Irrespective of what your writers had to say on Indian elections (May 2009), the fact is that this time around the  Indian electorate has delivered an exceptional verdict. It is a verdict that  has come from people's heart. It is also a verdict that has sidelined Hindu chauvinism, the outdated Communists, religious and divisive agendas of all politicians and the likes of Jayalalitha who tried to whip up Tamil sentiments but failed.

The people who were voted in were those who talked sense, spoke on development and progress and who had an inclusive agenda. In the process good people like Manmohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi and Nitish Kumar got a resounding mandate.

The Hindu nationalist BJP had tried   its best to mislead people by portraying Congress as a weak party and Manmohan Singh as a weak leader. But the people could clearly see through the BJP's act and refused to buy its poll gimmicks. It is time this party learnt its lessons. A majority of Indians are no longer interested in Ram mandir or Babri masjid. They want money in their pockets, they want jobs for their  children and they want water, electricity and roads. The middle class also wants good houses, cars, air conditioners, televisions and computers and they   want choices in all these goods. It is time for political parties to wake up to this reality.

This time around it was the Communists, even more than the BJP, who had played spoilers for the nation. These outdated, so-called pro-working class leaders did everything they could to stall the country's progress. They tried to put all kinds of obstacles in the working of the Congress-led UPA coalition government at the centre. For them even the civil nuclear deal that India signed with the U.S. was a no-go. It is just as well that Manmohan Singh made the nuclear deal a prestige issue and went right ahead with it. All right thinking people in India wanted the deal, which is the need of the hour.

For these leftists from West Bengal and Kerala, anything that the U.S. does  is not on and everything that China does is fine. Because the nuclear deal was offered to India by the U.S. it was not    to be touched. Had the same deal come from China it would have been welcomed with open arms. This time their own voters from the two Indian states have shown them the door.   
Their strength has fallen from 60-plus MPs in the last Lok Sabha to 20 odd. Serves them right! If passé guys like Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechuri   have even an iota of self-respect left in them they should quit their posts in  sheer shame.

Rahul Gandhi has also made all right moves. He has conducted himself with dignity and honesty that has found many takers. He made all the difference in Uttar Pradesh. With him enters the young face of Indian politics that holds promise for the future.

Sukbir Rana
London

Review of U.S. policy

I enjoyed reading David Watts' tongue-in-cheek piece on Afghan review (April 2009). I earnestly feel, and forgive me for that, it should have been better titled as 'Review of American policy'. While his arguments are impeccable, they are, one is afraid, not new. Critics of Bush policy on Afghanistan have paraded such facile arguments umpteen number of times before. Many of them, especially amongst the Democrats, have also urged the U.S. administration to have a realistic assessment of the ground situation and have a nuts-and-bolts review.

One expected David to throw some light on the ongoing back-channel diplomacy, in spite of the surge argument, in Riyadh, Islamabad and other places to enable a moderate Taliban in Kabul and persuade them to participate in the coming elections. It is an understatement to say that the  policies of both UK and the U.S. are in a bind now, more than ever. David's silence on Pakistan is also quite telling. Any review of Afghan situation is incomplete without a summary reference to Pakistan and its approach, even if it is a ritual exercise.    Otherwise, the writer will be missing   the woods for the trees, one would suspect.

Ali M. Mastan
Bradford

Anti-Semitic remarks

With reference to the article 'Bigger horror than 9\11' by Andrew Small (May 2009) it is not surprisingly that former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir's address on Gaza made no mention of the six-year long rocket attacks by Hamas on innocent civilians or of the professed Hamas' aim, in its own manifesto, to eradicate Israel. Mahathir earned himself the censure of the civilised international community for his blatantly anti-Semitic remarks trivialising the Holocaust and complaining incessantly about Jewish, rather than 'Israeli' or 'Zionist' world control.

The Palestinian cause is poorly served by those who propound bigotry and serious publications such as yours can surely find more qualified and   objective analyses of the highly complicated situation in West Asia (Middle East).

Amitabh Tripathi
New Delhi

top