Small’s beautiful

Sir — Researchers have found that octopuses divide up tasks among their arms, with the front ones playing diplomat and the back ones doing the heavy lifting. The finding is amusing, but it also hints at something larger. Intelligence does not always need a central command; sometimes it thrives when parts work semi-independently. That is a lesson for robotics as much as it is for politics, classrooms, and even households. Not everything must answer to one bossy head. The octopus suggests that adaptability comes from trust in smaller units doing their bit, while the whole moves forward in a sort of organised chaos.

A.K. Sen, Calcutta

Strike a balance

Sir — The resignation of Jerry Greenfield, one of the founders of the ice-cream brand, Ben & Jerry’s, over Unilever’s interference in its company values raises difficult questions about corporate culture (“Cool with a conscience”, Sept 20). On the one hand, the founders’ insistence that businesses should answer for more than profit reaffirms the possibility of ethical enterprise. Greenfield’s claim that a merger agreement promised autonomy for social activism seems credible given the firm’s public record. But there is a counter-argument. Companies operate under legal and financial constraints; parent firms must consider shareholders, reputational risk, and regulatory environments. If activism threatens financial stability, then some restriction might be inevitable. What this really means is the promise of value-based business demands constant vigilance.

Zakir Hussain,
Kazipet, Telangana

Sir — Business can pursue social goals and not solely maximise profits — Ben & Jerry’s built a brand around that idea. Jerry Greenfield’s decision to resign because the company has been “silenced” by Unilever makes clear that values matter deeply to founders and customers. Yet investors might argue that too strong a focus on activism can alienate parts of the market or invite political backlash. If doing good costs too much or threatens survival, then even well-intended enterprises may compromise. The tension between mission and margin is real. Balance is hard to maintain but essential for long-term credibility.

S.S. Paul,
Calcutta

Political failure

Sir — Uttarakhand turns twenty-five amid deep unease (“Development’s curse” Sept 20). The hope that statehood would bring responsive governance has not been realised. Education, health and women’s safety remain neglected while forests and rivers are sacrificed in the name of development. The proposed elevated corridor over the Rispana and Bindal rivers shows disregard for ecological science. Citizens have reason to feel betrayed when their concerns are dismissed as obstacles to progress. Governments must remember that survival in the fragile Himalaya depends on protecting nature, not bulldozing it. A different vision of development is urgently required.

R.S. Narula,
Patiala

Sir — The record of both the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party governments in Uttarakhand is disappointing. Instead of improving schools, hospitals and employment opportunities, energy has been spent on cosmetic projects and religious polarisation. Roads and dams are pursued as symbols of modernity despite repeated evidence of landslides and flash floods. Political leaders describe such tragedies as natural disasters but they are caused by deforested slopes and blocked river channels. The toll of human lives in these so-called natural disasters is growing because reckless construction weakens already vulnerable terrain. Those who profit from contracts remain insulated while villagers lose homes and livelihoods. Accountability cannot be delayed. Policy must focus on human welfare, not political spectacle.

Sandeep Rawat,
Chandigarh