Letters to the editor

I have always been impressed with the way your paper has covered issues of sensitive nature.

Bridge to reason

8226; I HAVE always been impressed with the way your paper has covered issues of sensitive nature. The caution mixed with courage exercised by you in cases of a sensitive nature is excellent. But in the case of Ram Setu 8212; although it is a matter of immense sensitivity 8212; you have been found lacking in courage. Faith cannot replace reason; at least the representatives of rationality like the Indian Express should have called a spade a spade, no matter what the circumstances. But, instead, you have criticised ASI for its bold but true affidavit in the Supreme Court. Is it not the duty of the government to fight false faith? It may make sense in fundamentalist societies like Iran or Pakistan to make a hue and cry over blasphemy when confronted by science, but it is not expected in rational democracies 8212; at least not from the rational media.

8212; Satwant Singh Kalkat

Ludhiana

Faith paramount

8226; LORD Ram doesn8217;t need a birth certificate from anybody, least of all from Karunanidhi, who observes, 8216;Is there any evidence of this?8217; It is up to the people of Tamil Nadu to suitably answer this arrogant politician at the appropriate time. Has he himself any evidence as to who constructed the Ram Setu? I disagree with your editorial, 8216;Suddenly at sea8217; IE, September 15, which suggested that the government should have stuck to its stand on the serious Sethusamudram project. When an issue is linked with the faith of a community, the project, howsoever serious, becomes secondary. No project can be constructed on the ashes of the faith of any community. The government has done the right thing by withdrawing the storm-raising affidavit, which denied the existence of Lord Ram. It has rightly taken time from the Supreme Court to review the case, taking into account various suggestions and opinions.

8212; M.C. Joshi

Lucknow

Crafting scepticism

8226; THOSE who believe that Ram existed are once again incorrect in criticising the scholarly and distinguished chief minister of Tamil Nadu, for his statement, 8216;Who is this Rama and from which engineering college did he graduate?8217; The engineer was Neela, but that is beside the point, for the Ramayana is only a story. It does not matter that millions of people believe that it is not just a story. All these people pale into insignificance at the brilliance of our chief minister, like a mere candle before a radiating Sun. Is it not an irrefutable fact that the Ram of our story did not study in any of the 8216;capitation fees charging8217; engineering colleges that this benevolent chief minister has established?

8212; V.T. Sampath Kumaran

Bangalore

Rethink MTP

8226; IN 8216;Gender-bender8217; IE, September 17, Pamela Philipose has correctly pointed out that the MTP Act does not give the woman the right to abort. If anything, this right has been given rightly or wrongly to the medical practitioner; but there is a perception that after the MTP Act was enacted in 1971, abortion has been legalised. This is a mistaken impression and has taken root since Explanation 2 of Section 3 of the Act, which includes 8216;failure of contraception8217; as a reason for termination of a pregnancy of a married woman. Incidentally we are the only country with such a clause. The PNCDT Act has only driven up the cost of sex determination. If people knew that you cannot just get an abortion without a valid reason then they would also not even try to determine the sex of the child. Social attitudes must change. But should a law that actually encourages abortion on flimsy grounds not be reconsidered?

8212; Pavan Nair

Pune