We carried a spate of informed and passionate letters on the Sethusamudram controversy this week but we chose the one sent in by Agra-based Vikas Saraswat (‘God and them’, IE, September 20) as the week’s winner because it marked several aspects of a vexed issue in a nuanced manner. Writing in response to Saubhik Chakrabarti article, ‘God and Us’ (IE, September 14), Saraswat argued that the Sethusamudram controversy indicates the perversion of secularism in Indian discourse. He pointed out that no religious belief — whether it is the descent of Prophet Mohammed or the Virgin Birth — can stand the modern tests of rationality. Similarly, the importance of Ram Setu for the Hindus does not depend on its verifiability as a man-made structure. It is sufficient that this stretch has remained an article of faith for Hindus for thousands of years.Having said that, Saraswat does concede the need to debate the issue of whether religion/faith should not be subject to the rigours of dialectics or empiricism, as argued by Chakrabarti — not just to uphold the lofty traditions of free speech but also to ensure the evolution of the human mind. But as a premise for such an exercise, the understanding of religion and faith by its critics will demand a little more thoroughness than is at present evident.Leftovers for poor• n TAVLEEN Singh, a professed a believer in free enterprise, was so moved by starvation deaths in Aarey Milk Colony, Mumbai, that in her Fifth Column (‘We simply do not care’, IE, July 29), she argued that the ideal solution would be to appeal to the city’s five-star hotels to donate their daily leftovers to a free kitchen. NGOs can then distribute these leftovers to the poor, with the transport being provided by the scions of our very spoilt aristocracy. This will enable them to earn the grateful thanks from the poor.I am horrified at the suggestion which purports to treat the poor as outcasts and deserving only of leftovers. It was probably this mentality that had led to the French Revolution. Tavleen is possibly unconcerned that in our democratic republican state, such a gratuitous insult to the poor is sheer calumny. Would Tavleen not consider a more respectable alternative: impose a tax on the daily in-take of the hotel and recover it from the bills of the spoilt brats, whose money can thus be utilised for the poor in an appropriate manner? If we cannot empathise with the poor, let them not at least be insulted by the so-called upholders of free enterprise.— Rajindar Sachar Retired chief justice of DelhiNon-existent God• n THERE is an old saying, ‘When the Gods want to destroy somebody, they make him arrogant and drunk with power.’ History is replete with such examples. Karunanidhi’s questioning of the very existence of Lord Ram only shows his overweening arrogance which will do him no good.— Harischandra Parasuram MumbaiSquiggly timeline • n THIS refers to Bibek Debroy’s article, ‘Thus it was or wasn’t’ (IE, September, 18). You can expect anything from Ram bhakts but I am rather surprised to read that “a former director of the Geological Survey of India (thus a scientist) having expressed the view that Ram Setu can’t be a natural formation”. Without expressing my own views about the existence or otherwise of Lord Ram, I would like to ask one question: how did Ravan, the king of Lanka, travel to/from the forest near Ram’s abode in India to kidnap Sita as the Ram Setu was evidently built only when Ram with his Banar Sena went to Lanka to rescue Sita?— Dalip Singh Ghuman Chandigarh
