Opinion Mumbai again

Rashtriya Sahara’s editorial on July 15,writes: “It is surprising that the Mumbai police and the intelligence agencies have not successfully evolved a strategy to foil terrorist elements and organisations despite 26/11 and other periodic bomb blasts. Zaveri Bazar,which saw a blast in August 25,2003,should not have been allowed to remain an easy target.”

Jamaat-e-Islami’s Daawat writes on July 19: “In order to reveal the truth behind any bomb blast,catch the culprits and prevent further incidents,it is necessary to conduct a wide-ranging,independent,just and non-communal inquiry. No charge should be brought on the basis of religion,like the instance when,upon finding a head separated from a body after the explosion,it was concluded that it could be a suicide bomb blast. But after the separated head was identified as a certain Shiv Charan,the suicide blast theory was changed.”

Delhi-based daily Hamara Samaj writes (July 20): “The statement of Congress General Secretary Digvijaya Singh is correct to a great extent. It is no longer secret that the Sangh Parivar has been directly involved in most explosions in the country. The evidence against Aseemanand and Sadhvi Pragya has clearly shown up the mentality behind bomb blasts.” The daily Siasat,published from Hyderabad and Bangalore writes in its editorial on July 18: “Digvijaya Singh has not held Hindu organisations responsible (for the Mumbai blasts),and has only demanded an inquiry… It is not proper to reject his demand for an honest and impartial inquiry into the role of Hindu organisations and the RSS.” Differing with most other papers,Hamara Samaj says: “We cannot blame the intelligence agencies for these explosions. Rahul Gandhi’s statement to the effect that these agencies cannot prevent 100 per cent of the explosions is correct.”

Sudan’s new era

The daily Inquilab,published from Mumbai,Delhi,Lucknow,Kanpur and Bareilly,writes in an editorial (July 13): “The people of South Sudan have been raising slogans of independence. But they forget that independence is not a message for prosperity and development. They will have to move forward with care and hard work,because their trial has not ended,it has only begun.”

The daily Siasat,in its editorial on July 10,writes: “Undoubtedly,the struggle for separation from Sudan had the support of the West. Therefore,the local leaders had started implementing their plans for government,ending a 21-year civil war. South Sudan has the experience of managing their own affairs for the last six years… Apart from wooing foreign investors,evolving relationships with international aid agencies is a delicate and serious matter for the new nation. South Sudan has to pay special attention to health and education.”

Random shuffle

Hyderabad-based Munsif writes in its editorial on July 18: “The reshuffle in the Union council of ministers cannot be said to be complete,because there is less space for the DMK in it… Some departments have been added to certain portfolios so that the DMK may nominate someone in place of A. Raja or Dayanidhi Maran… This reshuffle has been done with appeasement in mind,rather than competence.” The daily cites the Trinamool as an example,criticising the appointment of “MBA degree holder” Dinesh Trivedi to “a vast portfolio like Railways,though he lacks any experience of managing a ministry.” Siasat,in its editorial on July 14,writes: “An ordinary change in the cabinet cannot generate any enthusiasm. At a time when large numbers of people are worried about rising prices,there is no indication of any relief (through big changes in the cabinet).” Sahafat,in its July 15 editorial entitled,“Reshuffle in the cabinet: No revolution”,writes: “There is no newness in the reshuffle of portfolios.”

Compiled by Seema Chishti