Opinion Letters to the editor: A rare treat
Gandhi must articulate his views more often and raise the level of debate in Parliament.
This refers to the editorial ‘The Rahul show’ (IE, August 8). One could not believe one’s eyes when Rahul Gandhi, Congress vice president, along with his party’s MPs, stormed the well of the Lok Sabha on Wednesday. His aim was to press for their demand for an impromptu discussion on the rising incidents of communal violence in the country to be accepted. It was a rare show, indeed. Gandhi is largely known for his passivity in the House. During his entire career as an MP, he has not made too many interventions. Raising a voice of opposition over any issue is well within the Congress’s rights, but storming the well of the House and disturbing the scheduled proceedings is not right. One only wishes that he would take a cue from his mother and not repeat such behaviour.
— S.K. Gupta (Panchkula)
I am unsure whether Rahul Gandhi’s silence and reticence or his newfound boldness is more annoying. While victory could make one complacent, defeat changes everything. It’s no crime to learn lessons late in life. Gandhi must articulate his views more often and raise the level of debate in Parliament. The country needs a good opposition leader to work as a counterbalance to the Modi government. But he needs to figure out the correct and parliamentary way to register his displeasure and protest.
— Ashok Goswami (Mumbai)
Mindless response
This refers to ‘Day after Ratan Tata snub, Bengal Minister says: He’s lost his mind’(IE, August 8). It is sad that a person of Amit Mitra’s standing has acted in such an undignified manner while responding to the comments of Ratan Tata on West Bengal’s industrial development. If the Trinamool Congress finance and industry minister found Tata’s observations irksome or wrong, there were better, more civilised ways of expressing one’s disapproval, instead of saying Tata has “lost his mind”.
— M. Ratan (Delhi)
Contradictory bill
The draft Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2014, which has been cleared by the Union cabinet, has some interesting contradictions. By giving the Juvenile Justice Board the power to decide whether a juvenile, who is between 16 and 18 years of age
and involved in a “heinous” crime, should be tried in a regular court, the law has ignored the very principle and definition of juvenility. Crimes perpetrated against juveniles are the cause for them to be in conflict with the law in the first place.
— C. Koshy John (Pune)
Share
