Opinion - Letters to the Editor   

Centre's stand

The refusal of the UPA Government to furnish to the Nanavati-Shah panel a copy of the correspondence between former President K.R. Narayanan and then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee during the Gujarat riots is intriguing. It strangely coincides with the coming into force of the Right to Information Act. What is more strange is the Government's position that no one will be permitted to produce the document or give evidence on the basis of the correspondence under Section 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. Was the former President aware of this possibility before he disclosed that there was a communication?

S. Sundararaman,
Bangalore

The Centre's decision is shocking and shameful. Its stand is the first violation of the Right to Information Act. Will it reconsider its decision in the larger interest of the victims of the riots and the nation?

H. Abdur Raqeeb,
Chennai

The Government's stand may be technically correct. But in rare circumstances such as the Gujarat riots, there is need to look beyond technical aspects. The Centre should have released the letter written by the President, since Mr. Narayanan himself has disclosed that he wrote to Mr. Vajpayee.

K. Ganesh,
Madurai, T.N.

The Centre's refusal deals a shattering blow to the basic tenet that has set the UPA apart from the NDA in the eyes of the people — secularism. Mr. Narayanan himself has disclosed that he expressed his concern to Mr. Vajpayee over the delay in deploying the Army to control the post-Godhra violence. Far from causing "injury to public cause," the disclosure would have only served a public cause by exposing the communal forces that were responsible for aggravating the situation created by the Godhra train tragedy.

The Government's move will certainly make the people wonder whether dislodging the NDA and putting the UPA in its place was worthwhile.

G. Radhakrishnan,
Thiruvananthapuram

The decision is correct. The issue brings to the fore the dangers of retired constitutional heads openly talking on matters that have the potential to create confusion and uncertainty.

S. Raghavan,
New Delhi

The Centre's decision is prudent. Just as freedom does not mean absolute freedom, the right to information too is not absolute.

The Government is well within its rights not to reveal vital information in the overall interest of the nation.

Seshagiri Row Karry,
Hyderabad

Are we becoming a closed society the world over? Our Government does not furnish a crucial piece of correspondence citing `injury to public cause.' In the U.K., the Government effectively bans the publication of a book on the Iraq war by one of the principals involved — former Ambassador to the U.N., Sir Jeremy Greenstock.

At this rate, governments can do away with the practice of instituting independent commissions of inquiry and ban the media from publishing reports on incendiary riots, their brutal handling or mismanaged disasters. The people's right to know can be sacrificed at the altar of some perceived harm to the public cause.

S.P. Sundaram,
Chennai

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Making speed with broadband
Premium on preventive measures
School reform: learning from Iqbal
Bird flu: how far and fast can it spread?
Public figures and private lives
Election Commission must be a fair umpire
Centre's stand
Apt cartoon
Laudable
BJP victory
AMU ruling
Voice of majority

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu