Killer sport

Sir — Steve Irwin has left a vacuum in wildlife conservation that cannot be filled easily (“Life of danger, death by sting”, Sept 5). He gave practical lessons about wild animals to millions ignorant and fearful of them. Irwin showed that even the wildest of animals are harmless if handled properly. He was a man who devoted himself wholly to wildlife and did not mind taking great risks for doing what he loved. He also spent most of his earnings on wildlife protection.

Irwin was once criticized for holding his one-month-old son too close to a crocodile while feeding it at the zoo. But he probably did it only to prove that the crocodile was interested in the food offered and not in Irwin or his child. He demonstrated many times that wild animals attack only in self-defence. Ironically, it was this truth about animals that cost him his life.

Yours faithfully,
Govind Das Dujari,
Calcutta

Sir — The untimely demise of the ‘crocodile hunter’, Steve Irwin, is an irreparable loss for the animal world and the cause of conservation. Irwin was a strong and fearless man, with an unflinching determination but a soft corner for everything living on this planet. His intense love for animals and his strong belief in their right to live on earth alongside mankind turned him into a hero among conservationists. He used his popularity to further his cause. It is indeed ironic that he should be felled by a fish. Until his passion for courting the dangerous claimed his life, he had proved that life sans adventure is not worth living.

Yours faithfully,
Shivaji K. Moitra,
Kharagpur

Sir — Steve Irwin’s death, caused by a stingray’s barb, is unfortunate. Especially, since he had the image of an undaunted fighter. His life has always been full of adventure and his intimacy with the animal kingdom, from a tender age, helped his popularity. Irwin was indeed a household name and will be remembered for decades to come. The contention that Irwin would have thumped “his nose at death one more time” had he seen the stingray’s barb coming his way, confirms that Irwin died a heroic death. His fans can only wonder if his little son will follow his father’s footsteps.

Yours faithfully,
T.R. Anand,
Calcutta

Sir — Steve Irwin opened the world’s eyes to the fact that deadly creatures are not bad, but just use survival mechanisms different from ours. Irwin died doing what he loved doing. That, however, does not make it any less painful to those he leaves behind. He lived on a knife-edge each time he faced danger but that is precisely what added to the attraction of his documentaries. Irwin’s legacy is his message about nature’s goodness.

Yours faithfully,
Sukanta Das,
Calcutta

Hands off

Sir — Dipankar Dasgupta claims that growth of manufacture and services is necessary to end unemployment (“Quo vadis West Bengal?”, Sept 4). He also says that current policies of the West Bengal government appear suited to this need. Now, if the Tatas and other corporations need a good place to set up their factory, they should let the principles of the free market work. Government intervention hardly makes sense in this context. If entrepreneurs find any venture profitable, they should be prepared to shell out more money as price for the land and they should negotiate directly with the farmers concerned. And yet, the West Bengal government is acquiring lands for industrialization from the farmers at a low price through force and pressure. Such intervention will prove to be negative for the interests of the state.

Yours faithfully,
A. Dasgupta,
Calcutta

Parting shot

Sir — The editorial, “Harsh choice” (Sept 6), rightly notes that female foeticides are not confined only to rural areas and the economically weaker classes but are also prevalent in urban India and its affluent sections. Although stringent laws exist to deal with the culprits, the crime is performed with great ease. However, foeticide (of both sexes), without proper medical reasons, is a global phenomenon. In these times, when we talk of upholding human values, this utterly deplorable act shows our hypocrisy. Fourteen hundred years ago, the Arabic society was characterized by the same barbarism, that is, killing the girl child to uphold the clan’s pride. But within a short period of time, Arabs had not only stopped killing the girl child but were also seeing to it that she was brought up properly. The reasons for such a drastic change in the Arab society must be discerned. It might help alter the situation in India. We should also find out why the sex ratio is balanced and foeticide is less prevalent among Muslims the world over.

Yours faithfully,
Md. Arif Faridi,
Calcutta