People must reject Amit Shah’s third-rate politics

This refers to the article ‘How does one deal with a Shakuni in these days of vote-chori?’(THI Aug 26). The Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s personal attack on the integrity of a retired Supreme Court judge and now a Vice-Presidential candidate Justice B. Sudarshan Reddy exposes the immaturity of his thoughts. In any democratic country, the Home Minister is expected to uphold the highest moral standards, and his conduct must remain above political rivalry.

It is unfortunate that the ruling party’s Home Minister has expressed such a childish and dangerous view about Justice Reddy. He seems to have forgotten basic ethics, choosing instead to look through a narrow lens to gain political mileage in this Vice-Presidential election. Democracy thrives in an atmosphere of truthfulness, not in an environment where misinformation and disinformation are deliberately spread. By resorting to this kind of petty politics, Shah is leading people towards moral degradation. Citizens must be aware of such dirty tactics and reject this third-rate politics.

Dr Jitesh Mori, Kutch-370645

Politically correct but morally wrong

Union Home Minister Amit Shah has accused Justice B Sudarshan Reddy, now a candidate in the elections for the Vice-President, of favouring Naxalism in the Salwa Judum case. This remark has apparently been taken very seriously by a multitude of judges.

Around 18 retired judges expressed in writing that such aspersions on a judge of the stature of Justice Reddy are like inducing a chilling effect on judiciary. Shah has the moral responsibility of maintaining law and order in the nation but his political speeches hitting at the sincerity of a former judge will only jeopardise people’s trust and respect for judiciary.

P R Ravinder, Hyderabad.

Changes to OPT is ill-advised

This is in response to the August 25 article “Indian students hardest hit by F1 visa shake-up. The proposed changes to Optional Practical Training (OPT) are a matter of deep concern, especially for Indian students who constitute one of the largest groups of STEM graduates in the United States. For many international students, OPT is not a luxury but a necessity.

It offers them their only chance to gain practical work experience in the US, which is crucial for global employability. Families invest ₹50–70 lakh or more in American education with the expectation that students will recover this cost through valuable work exposure. If OPT is dismantled, returns on such heavy investment would diminish sharply and thereby discourage future enrolments. The impact would not be limited to students alone. US universities, which collectively benefit from the $40 billion contributed by international students, would lose a major recruitment advantage.

Countries like Canada, the UK, and Australia—with friendlier post-study work policies—stand ready to attract this displaced talent. It is vital for policymakers to recognize that restricting OPT could weaken the US higher education system and its position as a global hub for innovation. A balanced approach that safeguards opportunities for international students and addresses domestic concerns is the need of the hour.

Yashasvi M, St Francis College for Women