MyVoice is to lift up the voices and experiences

Imran Khan should not cross limits

It was heartening to read the report on Vidisha Maitra, first secretary at India's permanent mission to the UN, exercising New Delhi's right of reply at the end of Friday's proceedings at the General Assembly (Indian citizens do not need anyone to speak on their behalf, THI, Sept 29).

As she rightly said, every word spoken from the podium of the Assembly carried the weight of history. She has come down heavily upon Pakistan President Imran Khan for his hate speech. Imran Khan is a callous portrayal of the world in binary terms, she said and that is literally true.

His speech was full of divisiveness and belligerence. He was trying to sharpen differences and stir up hatred. Indian citizens and their government are capable to solve their internal issue if any they do not need anyone else to speak on their behalf, that too, those who have built an industry of terrorism from the ideology of hate.

Imran Khan, a leader who heads a country that is breeding ground of terrorism justifying terrorism is highly condemnable.

Imran had warned that the betrayal of the Kashmiri people and the clampdown could spark radicalisation, which could spawn an attack that would then be blamed on Pakistan and that shows how chauvinistic he is.

Since Imran had in his speech invited UN observers to Pakistan to verify there are no militant organisations there, India posed certain terror-related questions to Islamabad, such as whether it provides pensions to a UN-proscribed terrorist, referring to Imran's past defence of Osama bin Laden.

It is good for his country if he keeps quiet and stops interfering with his neighbouring country's internal affairs.

Preethi Mathur, Hyderabad

Modi's foreign policy not in good spirit

One of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's promises was a stronger foreign policy. This he has proved by his willingness to retaliate against military and militant violence with cross-border strikes.

The stand-off on the Sino-Bhutanese border at Doklam was a sign that India was willing to draw red lines for China and back them up with military resolve.

Modi's air strikes on Pakistan in the wake of the Pulwama atrocity were apparently a departure from the unwillingness of the earlier Congress-led governments to risk cross-border reprisals.

The reprisals did not really damage but they symbolised the government's determination to call Pakistan's bluff and were widely credited with helping Modi win the subsequent general election. The willingness to talk up military retaliation is a departure for Indian foreign policy.

The BJP is more willing to do that than the Congress was because the BJP is the party of Hindu nationalism and military skirmishing with Pakistan plays well with its base, eager to see India put 'Muslim' Pakistan in its place.

Modi's largest foreign policy gamble has been the abolition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. His government erased the State's constitutionally-mandated autonomy and then divided it into two Union territories, political units administered by the Central government.

This abolition of the law that enshrined Kashmir's autonomy and special status had long been seen by the BJP as the appeasement of India's only Muslim-majority State.

The move to end this 'pampering' of Muslims brands Modi as a decisive Prime Minister unwilling to be constrained by political correctness or external censure.

No Congress government could have taken this step because the Congress is rhetorically committed to the idea of a pluralist democracy even if its policies in office often contradict this commitment.

Foreign policy choices, or political choices with foreign policy implications, are, in fact, shaped by ideological positions.

K Kranthi Kumar, Bengaluru

Manual scavenging inhuman

The apex court's recent remarks on manual scavenging calls for a nationwide debate. Despite judicial intervention, manual scavenging continues to be in practice, a shameful side of India's apathy towards the poor and the downtrodden.

It continues to take its toll, forcing the top court to react angrily. According to a recent report in The Hans India, the Supreme Court asked the Centre why it was not providing them with masks and oxygen cylinders.

The court said in no country were people sent to gas chambers to die. Four to five people are dying due to this every month, a three-judge Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra asked Attorney General KK Venugopal on September 18 this year.

The Constitution of India resolves to secure to all its citizens justice, social, economic and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation.

Towards achieving these goals set out in the Preamble, the Constitution recognises 'Fundamental Rights' of individuals and citizens and 'Directive Principles of State Policy', which are fundamental in governance of the country as the State is under obligation to comply with these principles in making laws. One wonder's what are the governments for?

SNCL Prasad, BHEL, Hyderabad