Precious space

Sir — As a regular contributor to the ‘Letters to the Editor’ section in various newspapers, I was delighted to read that two women in the United States of America became friends and then fell in love after reading each other’s letters on the same subject in The New York Times. As many newspapers do away with this section — who needs to express oneself in a letter where language must be tempered and facts upheld when one can just scream untruths on Twitter? — one cannot help but mourn the loss of a segment where all readers share an equal footing. This space holds the rhythm of debate, the comfort of reasoned argument, and, on rare occasions, the spark of romance. To discard it is to erase one of the last places where the sane voices of the masses can be heard.

G. David Milton,
Maruthancode, Tamil Nadu

Diversionary tactic

Sir — The press conference of the Election Commission of India revealed as much as it concealed (“Election omission”, Aug 18). The chief election commissioner declared the EC’s neutrality but spent most of the time issuing challenges to political parties and politicians rather than addressing concerns of disenfranchisement in Bihar. He said the EC does not differentiate between the government and the Opposition and, yet, he did not have a convincing answer about why he was asking Rahul Gandhi to submit an affidavit but not Anurag Thakur.

A constitutional body must answer questions posed to it directly. The refusal to even acknowledge the leader of Opposition by name was petty. Institutions must behave with dignity if they expect respect. The EC must answer questions at once.

Niamul Hossain Mallick,
East Burdwan

Sir — The EC’s warning that politicians should swear affidavits or apologise if they cannot prove allegations is troubling. Accountability in a democracy is not built on intimidation. The electoral rolls are prepared by the EC. It is thus the EC’s responsibility to clarify discrepancies. The apex electoral body cannot expect to win back people’s trust by issuing threats.

R.S. Narula,
Patiala

Sir — The EC’s refusal to take Rahul Gandhi’s name while simultaneously addressing his accusations was unbecoming of a constitutional authority. A body that prides itself on independence should not indulge in theatrics. The leader of Opposition represents millions of citizens and disrespect towards him translates to disregard for those citizens. By avoiding names and ducking direct questions, the EC appeared thin-skinned. A confident umpire does not shy from scrutiny. Respect is not optional when speaking of the Opposition in a democracy.

Manoj Parashar,
Ghaziabad

Sir — There is something farcical about a constitutional body pretending it does not know the name of the man leading the Opposition. Rahul Gandhi is not an unnamed ‘someone’ floating in the ether. He represents millions of Indians. If the EC cannot bring itself to utter his name, what hope is there for honest debate? The EC should leave such chicanery to politicians and focus on its mandate.

M. Pradyu,
Kannur, Kerala

Sir — The EC seems to have discovered a new tactic: shifting the blame. Parties must prove everything, voters must explain themselves, while the EC sits back and scolds everyone who questions it. Someone should remind the EC that it is meant to be facilitating elections not a rousing match of kabaddi.

Mohammad Asad,
Mumbai

New light

Sir — A study by the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur has linked brighter, wealthier neighbourhoods to higher crime rates. A 1% rise in inequality is associated with a 0.5% increase in offences — this is not a trivial matter. Crime is clearly shaped by the social and economic environment. Urban planning and policing cannot ignore these disparities. Public policy must focus on reducing inequalities rather than only chasing offenders. Better conviction rates may help, but durable solutions lie in addressing the stark divisions that are visible even from space.

P. Victor Selvaraj,
Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu

Sir — The finding by IIT Kharagpur that Delhi tops the charts for crime while Calcutta remains near the bottom is not as straightforward as it seems. It is not so much the result of policing styles and conviction rates as it is economic inequality. Data from 49 cities cannot be brushed aside as academic speculation. India must see crime not simply as a matter of policing but as an indicator of fractured growth.

Sourav Ash,
Calcutta

Biased conduct

Sir — Even though he has now been given bail, the arrest of Hindol Mazumdar, a former student of Jadavpur University who is now a PhD student in Spain, raises serious questions (“Cops: Bratya JU attack plotted from Spain”, Aug 17). Police allege his role in the attack on the Trinamool Congress minister, Bratya Basu, at Jadavpur University even though records show he was not in India at the time. To compare a meritorious student to a terrorist like Aftab Ansari undermines the police’s credibility. Arrests must be grounded in evidence. Otherwise, cases appear politically motivated and risk eroding trust in institutions.

Aranya Sanyal,
Calcutta

Sir — A young scholar returning home for holidays is met not by his family but with handcuffs by the police. The allegation that he orchestrated a campus protest from Spain would be comical if it were not tragic. When even the ruling party’s teachers’ body claims it did not know of the minister’s visit how could a student overseas have planned the event? The eagerness to prosecute Mazumdar while the minister’s car running over a student remains unresolved tells its own story. Citizens are not blind.

Sukhendu Bhattacharjee,
Calcutta