• The history of coalition governments in India is the history of political struggle. Karl Marx may have lamented thus the current crisis of UPA. And why not? The attitude of Prakash Karat and company is not tolerable. I myself am a Marxist, but my Marxism does not flow from anti-Americanism. If anti-Americanism elevates Marxist leaders to a high ‘state of mind’, so be it; but that should not be at the cost of the state. In fact the anti-US postures of the Left appears to be xenophobia. I’m sorry if I sound harsh but as a conscious citizen I am bound to express my feelings in this way because of my concern for India’s environment and energy security. I admire what the Left has done in Kerala and Bengal, but it could have done more had it been more rational and pragmatic instead of getting caught in anti-Americanism and pro-Iranism. Bertrand Russell has observed that a leader can appeal for votes on the basis of the need of the present generation, not future generations.— Dheeraj PandeyGhaziabad• THE Left should not create such a brouhaha on the 123 agreement. The deal is declared “quite satisfactory” by the UPA . If the Left still has doubts regarding its usefulness and benefits, it must approach the PM directly and try to resolve the matter through frank discussion and logical reasoning. It should not forget that now India is regarded as one of the responsible nuclear powers in the world, and such petty clashes within the ruling coalition over the nuke deal can only tarnish the country’s image internationally. — Saad Ullah KhanAligarh China did it• THE BJP’s stand on 123 agreement can well be understood. They were the originators of this agreement. The noise that they raise now is out of frustration and politics. The Left’s objections have a different motive. Indian communists did not raise their voice against the major defence agreements India had for decades with communist USSR. Similarly, if India were to propose a nuclear agreement with China on the same lines as the 123 agreement with the US, the Left will have no problems. As for the US-China nuke agreement (signed in 1985 and ratified by the US Congress in 1998), China did not get fuel supplies nor reprocessing rights. China also accepted inspections (George Fernandes, please note, no one was shot in the head in China for such an agreement!). — Stephen RajaratnamMumbaiTargeting George• I WAS shocked to read your editorial, ‘Go, George’ (IE, August 18). It is a perfect example of ‘making hill out of mole’. Any sane person would agree that the Indo-US nuke deal is shrouded in mystery. The US administration is a very shrewd bargainer. History shows that this country always takes more than it gives. Unless the PM comes out with the details, doubts would remain. Not just George Fernandes, most sane people will smell total surrender by India in this deal, especially after the statement by a senior US official about a ban on future testing by India. — A.K. SharmaChandigarh• WE endorse your views on George Fernandes, ‘Go George’ (IE, August 18). Dr Manmohan Singh may or may not go as prime minister but George Fernandes must retire from politics. His recent utterances in Parliament go to prove that his new-found friends in the right wing have cast their shadow on him and his socialism has been transformed into fascism.— Shariq Alavi Lucknow
