I differ with some of the conclusions in Anantha Nageswaran’s article “Will they make it?”, Mint, 19 January. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany had command economies like the one China has. In contrast, the US had and has a chaotic and, at times, incoherent economy. The strength of such apparently disorganized economies lies in their inherent ability to allow the unexpected to happen — somewhat like Darwinian evolution. The disciplined economies ultimately self-destruct as they are unable to cope with the unexpected—the Black Swan. India is better suited to negotiate the unexpected than China.
Your editorial (“Thinking again about inflation”, Mint, 15 January) is cogent, but it does have a subtle subtext of assuming that genetically modified foods are an elixir for the problem of current agricultural constraints. This may be a double-edged sword and much more than an assumption to be taken for granted, as you have in your editorial.
We must remember that genetically modified foods may have many negative side effects. But this is often forgotten in the garb of solving the problem of inflation.
My assumption is that either you know what you are talking about when you write about genetically modified crops or it is simply loose talk in your article. If it is the latter, I would suggest that the press, in general, carry out detailed research in the economics and politics surrounding genetically modified foods before making claims that they can solve our problems.
— Ashish Gupta
This refers to V. Raghunathan’s article (“Could copyright be wrong?”, Mint, 18 January) regarding the debate on 3 Idiots.
Raghunathan appears to have side-tracked the issue. The debate is not about the spirit of the contract: The producer has fully met the contract in both letter and spirit. However, he has separately given credit for the story to persons other than the author in the main credit titles.
This is a clear infringement of the author’s copyright and could become a legal dispute on a stand-alone basis, having no linkage with the contract. Had the main credit titles excluded any credit for the story, there would have been no dispute at all.
This refers to your news report “India, China build parliaments for better African ties”, Mint, 19 January. China can at best be a big builder of physical structures—steel and concrete—for the parliament buildings in various African countries. Being a totalitarian state with little freedom for its people to express themselves, much less elect their representative with differing political philosophies, they cannot contribute anything in terms of real experience of parliamentary processes.
India, however, can not only build massive structures that China can, but also share with the people of African countries the experience it has in conducting elections in a big, diverse country and train their personnel.
It will be an almost “two-in-one agreement”, building physical edifices and training their people for the electoral process helping their brethren in the African continent. China is far behind in this aspect.