1. This refers to the editorial, “Strong message to the intolerant” (The Hindu, July 4, 2008). The Supreme Court’s act of quashing the summons issued by a Gujarat court to Ashis Nandy shows the power of Indian democracy. Individual freedom is the basic requirement of a healthy democratic society. True democracy becomes meaningless when freedom of speech and expression, including speech and creative work, is threatened. It is shameful that even after 60 years of Independence, some rulers display the suppressive attitude of the colonial era. - J.M.Rahim, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Although the Supreme Court’s intervention time and again brings relief to the victims, it does not guarantee that Gujarat-type incidents will not recur. A country which has fought the mightiest of empires to get freedom through non-violence is resorting to violence at the drop of a hat. More often than not, issues are created and fanned to reap political mileage. Only when the people are educatred and do not get misguided by vested interests will such intolerance end. – V.Harine, Chennai;
3. The Supreme Court’s observation, “If a journalist cannot write, then who else will?” (The Hindu, July 2, 2008) is pertinent. The Narendra Modi regime should realize that India is a thriving democracy with pluralist ethos. Freedom of speech and tolerance is central to the success of democracy. The inability to put with an opposing point of view and the consequent attempts to silence critical voices will not succeed in India because the people are mature enough to discern the motives behind such obnoxious moves. – P.Prasand Thampy, Thiruvalla.
4. It has been the practice of politicians to misinterpret the Constitution to suit their needs and inflame the sentiments of the people. It is frightening to think of the plight of the common man who has no access to courts. – G.Ramesh, Chennai.
5. In a pluralistic society such as ours, where religious and political ethos often get mixed and fragility looms over the social secular fabric perpetually, intellectuals need to be more cautious and responsible. A society where diametrically oppositge views are held on every subject from morality to spirituality, they must resort to respectful disagreement and higher criticism. – Yasir Malik, New Delhi.
Courtesy: The Hindu, Madurai, July 5, 2008 (Letters to the Editor)
Grateful thanks to M/s. J.M.Rahim, Thiruvananthapuram; V.Harine, Chennai; P.Prasand Thampy, Thiruvalla; G.Ramesh, Chennai; Yasir Malik, New Delhi; and The Hindu.
2. Although the Supreme Court’s intervention time and again brings relief to the victims, it does not guarantee that Gujarat-type incidents will not recur. A country which has fought the mightiest of empires to get freedom through non-violence is resorting to violence at the drop of a hat. More often than not, issues are created and fanned to reap political mileage. Only when the people are educatred and do not get misguided by vested interests will such intolerance end. – V.Harine, Chennai;
3. The Supreme Court’s observation, “If a journalist cannot write, then who else will?” (The Hindu, July 2, 2008) is pertinent. The Narendra Modi regime should realize that India is a thriving democracy with pluralist ethos. Freedom of speech and tolerance is central to the success of democracy. The inability to put with an opposing point of view and the consequent attempts to silence critical voices will not succeed in India because the people are mature enough to discern the motives behind such obnoxious moves. – P.Prasand Thampy, Thiruvalla.
4. It has been the practice of politicians to misinterpret the Constitution to suit their needs and inflame the sentiments of the people. It is frightening to think of the plight of the common man who has no access to courts. – G.Ramesh, Chennai.
5. In a pluralistic society such as ours, where religious and political ethos often get mixed and fragility looms over the social secular fabric perpetually, intellectuals need to be more cautious and responsible. A society where diametrically oppositge views are held on every subject from morality to spirituality, they must resort to respectful disagreement and higher criticism. – Yasir Malik, New Delhi.
Courtesy: The Hindu, Madurai, July 5, 2008 (Letters to the Editor)
Grateful thanks to M/s. J.M.Rahim, Thiruvananthapuram; V.Harine, Chennai; P.Prasand Thampy, Thiruvalla; G.Ramesh, Chennai; Yasir Malik, New Delhi; and The Hindu.
No comments:
Post a Comment