observed by the SC, citizens have a fundamental right to know the contents of the report. But first of all, the report is not made public. If it is and the report goes against the ruling party, they reject the findings and appoint another Commission. However, if the report indicts its oponents, the ruling party extracts maximum political advantage. If such is the fate of the Inquiry Commission, what is the rationale behind appointing them?
Vedant Bhandari
Write to yourvoiceexpressindia.com
