Sunday, August 27, 2000		Feedback

ON the occasion of India’s first Independence Day in the new millennium, Aruti Nayar ("Paradigm shifts", August 13) has described us "as a more confident and vibrant nation entering the 21st century." Well, there is nothing like being an optimist. My observation, however, may appear to some readers too depressing for the Independence Day because it paints the nation’s picture in a language of unrelived gloom by bringing unpleasant realities closer to the public eye. But the importance of the day is not minimised by words of warning. If India is to survive in one piece and preserve its self-respect, it is necessary that those at the helm of affairs should learn to face the truth.

After all, what is there to celebrate? Addition of two more India’s to an India of 330 million people at the time of Independence? Poverty line that is one and a half times higher since Nehru spoke of "our tryst with destiny?" Sidelining merit for education, employment and promotion in our suicidal obsession with reservation? Our 42nd position in terms of skills and 43rd in terms of quality of manpower among 45 developing countries? Individual burden of public debt of about Rs 8000 on every man, woman and child (including 450 million who struggle for a square meal!)? Devaluation of Indian rupee more than 10 times against the US dollar? Safe drinking water, electricity and education for all remaining a pipedream? The mis (deeds) of our worthy political leaders involved en masse in one or the other corruption scam or criminal case? Are not all these ominous signs?

True, freedom has lost its meaning to the common man because for years together political leaders of the country have been guilty of not showing the necessary trust in the nation. Nehru, Patel and Shastri never lowered their ideals. Promotion of self-interest is the only ideal that most politicians today have. With such politicians as are busy feathering their own nests it is hardly surprising that the country is heading towards anarchy.

Each anniversary of our Independence should, therefore, be an occasion — a solemn occasion — for introspection rather than celebration.

K.M. VASHISHT
Mansa

The writer had failed to mention the way the Indian middle class has changed during the last 53 years. I wish to say that we middle class Indians have become master imitators of the Western culture. Our craze for everything foreign has changed our lifestyles and is affecting the psyche of the younger generation. They have started aping the West blindly. Even this would be fine if they also imbibed the positive aspects of the west — work culture and discipline.

O.P. SHARMA
Faridabad

Since Independence our nation has made advances in the fields of science and technology and particularly in information technology, of which we are so proud, to emerge as vibrant nation in the 21st century. However, the reality is something else.

Greater disparity will be triggered by the new technologies which will not only favour the more highly skilled but also depress the wages for the rest. On the whole, an increase in personal wealth will be counter balanced by a deterioration in the quality of life. This is a world-wide phenomenon, it makes no difference whether the country is developed or developing. That is why recently World Bank President and Vice President have warned against a emphasis on growth alone. According to them, achieving rapid growth while relegating a portion of the population to poverty and misery does not represent a sound policy. Improving living standards is essential to achieving sustainable development.

As people, we are not trained to think logically by our readers and have no conception of what makes a nation. We attack negligible value to human lives but still claim to be patriotic.

It is rightly said that the task of nation building requires zeal. To achieve this objective, our nation must strive to generate feelings of awareness among its citizen about its own culture. This is possible only when the political rulers becomes models of integrity and honesty. Until and unless it is not done the development will be meaningless.

P.L. SETHI
Patiala

Suneet Kaur deserves appreciation for introducing Pandita Ramabai to this part of the country in her write-up "She led an exemplary life" (August 6).

But one wonders how Pandita could become a beacon of hope for the women of eighteenth century as the writer says when we know that Pandita was born in 1858, i.e. in the later part of 19th century! Her father’s name was Anant Shastri Dongre, not Dongri as written. She got married to Bipin Bihari Das Medhavi, a friend of her elder brother and an admirer of her’s; not to Bipin Bihar Dass Medhari.

Medhavi was not a Shudra as Ms Kaur has mentioned, but a Kayasth. This castle proceeds from a Kshatriya father and a Shudra mother. Ones caste is determined, according to the Manu Smriti by the caste of the father. The Kayasth caste, is therefore, akin to Kshatriyas and not to Shudras. Swami Vivekanand, too, was born in Kayasth caste.

SURENDRA AJNAT
Banga

The experience Taru Bahl shared in her column Life Ties ("Treasuring the gift of love," August 13) was outstanding. It underscores the fact that a minor difference of opinion can be secretly, delicately and diplomatically handled to form a permanent bond and that too in relationship as brittle as between a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. Further it proves a mother-in-laws’ maturity combined with the daughter-in-laws’ understanding and compatibility on the part of both can help heep confrontation away from our homes for good.

B.M. PURI
Solan