Letters

Letters to the Editor dated December 13, 2019

| Updated on December 12, 2019 Published on December 12, 2019

Data privacy

Apropos the editorial ‘Surveillance State’ (December 12). The Personal Data Protection Bill does prevent the misuse of personal data by profiteers. Nevertheless, punishing the State or Centre if they misuse data would be welcome. The proposed law empowers the Centre to exempt itself from the provisions of the law.

This may lead to unscrupulous spyware attack and snooping for political milieu. Even though importance is accorded for user consent in transferring sensitive data outside India, the efficacy depends upon a right, balanced implementation of the law.

NR Nagarajan

Sivakasi

Deferring blame

This refers to ‘Anaj Mandi fire exposes infrastructure challenges’ (December 12). Truly speaking, words fails to express grief over the unfortunate and untimely deaths at Anaj Mandi. As revealed in this report, this ill-fated residential building, which was being used for manufacturing products, did not have a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Fire Department, which is sadly common in many cases.

While many Samaritans came to the rescue of the fire victims in the given situation, the narrow approach road/streets reportedly prevented around 30 fire tenders from reaching the affected building and dousing the fire in time. But amidst such a grave tragedy, some dirty politics too entered the fray.

What else could explain the Delhi’s BJP Chief Manoj Tiwari publicly alleging that this building belonged to an AAP supporter? What did he want to prove by making such claims? Does the assumed fact that the building’s owner was an Arvind Kejriwal’s ‘follower’ have anything to do with this ghastly fire incident?

SK Gupta

New Delhi

Unconstitutional move

The new citizenship law holds the mirror to the face of today’s India. It is not an overstatement to say that it is premised on the Orwellian notion that ‘some people are more equal than others’. But, it goes against the principle of equality unambiguously affirmed in the Constitution and sits ill with Article 14.

Parliamentary majority is no licence to make laws in contravention of the Constitution. Phrases such as ‘reasonable classification’ and ‘intelligible differentia’ cannot rationalise a blatantly discriminatory law.

To our profound sadness, the new law shakes the foundations of India as a secular democracy, negates everything that the Independence movement stood for and cheats the ideals propounded by the founding fathers. Sad to say, the wider society does not oppose the law passionately, but leaves it to those who would be directly affected to protest.

G David Milton

Maruthancode, TN

Religious division

The Citizenship Ammendment Bill (CAB) is a wrong decision. People of all religions and communities have lived in India since years. Then why this differentiation now? Why are our political parties always trying to divide India on the basis of religion? Our Constitution does not discriminate people on religious grounds.

Ours is a secular country and one should not bring religion into the picture for granting citizenship. Civil society should oppose the bill.

Jubel D’Cruz

Mumbai

Migrant rehabilitation

After passing of Citizenship Amendment Bill by both Houses of the Parliament, the Union ministries should direct PSUs to utilise the available CSR funds for comfortable living and rehabilitation of Hindu migrants from Pakistan and other countries.

Religious bodies and NGOs should also take appropriate steps to help these refugees.

However, the Central government should simultaneously take steps to ensure that the passing of the CAB does not result in large-scale fleeing of Hindus from Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Subhash Chandra Agrawal

New Delhi

Published on December 12, 2019
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor