Murky history

Sir - When the United States of America had bombed Hiroshima, Harry S. Truman, who was the president at the time, had said, "The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbour. They have been repaid many fold... If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth." Seventy one years later, on a historic visit to Hiroshima, the incumbent American president, Barack Obama, lamented the fact that mankind possessed the means to destroy itself ("Obama calls for moral revolution", May 28). The difference in the two statements is illuminating. This is the closest that an American president has come to condemning the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It would have been unrealistic to expect a full apology from Obama, given that the presidential candidate for the Republican party, Donald Trump, has publicly criticized Obama for paying a visit to Hiroshima.

Yours faithfully,
S.K. Choudhury,
Bangalore

Sir - Before Barack Obama's visit to Japan's Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park on May 27, his deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, defended the decision to not apologize for the Hiroshima bombing. He wrote, "[Obama] will not revisit the decision to use the atomic bomb at the end of World War II" and added that the US would be "eternally proud" of its civilian leaders and armed forces who served in World War II, as their "cause was just." This is shameful, as nothing can justify the atomic bombings. Obama had declared that America's combat role in Afghanistan and Iraq was over; yet, he continues to send troops to Syria, Iraq and Yemen. He spoke of a world without nuclear weapons, but the US plans to refurbish its nuclear arsenal over the next 30 years.

Obama's visit could have been geared towards building strategic ties with Japan, in order to confront China's rising power in Asia. But it is impossible to forget the devastation that the US had caused in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yours faithfully,
Rudra Sen,
Calcutta

Wrong move

Sir - The former police commissioner of Calcutta, Soumen Mitra, was removed from his post because he obeyed the orders of the Election Commission during the West Bengal assembly elections ("Mamata keeps word: Cops jolted out of 'golden crown dream'", May 22). If police commissioners are transferred for carrying out their duties honestly, then none of them will dare to oppose the ruling party in the future.

Yours faithfully,
Sanjay Kapoor,
Calcutta

Sir - Soumen Mitra's transfer soon after the results of the assembly polls were declared reflects badly on the attitude of the chief minister, Mamata Banerjee. Mitra should not have been punished for doing his duty. Before appointing him as police commissioner, the Election Commission should have considered the fact that Mitra might have to bear the brunt of the chief minister's ire for his honesty. If the future of honest police commissioners is to be protected, they must be freed from the tyranny of the state government.

Yours faithfully,
Shivang Agarwal,
Calcutta

Unhappy people

Sir - It was heartening to see that 8,31,845 people in West Bengal - 1.5 per cent of the electorate - opted for the Nota option in the recently-concluded assembly polls ("Bengal tops in Nota votes", May 20). The number, however, is not significant enough to make political parties take notice of the people's dissatisfaction with their leaders. One hopes that more people will use the Nota option in the future.

Bengal has suffered for far too long under incompetent governments led by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and then by Mamata Banerjee. The latter's victory cannot be attributed to her ability to govern well. She won because voters in Bengal are unwilling to usher in change till matters come to a head. The government's populist policies have ruined the state's economy. Education, industry and law and order have suffered. One wonders about the political wisdom of the people in Bengal, given that they voted a corrupt regime back to power.

Yours faithfully,
Prabir Pal,
Calcutta

Parting shot

Sir - The University Grants Commission has given teachers the option to teach longer hours instead of doing research ("Step down", May 26). Teaching should be geared towards imparting quality education. Longer teaching hours cannot ensure that. In fact, long lectures tire students out. India is already lagging behind in research, but far from encouraging people to do research work, the UGC is giving them a chance to avoid it. The UGC should focus on the work being done by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council and ensure that it funds more research work in colleges.

Yours faithfully,
Tejesh Vyas,
Howrah