• Apropos of the editorial,‘ Chaos situation — Or how Mumbai airport’s handlers handlers took it to the Jurassic age’(IE, October 14), it was totally lacking in appreciation of the complicated retrieval procedure involving disabled aircraft. Its observations were based on misconceptions. As you are aware, the pilot of the fateful Air Sahara aircraft overshot the runway and got the aircraft bogged down in kachcha land, about 160 meters away from the concrete. The procedure for the removal of such aircraft is an elaborate one involving multi-agencies and requiring specialised equipment and expertise. For your kind information, when an aircraft meets with such a fate, the primary responsibility for its removal lies with the carrier. Air Sahara, accordingly, entrusted the job to Air India, which has the required equipment and expertise. It may be also be noted here that such exercises must take into consideration the need to avoid further damage to the aircraft and preserve evidence for purposes of investigation by regulatory authorities. Airports Authority of India (AAI) being the owner of the airport, extended all necessary support and facilitation to the rescue team. It would be pertinent to mention that AAI had gone out its way to build a metallic road from the runway to the aircraft site to speed retrieval — and that too at its own cost. Besides, generator sets were provided at the site to make power supply available round the clock. In addition, the AAI fire service personnel with equipment were made available at the disposal of Air India and Air Sahara. A top management team headed by member, Operations, was positioned at Mumbai to extend help. It is, therefore, unfair to blame AAI for not expediting the removal of the aircraft. It should also be noted that secondary runway was made available for smooth traffic services. The Mumbai airport functioned, albeit with some delay due to traffic congestion. Moreover, runway 27 was also made available for departures and arrivals under visual conditions immediately after the incident. No airlines has made any complaint whatsoever with regard to lack of any facility or service. Therefore, in situation like this, the ownership of an airport should not be confused with the role it can play. — T. Premnath, General Manager (PR), Airports Authority of India New Delhi Wrong take • It is rather amazing to read M.G. Devasaham’s article, ‘Indira’s India, Moscow’s Emergency’ (IE, October 7). The writer perhaps forgets that ever since Partition, the West was totally tilted towards a theocratic Pakistan with the objective of using it as a base for fighting the Cold War between the two superpowers: USA and USSR. It was but natural for Moscow to befriend India, a secular country ruled by politicians with socialistic views. It was only our Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Co-operation with USSR that enabled us to liberate Bangladesh. It is wrong to suggest that the Emergency of 1975 was Soviet inspired. Rather, it was ‘failed’ and disgruntled politicians led by Jayaprakash Narayan who pushed the country into complete economic chaos. Indira Gandhi was fully justified in administering the ‘bitter pill’ of Emergency and to save the country from being thrown into ‘Total anarchy’. — Dalip S. Ghuman, Chandigarh Some questions • Wajahat Habibullah, in his India Empowered piece of October 10, presents his prescription for a ‘tapestry of social accord’, refers to ‘majoritarianism’ and speaks rather glowingly of the entry and stay in India of Islamic rulers. Why is he so totally silent about the bloody brutalities to which hapless Hindus were subjected to by the Islamic hordes? And why is majoritarianism anathema when minorityism is admittedly playing havoc in our democracy? — R. Venkatanarayanan, Noida
