Thanks for a great science special (July 18). Hope we get to see such an issue every three to four months.
Kurian Zacharia, Mumbai
The fanciful ideas mentioned in Mars Attacked ignore one crucial fact—that one will need huge amounts of energy to create a Martian habitat or underground cities. All industrial activity depends on easy availability of non-renewable energy, specifically, petroleum. Remove that, and human innovation would remain on paper. History will judge the current era as one that saw the biggest misallocation of scientific-economic resources. Instead of understanding the exhaustible nature of our energy sources and preparing for its eventual depletion, industrial civilisation merrily makes plans for outlandish, non-essential appendages to an already energy-intensive way of life. The end of cheap, easily available oil is around the corner, and when that happens, civilisation will be on its knees. The need thus is to invest in alternative energy sources—wind, solar, hydrogen etc—on a war footing; divert funds from stupid sci-fi schemes of colonising planets and pour resources to secure a new, clean, renewable energy source for the world.
Bhaskar Hazarika, on e-mail
Marathi daily Maharashtra Times recently featured Shailendra Kandpile from Panvel who has generated electricity by using the gush of water coming out of pumps. He wants all farmers to use this idea. Maybe you could elaborate on his innovation sometime in your regular Outlook issue.
Rohit Gokhale, Mumbai
In his opinion piece Potter’s Wheel, Anil K. Gupta says nif scouted 50,000 innovations and traditional knowledge. How many of these will see the light of day? R.A. Mashelkar (Give Me an Idea), on the other hand, says that "out of 3,000 raw ideas, 300 were submitted leading to four major developments and one success!" If we go by this, nif can at the most hope for 17 innovations to succeed! Most of the ideas nif awards are impracticable. Like the Rs 25,000 prize for spectacles that had solar cells and battery in the frame useful for reading during flights without disturbing the neighbour. The best way to foster innovations in the country is to ask people to send in problems, shortlist 10 of them and seek solutions for them from the public via ads in newspapers. The best solutions can be given cash prizes.
Dr A. Jagadeesh, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh
President Abdul Kalam’s wishlist (India in 2020) can certainly be converted to reality if our rulers could practise honesty, integrity and genuine love for the nation than for their own party. Most of our political leaders work for self-aggrandisement and building assets for their future generations. Dr Mashelkar’s article is also an eye-opener; it says what we lack and what we need to do to push the innovative urge to achieve progress.
Taranath Kalbag, Mumbai
The constraints of the office of the President may be precluding the scientist in Kalam saab from making his wishlist a reality. If, however, he were to make bringing about homogeneity out of heterogeneity in our polity his main theme, he shall have turned current constraints into instruments to further his vision.
Vinayak D. Phadke, New Delhi
Thanks for giving us an issue that had some ‘science’ in it rather than routine issues with tiresome politics.
Dr (Lt Col) Y.N.I. Anand, Mysore
When the UK blindly supported the US in its blatant attack on Iraq, it did not hear the screams of the innocent Iraqis (London 7/7, July 18). When Abu Ghraib happened, it did not feel ashamed. Now that it has suffered its own loss, Tony Blair is feeling the heat.
Aniket Singh, Ambala Cantt, Haryana
The London attacks are a continuation of the terror unleashed on innocent civilians in open, liberal, democratic societies. If state-sponsored anti-terrorism is the price we have to pay, so be it. If our freedoms, liberty and openness are to be constrained, so be it. But governments can’t sit back and allow these terrorists a free run, however small or misguided they may be. Also, clerics and mullahs issue fatwas at anything slightly ‘anti-Islamic’. Why can’t they do so against these terrorists, pronouncing their acts un-Islamic?
H.N. Ramakrishna, Bangalore
Tony Blair is telling a dirty lie when he says the perpetrators of the London bombings "acted in the name of Islam". Do Bush and Blair "act in the name of Christianity" when they commit far worse crimes?
Rizwan Hussain, Chennai
Having visited London a month ago, the recent bomb blasts have got me quite worried about the brunt innocent Muslims will face as an aftermath (Wait for the Ricochet, July 25). Anyone who’s ever visited London must not have failed to notice the cultural diversity in its residents. The thing that struck me most was the active participation of the Muslim women in the mainstream while observing the tenets of their faith. I do sincerely hope that cowardly acts such as these do not fill people’s minds with hate, revenge and prejudice against the community in question. The culprits seem to act in the name of Islam, but fail to realise that Islam shuns acts of violence against the innocent.
Bushra Azmi, Mumbai
The Ayodhya attack (Blast From the Past, July 18) should be condemned in the strongest possible manner because it was an attempt to destroy the general atmosphere of peace and harmony. It’s amazing how armed terrorists managed to breach this high-security area. This lapse apart, fascist forces should not be allowed now to politicise the tragedy. The only effective way to counter terror is to hit those spreading it so hard that they cannot recoup ever. Gandhian non-violence won’t work against terrorism any more.
Abdullah Khan, Aligarh, UP
The cold-blooded attack on the Ayodhya site is condemnable. Whoever’s behind the attack does not have any justification whatsoever for doing so. No school of thought permits such heinous and blasphemous crimes. If reports that militant outfits from Pakistan are behind it are true, they need to be met head-on. Islam is a religion of peace, not of war and violence, and it doesn’t give a blank cheque to any fanatic to indulge in mindless violence.
Syed Zafar Mehdi, Srinagar
The bjp should not have resorted to a bandh to protest the Ayodhya attacks. Bandhs only affect the common man, not the powers that be. Had it instead used the media and other avenues to rationally explain why the Centre and state were responsible for the attack, thereby maintaining a passive aggressive response, it would have found better support. Not that the general public approved of the attacks or the upa’s response to it. But unlike the bjp, it’s smarter. Come elections and it’ll strike in a manner which will hit the upa where it hurts the most.
Navdeep Hans, New Delhi
The difference in response to the terrorist attacks in London and Ayodhya was glaring (The Bomb in our Minds, July 18). While the government and the opposition were united in the UK against the attacks, the opposition parties in India waited for an opportunity to start a blame game.
Thomas Verghese, on e-mail
The terrorist attack in Ayodhya was no doubt a dastardly act. But the way some politicians in India reacted to it must also be condemned. They couldn’t have acted more irresponsibly, trying to make cheap gains out of an unfortunate incident.
Manu Varghese, on e-mail
Injustice prevailing in towns such as the one Imrana lives in is disturbing (Imrana: Her Story, July 18). With an elected government in place and the identity of the culprit established, the administration should take action by upholding the law of the land and driving home the message that no other law can possibly supersede it. The media too should turn the heat on the incestuous offender and the system he takes cover from.
Anand Srinivasan, Bangalore
This is an appalling yet true state of affairs for the majority of women in India. Support should be shown for the protest against such injustice. Women need to start from their own homes and spread the word to others who can benefit from their knowledge. Breaking barriers is never easy but persistence and determination based on self-respect and awareness can help us make a better society for our daughters.
Anisha, Addison, US
Imrana is silent, her tears dried up in deep anguish and sorrow, but she ironically bowed to the aimplb decision, intimidated by her own community. It’s a pity the atomic age should endure such evil practices in the name of religion without a cure.
R.R. Sami, Tiruvannamalai
I was pleasantly surprised to read Prem Shankar Jha’s shopping list with price tags (India Shining, Act II, July 11) when he himself appears so troubled with the demand list of the Left. Probably he means we can all wear a Louis Vuitton shoe if we sell off our profit-making enterprises, privatise our rivers, sell our banks, allow only private schools, hire and fire our job-holders and build flyovers instead of subsidies for farmers. The one-eyed person riding the Rolls Royce is happy driving himself to the precipice but an old and bankrupt party blocks his way. Mr Jha has to accept that the ideals of the Left, however unpalatable, are needed for a course correction for this great nation. In a country with 100 million farmers, the scope for an alternative view is tremendous and it is clear that the Left needs to be heard. Fortunately the Congress-led upa understands that. We need to evolve our own system and keeping the values of socialism would be a good way to start. I judge Jha’s views as reactionary.
Dr Aniruddha Dam, Calcutta
I have a suggestion to make odis even more interesting for the consideration of the Sunil Gavaskar committee (New Laces for the Pyjamas, July 11). Split 100 overs into four sessions. Team A wins the toss and decides to bat or field. Depending on the decision, the other team takes over the second 25 overs after a quick first quarter. After the normal lunch break, the next 50 overs are repeated. This system would reduce the effect on the ultimate result since in today’s format, winning the toss has become a major influence in the final result. The new suggestions—substitution and field restrictions—being currently experimented can continue in the above format with suitable modifications.
Titto S. Biddapa, Bangalore
Thanks Inder. I stand corrected about Indira Gandhi not being the first female PM of a democratically elected government (Books, July 4). That honour belongs to Mrs S. Bandaranaike. I had meant to say "India’s first and only etc etc". Gosh, Inder (M not B). I wish I had you as my editor all over again!
Inderjit Badhwar, on e-mail
