• From the report, ‘Hindu-only approach will ensure dynasty remains alive’ (IE, June 21), it appears that Sudheendra Kulkarni’s approach paper is an excellent and thoughtful one. In fact, the Jan Sangh became the Bharatiya Janata Party after leaders became aware that they had no chance of coming to power at the Centre without a serious rethink. Kulkarni should further elucidate whether the non-appeasement of Muslims will extend to Dalits or not. Logically it should, because the major fear of majority Hindus is that their sentiments, belief systems, and way of life are under grave threat.
— Shrinivas Pandit Mumbai
• The main confusion is the interpretation of the word ‘Hindu’. It is ridiculous to say that if I am a Hindu, I am communal, but if I am Indian, I am secular. The words ‘Hindu’ and ‘India’ are derived in a mutilated way from the word ‘Sidhu’, thanks to the Arabs in the distant past. They clearly had a regional and not religious connotation. But since India, for the first 2,500 years of the last 5,000 years, had only one religion, it was wrongly referred to as Hindu, although in its scriptures, the word does not occur even once. Another confusion is with the words ‘Hindu’ and ‘Hindutva’. For me, ‘Hindutva’ and ‘Secularism’ are two sides of the same coin called Bharatiyata.
— Gangadhar G. Barve Mumbai
• If Vajpayee, Advani and the BJP have not learnt any lessons from the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, they will never come back to power. The BJP came to power because of opposition to pseudo-secularism and not because of secularism. It was pathetic to see Vajpayee pleading for Muslim votes. As it happened, he did not get them but lost core Hindu support as well. It looks like the BJP has a CPI mole among them in the form of Sudheendra Kulkarni. If Advani wants to go with Kulkarni’s advice, so be it. It would be in BJP’s interests to dump him. What India needs is true compassionate conservatism.
— Guna Raj Albany
Reality check
• Amulya Reddy and M.V. Ramana should be commended for their informative piece on the costs of nuclear power in comparison with conventional thermal power (‘Nuclear power is not cheap’, IE, June 20). In establishing that nuclear power is about 40 per cent costlier than thermal power, they have in fact made several big assumptions advantageous to nuclear power. For instance, discounting the cost of radioactive waste disposal, and the schedule overruns. It would have been good to see how the comparison stands if more realistic
assumptions are made regarding these costs. Further, if we consider the real human and environmental costs of uranium mining, and the radioactive waste disposal at the end of the cycle, then it becomes obvious that expanding nuclear power is quite an irresponsible strategy
for India.
— Kirankumar Vissa On e-mail
Mother’s recipe
• Kokilaben Ambani deserves a Bharat Ratna for her contribution in resolving the dispute between Mukesh and Anil. As always, it’s mother’s recipe that is the most wholesome!
— M.S. Rajagopalan Ahmedabad