Shaky terrain
Sir — The visit of the president of the United States of America, Donald Trump, to the United Nations will be remembered not for diplomacy but for an escalator that stopped and a teleprompter that refused to cooperate. The White House quickly suggested foul play, as though the UN had nothing more pressing on its hands than plot to turn off an escalator. A UN spokesman later explained that a safety mechanism was triggered, which is less thrilling but far more believable. If global diplomacy can be
derailed by an escalator, the world is indeed on shaky terrain.
Annesha Ghosh,
Calcutta
Bitter pill
Sir — The United States of America has imposed a 100% tariff on branded and patented pharmaceutical imports from October 1 unless firms build US plants. That decision has both an upside and a downside. On the one hand, it might nudge global pharma firms to localise production, reducing supply chain risk and creating jobs in the US. On the other, it risks disrupting access to affordable medicines. Policymakers must thus push for clearer rules and fair transition.
Bidyut Kumar Chatterjee,
Faridabad
Sir — India’s export strength lies in generic medicine and off-patent drugs so the immediate impact of the US tariff may be limited. The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance asserts that the move does not apply to generics. That said, many Indian firms are inching into biosimilars, specialty drugs and branded generics — sectors where the tariff could bite. India’s strategy must emphasise careful entry into higher-value pharmaceutical segments while closely monitoring US classification.
Shreshtha Ghosh,
Calcutta
Sir — The new US tariffs on pharmaceutical products could inconvenience US patients who rely on affordable Indian drugs. Indian manufacturers supply medicines for hypertension, pain relief and chronic conditions; abrupt disruption could raise costs or create shortages. Some Indian firms have warned they may halt supplies rather than absorb losses. The choice is between global health equity and national economic priorities.
Dimple Wadhawan,
Kanpur
Unfair ban
Sir — The Uttar Pradesh government has banned public display of caste-based signs at rallies, citing the risk of conflict. The concern over caste identifiers on cars, homes and social media reels is valid as these often glorify aggression and entrench hierarchy. However, banning political caste assertion altogether is simplistic. Marginalised groups use symbols to claim visibility in spaces where they have long been excluded. The directive risks erasing their struggles while leaving intact subtle and insidious caste privilege. What is needed is regulation targeted at intimidation, not a sweeping prohibition.
Sourav Ash,
Calcutta
Sir — The Allahabad High Court was right to direct police not to disclose caste in records except under the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Such disclosure is unnecessary and prejudicial. The Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to extend this approach into public spaces, however, conflates harmful glorification with legitimate mobilisation. For Dalits and backward groups, caste-based assertion remains a counter to historical invisibility. Treating all caste displays as equally regressive ignores the sharp imbalance of power. The state must distinguish between intimidation and empowerment rather than deploy a one-size-fits-all ban.
Raaes Haneef,
Mumbai
Sir — Caste continues to shape politics, access and opportunity. Uttar Pradesh’s ban on caste displays presumes a society beyond discrimination, which is far from the reality.
Zakir Hussain,
Kazipet, Telangana