I live in China, and I really appreciate the values of freedom and human rights. In comparative terms, China is admittedly not as good as the US in this regard. However, after reading the editorial “Cracking down on Tibet, again” (Mint, 19 February), I am totally confused. Why do you like the Tibetan leader Dalai Lama, who politically rules his people through religion? Why do you want a serf owner to get back in power and authority in Tibet? Why do you speak for the post-serf owners, but not the serfs who had no human rights at all under the former rule of people such as the Dalai Lama? Your arguments have confused me: Am I the brainwashed one from China, or are you the brainwashed ones, or are you brainwashing others who do not have enough information on the subject?
— Daryl Su
The attack by terrorists on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Pakistan on Tuesday underscores two things: the tight control that extremist networks exercise in Pakistan and that country’s deteriorating law and order situation.
In November, terrorists massacred at least 183 innocent citizens in Mumbai. And now sportsmen have been targeted, too, for the first time in a big way since the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre where Palestinians gunned down Israeli athletes. Thanks to this, no country will take the risk of playing any sports on Pakistani soil for some time.
Pakistan, with its protracted history of military rule, lacks definitive and mature democratic traditions. The army and the intelligence agencies dominate politics. Moreover, due to the impact of religious fundamentalists, Pakistan is getting torn between polarizing forces— the army on the one hand and the fundamentalists, on the other. The elected Pakistani government’s writ is gradually being minimized.
Pakistan cannot disown responsibility for incursions emanating from its soil as well as terrorist attacks in the country itself by claiming ignorance, helplessness or trivial technicalities. It must act to control the extremists who use the country as a safe haven to launch attacks on innocent citizens.
— Rajendra K. Aneja
Regarding Ramesh Ramanathan’s column on A.R. Rahman (“Dileep Kumar at the Oscars”, Mint, 26 February), it is highly shameful that some religious fundamentalists are expressing their ugly opinion by bringing Rahman’s religion into question. They may please note that Rahman won his Oscar not because of his religion, but for his performance. Rahman is an Indian and that’s about it. By bringing religion here, these third-rate zealots are only discrediting him.
I like Mohammed Azharuddin not because he is a Muslim, but because of his elegance in batting. And I dislike Dawood Ibrahim not because he’s a Muslim, but because he’s a bloodthirsty gangster.
Human beings can be both good and bad. So why bring religion here?
— Ravindranath Ramakrishna
It was very interesting to read Niranjan Rajadhyaksha’s column (“Rediscovering history” Mint, 25 February). While there is no doubt that forgetting the principles and laws of economics is bad, it is unclear why Rajadhyaksha is looking into economic history only from 1933, particularly at Irving Fisher. Why not the early 1900s when economists such as Ludwig von Mises, who also explained the perils of forgetting the laws of economics? That history would have shown him that there were hardly the kind of boom and bust cycles or inflationary problems prior to the formation of the US Federal Reserve System in 1913.
Consider the advice that Rajadhyaksha gives to the readers—“do not fall prey to the belief that the world has changed”. One can always argue that this is precisely the mistake that John Maynard Keynes, who suggested government intervention in times of recession, himself made.
— Yusuf Syed