Heed the message

Sir — Public servants have a lot to learn from Gopalkrishna Gandhi’s action at the 15th convocation of Bidhan Chandra Krishi Vishwavidyalaya (“Governor shuns guard of honour”, April 6). While men at the top are pampered at the state’s expense, the Raj Bhavan’s plain-speak to the convocation authorities was striking. The university was also sensible in restraining its zeal. However, the Nadia district magistrate, who chose not to heed Gandhi’s suggestion — that he had better attend to his official matters — and stayed through the governor’s speech, clearly did not get Gandhi’s message.

Yours faithfully,
Surajit Das, Calcutta

Facts please

Sir — Abhirup Sarkar has rightly observed that for communists, “ends do justify the means”, given their Stalinist tradition of thought (“Means and ends”, April 3). Stalin’s massacre of farmers and the destruction of their crops to impose collective farming on them comprise one of the bloodiest chapters of 20th-century history. Regardless of the economic ideal they champion, Stalin’s Indian inheritors still subscribe to such high-handedness. The erstwhile Soviet state specialized in gagging the dissident voice. Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee’s attempts at industrialization may smack of a different economic system, but the coercive political tool employed by his administration is a reminder of the brutal Soviet regime. The east Asian model of industrialization, as Sarkar rightly points out, is undemocratic and better suited to authoritarian states. Thankfully, other than West Bengal, the communists have little influence over the rest of India.

Yours faithfully,
A.C. Banerjee, Calcutta

Sir — Abhirup Sarkar’s article falls short of a convincing argument to support his assertion that the east Asian developmental model will not work for Bengal. Sarkar is not at all clear on whether he is trying to make a moral or a practical case. One might ask what practical alternative to the east Asian model he has in mind. His example from the 17th century is too dated. But, as an archetypal economist, Sarkar bases his theory on a historical abstraction, with which he tries to explain the future. He should take up more recent models of development from other parts of India. The best that Sarkar can offer is: “A slower but much surer way is to attract the investors by building up good infrastructure and ensuring labour-market harmony.” An economist is expected to have more concrete suggestions — discussing the real challenges, alternative solutions, execution plans and probable costs. This is not to say that repression and coercion are valid means. Sarkar has every right to criticize the east Asian model. But without proposing an alternative, he will only swell the ranks of naysayers.

Yours faithfully,
J. Mukherjee, Washington DC

Parting shot

Sir — Perhaps it is time we stopped talking and writing about cricket. The sport is no more than a colonial hangover, loved only in a few former British colonies. Cricket-lovers in India are not crazy about Ranji Trophy matches, after all. Few are interested in matches that do not involve their own country. However, many of them would stay up till the early hours of the morning to watch, say, a Real Madrid-Barcelona match, or one between Brazil and Argentina. While in the subcontinent, cricket means big money and corruption, the game is fast dying out in the Caribbean. The English have lost interest in it long back. Except Australia, not too many countries good at other sports are obsessed with cricket. Indians — particularly our media — too, had better learn to ignore cricket and cricketers.

Yours faithfully,
Sourabh Datta Gupta, Calcutta