|
|
|
|
|
Don’t live-in
It is shocking that a newspaper like yours chose to publish “Live and Let Live-in” (January 29) by Shoma Chatterji. Live-in relationships are unacceptable and the article does great disservice by seeking to justify such relationships by citing the imaginary story of Adam and Eve. Undue publicity to the trend and publishing almost pornographic pictures would have disappointed a large section of the readers. Anand Prakash,
Panchkula
Irreversible trend
In “Live and Let Live-in” ( January 29) , Shoma Chatterji has correctly observed that live-in relationships no longer raise eyebrows. Films may have played a role in promoting such relationships but at the same time, such relationships have become popular because increasingly young men and women are pursuing careers away from home and prefer more than a nodding acquaintance with partners with whom they decide to live. Some of these relationships do end up in marriages while in others, partners are disillusioned and renew their search for Mr or Ms Right. Dr Puran Singh,
Nilokheri
Still illegitimate
The Supreme Court of India may have ‘legitimised’ live-in relationships but the context was different. The idea was to protect the rights of children born out of such relationships. But surely that cannot be construed as a green signal or approval to live-in relationships. In India, marriages take place between families unlike in the West. Both the bride and the groom are expected to take care of the in-laws. But live-in relationships reduce all such commitment to a farce. Elderly couples, deserted by their children, may opt for such relationships for companionship but is it really beneficial to society ? Mahesh Kumar,
Via e-mail
|
|
|
Sikh Regiment Appropos ‘Legacy of valour’ (Spectrum, January 29), it was inspiring to read the glorious history of the Sikh regiment. The book has been in the making for the last 25 years, I believe. A few details about the painstaking work done by people would have been relevant. You are requested to carry more excerpts from the book. Gurpratap Singh, Via e-mail Role reversal This refers to the review of the book, “Khalistan Struggle: a non-movement” (Spectrum, January 29). The author seems to lament when he writes that the struggle remained a non-movement in the absence of a unified command structure and lack of mass support. He further writes that while the use of the Darbar Sahib complex by militants was not justified, the armed forces had desecrated the shrine. It would be more realistic to interchange the words and say that while the militants desecrated the shrine, the action by the armed forces was not justified. Wg Cdr CL Sehgal (Rtd), Jalandhar A fuss for nothing Appropos “Fuss over fiction” ( Perspective, January 29), there is nothing in ‘Satanic Verses’ really, which should have led to a ban or even an uproar. Most readers in India, I suspect, would have found it difficult to follow in the first place. The style was such that the common reader would have found it difficult to retain interest. Punjabi words in Roman script would have made even less sense to many of them. The ban and the fuss made over Rushdie’s appearance at the Jaipur Literary Festival are, at best, entertaining. Amar Jeet Singh Sandhu, Patiala
|
|||
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
