What They Said

Your comments under the caption ‘Patels, Ansari and Kalam’ (p16) in the issue dated October 2015 on Vice President Dr.Hamid Ansari’s address were very unfair, to say the least. As a citizen of this country I deem it my duty towards both the Muslim brethren and the learned Dr.Ansari to articulate my disagreement with your conclusions.
First about the lecture. It was very informed, reasoned and without any rancour. There was no demand for reservation as you claim. Holding a constitutional position did not deter him from speaking on very sensitive issues of the challenges before the community (from which he incidentally hails) and the strategies to overcome them. He had called upon the leaders of his own community to adapt to a changing society. What he said, according to me, would be equally applicable to the Hindus.
Dr.Hamid Ansari in the first part of his speech traced the historical perspective of the Muslims in India, their role in the Independence movement, the aftermath of the partition and its trauma, the lofty principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution and about the state of the community as reported by three official committees (not Sachar Committee alone, as you want the readers to believe). Having recounted these facts, he listed out the problems faced by India’s Muslims as under:
1. Identity and security
2. Education and empowerment
3. Equitable share in the largesse of the state and
4. Fair share in decision making
He added, quite legitimately, that each of these is a right of the citizen and advised that the challenge was to develop strategies and methodologies to address them. Nowhere could I find him mention that reservation is necessary for the Muslims. His reference was ‘equitable share in the largesse of the state.’ Is there anything wrong if a citizen to whichever community he belongs aspires to get an equitable share in the benefits the state gives to the citizens?

T.R Bhat, Mangalore, Via email

We thank you for the time taken to write to us. At the outset please note I&C tries to discuss subjects in its pages purely based on issues and not personality based. We always tried to discuss ‘what is wrong’ rather than ‘who is wrong’. Our Focus ‘Patels, Ansari & Kalam’ was meant to convey the need to have reservation, if any, only on economic model, while also informing that a state of reservation over a period of close to 7 decades has failed in its purpose and hence should be done away with. Of course a 1200 words article simply cannot raise all questions and provide answers to all issues relating to Reservations.

Coming to the speech & personality of Dr.Hamid Ansari, we have no two opinions about his eminence and the concerns shown for his co- religionists. But, his being the Vice President of the country puts him in a delicate situation, he did not maintain the discretion of the office. Indeed unlike Dr Ansari, Dr Kalam is far superior in his acceptability as national icon. Hence comparison is relevant. However when someone demands a portion of the national largesse, despite your disagreement, it amounts to reservation. There are any numbers of opinion makers, who are not RSS- non Hindu, who think so. And when somebody demands it as a right, like Patels did, it introduces a degree of unease in the public space. Besides I&C has always tried to perform its duties than hankering for rights.

Any society, if it has to retain its vibrancy, should continuously try to evolve in a dynamic world, it goes for all sections of society pari passu. Your stress for the Indian majority section was therefore uncalled for. We regret we couldn’t reproduce your entire article for reasons of space. What we reproduced has covered the gist of your article.                                                                          - Editor

Fifteen long years.... your deep rooted feelings have been surfacing through your Editorials always and some hidden political issues which usually do not appear in other popular journals or magazines. Thanks for your bold unbiased views- swimming against the present flow of media hypes. I congratulate you for what you are!

The Focus article on 15th Annual publication has come out well. Generally I avoid political topics for the simple reason- reading again makes suffering to be re-visited. Though I too look forward to better days.

Dr. B.M Hegde's article on Ex-President Dr. A.P.J Abdul Kalam has moved me. I have seen their close association once even at Shri Satya Sai Super Speciality Hospital event. They both shared the dias. I was the witness for it.

Your writings on COW slaughter has also made impact on me. But it is still a dilemma. My memory goes back to then P.M. Jawaharalalu Nehru, who has said “What to do with non- yielding cows when they grow old...?” We still have no right answer.... Riddle continues. Your “Focus” is true...  Your clips sections on  1)Liver cell regeneration 2)Malaria eradication 3)Robotic arm have made medical men glued to I&C. 

J.N Bhat, Mangalore

Here is my feedback concerning issues and concerns. In general Issues & Concern is crisp, short & bold. Cover page by Raveendra Shetty Kuthethure is as usual always very fine and meaningful. 

The last page you are filling up the lacunae left by the absence of the current writings of late Dr. M.V. Kamath by his letters to Gauri is apt. These letters are informative and interesting. I wish you continue these even after getting a gentleman of letters to fill up this page. 

Prof. B.M.Hegde’s articles, as usual, are revolutionary, against the current but consistent with reality. So also the serial bits - Indian in Cowboy Country - is interesting. 

Your editorials, months in perspective and focus are bold and very informative covering wide area. But your comments on Sachin Tendulkar, consistently appearing, though may be factual, but not worth wasting so much space in the magazine. 

One global issue I feel you can take up is to start a campaign in the magazine to eradicate nuclear weapons from earth. No doubt it is a tall order and I do not know how you will go about it. But all the same it is worth an attempt to prevent the       annihilation of planet earth which is a real possibility, especially if these weapons fall in the hands of terrorists who are cruel, suicidal and mindless. Hope you will think about this, start the campaign and succeed.

Dr. Rohit, M.S., Chennai, via email

Thanks for the time taken to write. We note your comments on our writings on Tendulkar. So also, your suggestion regarding starting a campaign on eradication of nuclear weapons, the world over. Shall revert on the issue in pages of I&C in coming months. Issue at the outset is complex. but there can always be a wayout.                                                                                                                                                                                               - Editor