Letters to the editor

Readers’ comments: The phrase ‘nation wants to know’ had an effect only with Arnab Goswami’s magic

A selection of readers’ opinions.

Nation wants to know

The phrase “the nation wants to know” had an effect only when it was combined with Arnab Goswami’s magic (“Nation wants to know: Does Arnab Goswami stand a chance in trademark battle with the Times Group?”). It will be a damp squib when mouthed by someone else at TimesNow.

On the other hand, Goswami might need a new format and new game at Republic TV to recreate the huge following he had generated in his earlier role. – Som Shubhra De

***

The phrase, “nation wants to know” goes only with Arnab Goswami’s personality. It was indicative of him speaking from the bottom of his heart for us, the people people of the nation. It’s definitely his trade mark. We, as a nation, did not identify the phrase with Times Now but with Goswami. – Bina John Tharakan

***

The US should take care of race-related attacks on their own soil instead of talking about India. Do you want us to keep quiet when the missionaries from the West swarm our country and destroy our culture and the faith? The act of missionaries converting our people hurts us as much as this intolerance you talk about. If Hindus carry out conversions at a large scale in the US, will you guys accept it? You would also cry foul. – DS Rao

***

I feel Arnab Goswami is one of the best senior news reporters India has. I never ever used to watch TV news until he appeared on TimesNow.I’ve now lost interest in TimesNow. – Madhu

Water woes

The people of India and West Bengal need every drop of water they can get (“Why Mamata Banerjee refuses to share Teesta: The river has just 1/16th of water needed”). The Indian government needs to think of its people before sharing water with Bangladesh. With China building a huge dam on the Bramhaputra River, all of East India is going to have water problems. Bangladesh has plenty of water, they can build a desalination plant and provide water to the people. – Gaurang Bhatt

Criminal minds

This article gave me great insights into the “tandoor” murder case and why it is not a crime against society but one committed due to possiveness (“How the ‘tandoor murderer’ Sushil Sharma spends his days in Tihar Jail”). I am able to appreciate the thought and idea of an academic course structured by Sushi Sharma would want like-minded people to connect and implement this soon. – Kunal Mathur

Murky waters

The protest against the Naval Academy may be politically motivated (“Indian Naval Academy in Kerala is in choppy waters as residents claim it contaminated their wells”). Nevertheless, Keralites should know that the presence of e-coli in their open wells is their own doing. Many studies show that the leach pit toilets across Kerala are a reason for the high penetration of e-coli in their open wells. – Uday Shankar P

Going unnoticed

Please stop sensationalisation. I belong to Bikram, one the blocks that the writer covers in this article, and have seen at first hand the situation there (“In a Bihar district, an Anaj Bank has freed Dalit women from hunger and exploitation”). The author, Mohd Imran Khan, makes no mention of hunger deaths after the setting up of the Anaj Bank. That is insane. It’s good to discuss the benefits and success of the initiative but you cannot gloss over the problems.

Don’t make assumptions and write that will be popular just to make your article interesting – Mrigendra

Make in India

Why don’t the Indian government and entrepreneurs take the US visa curbs as an opportunity to boost local spending on IT and build a robust infrastructure (“H-1B visa changes: Nirmala Sitharaman hints at Centre retaliating to new US policy”)?

There is no doubt we make a huge chunk of money by providing services to the developed world but in the process, we have missed out on creating a research and development environment at home.

We have build a huge market in terms of engineering colleges but there is no check by the government or any authority to look at the quality of engineers we produce. This is not because Indians are not competent but the lack of good quality instructors in these so called engineering colleges. These colleges have just become money-making machines for owners.

Meanwhile, we are generating huge business for companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft etc but there is no such giant being created in India.

Moreover, Indian IT employees are mostly considered cheap labour.

Governments have pushed private organisations to make technologies which best suite their economies. But we are just following the western world without looking into the implications. – Talwinder Singh

Religious rules

Who are we to challenge the procedures laid down in the Quran (“If Pakistan and 21 other countries have abolished triple talaq, why can’t India?”)? There should not be any debate whatsoever on the subject. We have become a laughing stock. We have no right to remove the reconciliation factor during the process of talaq as dictated in the Quran. The earlier we resolve this, the better it is. – Irshad Ahmed

Cow clashes

Around 10,500 years ago, cattle was domesticated from as few as 80 progenitors in southeast Turkey (“Beef ban dominates political discourse in Goa ahead of impending bye-elections”). The cow is not indigenous to India like the gaur or the buffalo, domesticated by the Indus Valley civilization. It was brought from the West Asia, probably by the Dravidians. All religions breed fanatics, since religion is a social construct for social cohesion and security against the uncertainties of nature and of what happens after death. – Taumaturgo Furtado

Living rivers

When we consider non-living entities as living ones, doesn’t it drastically change the way we define a living thing, especially a human being (“A court naming Ganga and Yamuna as legal entities could invite a river of problems”)? One thinks of a human being as someone who is able to think, reflect, take conscious and autonomous decisions; among other dispositions. When a river is given an equal status to of a living being, it raises philosophical questions about those who are catergorised as humans under the traditional definition. Are there no theoretical/legal differences between a human and a river? Or are the practical differences between the two of no significance?

What happens to the idea of consent when a non-vocal entity is given a legal right and is provided with a guardian? It is certainly not a new practice for humans. Historically, several groups of individuals are protected under someone’s guardianship. Minors and women of significant numbers still continue to be so. Does that mean a minor human being and river have similar capability to reason and make decisions? Are they both unable to provide their consent due to shared reasons?

One also has to take in the view of the guardian who may have certain personal interest in the minor, or here river. Humans have to necessarily depend on the river to sustain themselves and develop. Would the guardian of the river not allow humans to use the river for their personal requirements?

From providing water for drinking, bathing and farming to using it for industrial purposes, it has multiple uses and a ban will not be feasible. It would, then, come down to striking a balance between using and exploiting the resource, which will be the human guardian’s prerogative. It is quite possible that the balance might not be fair and could tilt in the favour of humans. –Varun Khimani

Biased views

I’ve come across your website many times and almost each time, I’ve been dissapointed. Under the the pretense of being a news website, you are painting an ideology you support. Almost none of your articles seem to be a mere news pieces. Each one has a similar ideology. I find it highly unethical on your part. If you really want to post your opinion, then disclose it accordingly. What you are doing right now is nothing short of a fraud. – Shubham Bhartiya

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.