Strange conclusion

8226; Nandan Nilekani provides excellent insights and makes astute observations in...

8226; Nandan Nilekani provides excellent insights and makes astute observations in his article, 8216;When the state took flight8217; IE, February 10. It is therefore surprising to read his absurd conclusion. He makes a strong case for free markets and how private enterprise is about providing better value. In his conclusion, however, he observes: 8220;It is becoming increasingly evident that we need good infrastructure, free but well regulated markets, dynamic entrepreneurs, flexible labour policies with a safety net, reasonably moderate levels of taxation and efficient use of our scarce capital to get the economic growth to create jobs for the hundreds of millions of young people who are going to join the workforce over the next decade.8221; How do you have 8220;free and well-regulated markets8221;? That is an oxymoron. You can either have free or well-regulated markets. This is a very strange statement coming from a captain of industry, one who may be supposed to understand at least fundamental economics. He goes on to make the socialist argument for 8220;reasonably moderate levels of taxation and efficient use of our scarce capital8221;, which is the exact opposite of the theme of his essay.

8212; Somik Raha Stanford

Who is Jaitley?

8226; Wonder why Arun Jaitley is crying himself hoarse about Election Commissioner Naveen Chawla having accepted money for his trusts, which was all done mostly during NDA rule. How is this going to impinge upon his impartiality as an EC? It8217;s like accusing a sitting judge of being partial to the government just because he was on some government panel before being elevated to the bench. Anyway, how can Jaitley give lectures on impartiality? Wasn8217;t he, as a central minister, the first person to give a clean chit to Narendra Modi, involved in the worst ever genocide in Indian history?

8212; Bipul Kumar Delhi

Curious stance

8226; I am an avid reader of IE, but your editorial on the DAE issue has muffled my sensitivities 8216;New clear policy8217;, IE, February 7. The editorial does not seem to be balanced, is completely devoid of any understanding and seems patently biased. It argues that DAE has muddled civilian and military when it has no right to do so. I wonder if you have forgotten that we are not recognised as a nuclear power and, until 1998, we had to keep our weapons programme completely clandestine? What other way can be suggested without mixing the two programmes. Secondly, the whole deal seems to be hastily conducted without the usual norm of a general debate. Why is the PM not taking the debate to the country? It has been made out that this deal would bring a great future for India by ensuring the availability of uranium. For even a medium-sized reactor to be built, years are required. Then why cannot a day be reserved for debating this very crucial issue?

8212; Kshitiz Gupta Baltimore

Husain8217;s art

8226; The misadventures of M.F. Husain must be condemned in the strongest of terms. Time and again he has proved that his only passion in life is to hurt Hindu sentiments by painting their gods and goddesses in objectionable positions. He does this knowing that once he apologises everything is forgotten.

8212; Y.S. Raghubanshi Chennai

Modest T-shirt

8226; The recent controversy over the dress code in AMU is totally uncalled for. Those moral police who wish to impose a dress code on men and women should remember that there is nothing called a pan-Indian dress. Different regions of our country have their own sets of costumes. Even the so-called traditional Indian dress, the sari, reveals as much as it hides. Sometimes a T-shirt paired with jeans could be the more modest option!

8212; Amit V. Sengupta Calcutta