Apropos of the report Women safe at home... (October 26), the enactment of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is a good piece of legislation and was long overdue. There is apprehension that in spite of the legislation, Muslim women may still be deprived of its benefits. But something is better than nothing. Of course, careful scrutiny of cases is called for as some women may abuse the provisions in the Act.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is not only discriminatory against men, but also amounts to gross interference in people’s personal lives. It is an assault on the privacy of the individual. The need of the hour is to provide equality, not protection. But sadly, protection seems to be a new guise of equality.
Why is the government interfering in family matters? Why should men be silent sufferers of discrimination and why should Renuka Chowdhary wants to put the onus on protection officers to prevent misuse? It will open another avenue for corrupt officers to make money. Men are also victims of domestic violence.
No pardon to terrorists
Shyamalha Pappu in No bargaining (October 26) makes the right distinction between pardon and clemency. I appeal to those who are in favour of pardoning Afzal to consult the experts on Islamic shariat and compare the punishment for such a crime. Afzal’s act of disloyalty and terror against his own nation deserves no pardon.
AG Noorani in A Valley scarred (October 25) is unclear in his exposition. Is he advocating presidential pardon, whereby Afzal’s conviction and sentence would be nullified, or is he pleading only for presidential clemency, whereby Afzal’s death sentence would be commuted to life imprisonment?
The distinction is not trivial but fundamental. It is not appropriate to say that Afzal has not received a fair trial.
Apropos of the report Manmohan watches, likes Munnabhais Gandhigiri (October 26), Gandhigiri and Gandhian values have become a rage. The movie is winning hearts around the globe. It is good to know that responsible cinema is making its way into the Indian film industry — Lage Raho, Rang De Basanti and Lagaan, among others.
The report Orissa DIG killed in Naxal stronghold (October 24) once again puts a question mark on India’s policy against terrorism. The government has not been able to take a definite stand to check terrorist violence. The Prime Minister, Defence Minister and Home Minister say different things. This often turns out to be directionless and contradictory. The problem of terrorism cannot be solved with a patchy approach. We need to follow a definite, even if ruthless, and proactive policy to rid India of the menace.
Need of the hour
With reference to the editorial Completing the team (October 25), Pranab Mukherjee is a man of integrity and is expected to play a pivotal role in his new office. AK Antony will help restore the loss of confidence in the Defence Ministry. All in all, the reshuffle has been a good move.
With reference to the editorial A visitor to our democracy (October 27), is it not ironical for the largest democracy in the world to request the President of an undemocratic and totalitarian State to address a joint parliamentary session?
The communists who opposed the visits of Ariel Sharon and George Bush are acting like brokers in a deal. The oppression in China is shocking. Have we forgotten Tiananmen Square and the occupation of Tibet? The UPA government should not disgrace our democracy by inviting Hu Jintao to address Parliament.
Hindus at receiving end
All political parties view minorities only as vote-banks. They exploit the insecurities of the underprivileged, and even bend rules for them. But if any voice is raised on behalf of the Hindus, it is considered communal. Yet, if a similar demand is made for any minority group, it is dubbed secular. This is harming the interests of Hindus.
Readers may e-mail letters to the editor at:email@example.com