Iran's definition of peace appears too violent for us
With reference to Reza Alaei Tazegheshlagh's article We'll not slip on the oil (April 25), the claim that Iran does not support terrorism and is the most democratic nation in the region, flies in the face of ground reality. Iran sponsors terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, designated terrorist outfits by many countries. To suggest that its democratic ethos is strong in the region is an insult to those who have lost their lives in the ongoing struggle while expressing their political will and aspirations, and to those illegally detained in sub-humane conditions.
Second, the author speaks of India's interests vis-à-vis Iran and the US. Former special envoy to the prime minister, Shyam Saran, while explaining India's vote against Iran, said in a TV interview, "Iran's nuclear programme was linked to Pakistan, to the DPRK and I think it was in India's interest that they come out in the open". Iran has consistently failed to come clean on its nuclear programme, which leads to suspicions of it pursuing a more militaristic policy. Lastly, the claim that Iran never attacks its neighbours is a blatant lie. Iran has sponsored terrorist actions against its neighbours and instigated unrest in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan among others. To suggest that these measures are peaceful is wrong.
Siddharth Ramana, via email
Judiciary's not on the bench
This refers to the report Courts cannot solve all problems: PC (April 24). Home minister P Chidambaram's comments criticising the judiciary for being ‘over-ambitious' are misleading. The difference of opinion between the executive and the judiciary on their ambits of authority is not new. Perhaps the problem of corruption wouldn't have been as grave as it is today if our judiciary had not shown undue subservience to the executive.
Harshamoy Mukherjee, Ranchi