Bali meeting
If the meeting in Bali last year between the leaders of India and China included “substantial conversation”, as suggested by the Indian and Chinese sides now (Page 1, July 26), it is not clear how and why the details of that all-important conversation were kept under wraps so far. With conflicting versions about the topics of discussion emerging, what really happened is ambiguous.
A. Venkatasubramanian,
Tiruchi, Tamil Nadu
Fisher arrests
The media can have the permanent news headline, “Sri Lankan Navy arrests Indian fishers, seizes boats”, with the number of fishers and boats changed according to the day. Why did India not take up the issue with the Sri Lankan President during his visit to New Delhi? If fishermen from Tamil Nadu are ‘really’ crossing the International Maritime Boundary Line and entering the waters of Sri Lanka, can they not be warned or assisted with the help of technology? The Indian Institutes of Technology can be roped in.
A. Jainulabdeen,
Chennai
Gig workers
The approach of the writers in the article, “Drawn from gig workers’ struggles, hewn in Rajasthan” (Editorial page, July 26), was one-sided. Though the nature of gig workers’ jobs is unregulated and needs to be addressed, it may not be right to squarely blame employers. With the increase in population, job opportunities are shrinking and the day is not far off when unemployment may change the contours of society itself. It is only natural that no employer will be prepared to provide all securities to gig workers, as opposed to permanent workers, fearing legal consequences. If gig workers protest, substitutes are available almost immediately.
V. Lakshmanan,
Tirupur, Tamil Nadu
Portrait of B.R. Ambedkar
It is not clear why an issue is being made by the Madras High Court that the statue of B.R. Ambedkar should be removed and only the portraits of Mahatma Gandhi and Thiruvalluvar be displayed in courts in Tamil Nadu. The Chief Justice of the Madras High Court deserves a compliment for directing that status quo be maintained. Many years ago, the then Chief Justice of the Madras High Court asked some lawyers for their opinion on the unveiling of the statue of Ambedkar, the architect of the Constitution, on the High Court premises. It was put to him that the unveiling of the statue was long overdue. In fact, in a case where disciplinary action was taken against an employee of the State Bank of India for unveiling B.R. Ambedkar’s portrait within the bank premises, in the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of the court that no exception could be taken to installing such portraits. A Government of India circular dated September 8, 2006 was also cited in support of this. Therefore, putting up the portrait of Ambedkar should be treated as a closed issue.
N.G.R. Prasad,
Chennai
