Answer now

Sir — The article, “Kashmir grannies who fear kids’ questions” (July 15), filled me with a sense of shame. The army often rape and plunder civilians to assert its power — it is an ancient practice. The border areas are always a soft target. Since regions like Kashmir, Nagaland and Manipur are often in the news for insurgent activities, the government has to station paramilitary forces in these areas in order to maintain peace. There have been several incidents of assault on women in Kashmir and in certain states of the Northeast by army personnel. Protests had taken place all over the country against these brutal acts. The protesters contended that the army had misused its discretionary powers.

Civilians in Manipur were at the receiving end of army violence in 2000. The Assam Rifles soldiers had gunned down 10 civilians in Malom village in Imphal valley. Thereafter, several activists held protests condemning the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and demanded that this act be repealed. The civil rights activist, Irom Sharmila, has been on a fast-unto-death for more than 12 years demanding that the authorities reconsider their stand on this law. The story of Abdul Ahad Dar of Kunan-Poshpora has once again stirred the hornet’s nest.On the night of February 23, 1991, some Indian army personnel allegedly raped several women in the adjoining villages of Kunan and Poshpora after they had brought the men out of their houses on the pretext of an identification parade.

The government dismissed the rape charges, and the Press Council of India said that the matter was a “massive hoax orchestrated by militant groups and their sympathisers”. The only way to ensure a transparent investigation is to let an independent human rights organization conduct a serious probe into the matter. Such allegations tarnish the image of the Indian army. Moreover, one cannot hope for peace in the valley if these questions remain unanswered.

Yours faithfully,
Prabhakar Bhattacharya,
Ichapore, North 24 Parganas

A correction

Sir — There has been a glaring error in the caption of one of the pictures in the series titled “Singur votes: What happened and what the rules say” published in The Telegraph (July 16). The fifth picture (clockwise from top left) shows a physically challenged woman being carried out of a polling booth by two men. What the caption says about the Election Commission’s “Rule” in this regard is wrong.

According to The Telegraph, the “Rule” says: “Physically-challenged voters have to be accompanied by blood relations... [who]... can accompany the voter to the booth... with the permission of the presiding officer. Such voters indicate the symbol so relatives can cast the votes on behalf of them.” That is incorrect, and I know this since I have been the presiding officer thrice before and will again be this time in the panchayat polls.

During our training sessions, we have been clearly notified that “Any person who has attained the age of adult franchise, and is a voter in the same booth as that of the physically challenged person, can accompany him/her to enable the physically challenged person to cast his/her vote.” Even the handbook for presiding officers of panchayat elections provided by the West Bengal State Election Commission directs the presiding officer thus in Chapter XVIII, Section 1.1: a blind/infirm/physically challenged voter can “take with him/her a companion of not less than 18 years of age to the voting compartment for recording the vote on his/her behalf... (and) only a person whose name is recorded in the electoral roll of your polling station shall be eligible to act as such a companion.”

The Election Commission does not say that “[p]hysically-challenged voters have to be accompanied by blood relations”. Such wrong information has a very telling effect on presiding officers like us since people often quote the erroneous reports printed by the media, even in polling booths, to have their way.

Yours faithfully,
Tuhin Sanyal, Barrackpore

Grand spectacle

Sir — That good old Test cricket is alive and kicking is evident from the way the first encounter between England and Australia panned out at the beginning of the 2013 Ashes series. It was a breathtaking spectacle which can easily be compared to a well-scripted movie (“Test hears flutter of a phoenix in Ashes”, July 15). It was a delight to watch the innings played by the Australian debutant, Ashton Agar. The innings was replete with drama, owing to the TV umpire’s dubious decision and the non-reliability of the decision review system. This technology has complicated the game. Australia should take heart because they went down fighting. But they have to improve their game, especially the batting in the upper order.

Yours faithfully,
Ranesh Chandra Dey,
Calcutta