Letters to the editor

• This refers to Michiko Kakutani’s piece, ‘All things dark and American’ (IE, May 24). She refers to Al Gore’s book, which moves beyond its criticisms of the Bush administration to diagnose the ailing condition of America as a participatory democracy — low voter turnout, rampant voter cynicism, an often ill-informed electorate, political campaigns dominated by 30-second TV ads and increasingly conglomerate controlled media landscape.

Reading it, I am tempted to draw a parallel between the ailing condition of America as a participatory democracy and the ailing condition of India as the world’s largest democracy. Sadly, in a relatively immature democracy like ours — where divisive politics is seen as an important stepping stone to power — religion becomes an important instrument in the hands of degenerate politicians. This is exactly what’s happening in Punjab today. In a democratic set-up, politics and religion should not be allowed to mix. The other two pre-requisites for a successful democracy are also missing. One, voters are not educated and responsible. Two, we do not have a stable two-party system.

China’s own zone

• I FOUND the article, ‘How SEZs transformed China’ (IE, June 7) provided a good analysis of the SEZs in China. However, I would have liked more information on the geographical areas where SEZs should ideally be set up and how China handled rehabilitation. For instance, if cash was given to the locals for the land taken, how was it spent? Also, we would have liked to know whether the local population benefited in terms of employment, and whether the Central and state governments developed infrastructure and safeguarded people’s interests. One thing is clear. In China, little importance is given to people, with the state’s interests considered supreme, while in India every individual is given due importance while safeguarding the state’s interest.

— Madhav Bamne, Pune

Pak noose

• THE piece, ‘Two goose steps back’ (IE, June 7), by Pamela Philipose makes interesting reading. My take on Musharraf might differ from others’. Musharraf is a dictator (never a democrat) and a dictator is dictator is a dictator. The entire chain of political events which have rocked Pakistan during the last five decades under various leaders, from Ayub Khan to Musharraf, appear to be nothing but a three-ring circus. A military regime with an Islamic face.

— Pradip Biswas, Kolkata

• THIS is with reference to the piece ‘Two goose steps back’. The Pakistani military establishment’s recent tussle with the free media is conspicuous. Pervez Musharraf liberalises the media and tries to run the country democratically in order to appear western/modern in the eyes of the West. When the media starts exercising its right to freedom, the military gets uncomfortable. Musharraf is likely to intervene and the situation will get back to square one.

— Sumit Nanda, Delhi