Housing India

8226; Your editorial 8216;Mafia rules, OK?8217; IE, December 22, is a harsh judgement on a so...

8226; Your editorial 8216;Mafia rules, OK?8217; IE, December 22, is a harsh judgement on a social problem. A 8216;8216;socialist state8217;8217; has made ordinary citizens into criminals by its neglect of the housing sector all these years. The fact is, there is a huge gap between the demand and supply for shelter. It is only in the last 10-15 years that people can think of buying a house with a loan from a bank at 7-8 per cent interest. It is a travesty of the welfare state that instead of helping its citizens to build their houses, indeed build their lives, it demolishes them!

8212; M.D. Kini Mumbai

Bring on a series

8226; At a time when other major newspapers in Delhi have shirked their responsibility towards exposing the real estate mafia-politician nexus, we should be grateful to the Indian Express for trying to grab this bull by its horns. I was elated to find through Shekhar Gupta8217;s excellent article, 8216;Who8217;s afraid of the bulldozer8217; IE, December 24, that IE has decided to do a series on this nexus. This is the kind of journalism that IE excels in and does it better than anyone else. I hope that you will keep up the good work.

8212; Vikas Chowdhry Madison

BJP U-turn

8226; This refers to the expulsion of 11 MPs by Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha for their unholy act in taking money for asking questions in Parliament. If the courts did not interfere in the JMM bribery-case because the act could only be dealt by the LS Speaker, why and how should the courts now interfere in the decision of the Speaker expelling the MPs caught on camera? The BJP president, L.K. Advani, has tarnished his own image and that of his party by taking a U-turn on this issue. To remove all controversies in the future, immunity to parliamentarians should be abolished by bringing all acts of parliamentarians under the normal law of the land.

8212; Madhu Agrawal Delhi

Irony in the House

8226; I appreciate the line of argument in your editorial, 8216;Pause for questions8217; IE, December 24. Is it not ironic that the 8216;8216;tainted8217;8217; ministers are among those who have voted in favour of expulsion? I am afraid a dangerous precedent has been set of such a summary trial. But your argument in the second editorial that we don8217;t need the courts to clean up private morals is incorrect, 8216;Shut your eyes8217;, IE, December 24. is incorrect. I do agree with you that court orders have to be implementable, but the problem of implementation is a wider one. At least, the courts are doing their duties seriously to set down some restrictions. Had the media imposed some restrictions on themselves of their own volition vis-a-vis morality, there would be no need now for the courts to step in.

8212; Kedarnath Aiyar Mumbai

Bad move

8226; It is most unfortunate that reservation in private educational institutions explicitly providing for quotas in educational institutions not receiving aid from the government, is passed by both Houses. The amendment will nullify the Supreme Court8217;s August order that declared quotas in unaided colleges 8216;8216;unconstitutional8217;8217;. This move shall severally affect the educational standards of the country.
Already there are so many financial constraints in running an educational institution. Why add more problems for them? Every private person or association or business house has a fundamental right to manage their affairs as they wish within the four corners of the law.

8212; Mahesh Kumar New Delhi