The sole purpose of the article seems to have been to ridicule Rahul Gandhi and even the electorate of Amethi (“The end of the Amethi myth,” May 9). The writer has scored a self-goal by questioning the electorate for having given Rahul Gandhi a victory margin of 3,70,000 votes during the last election by calling them as part of a “fiefdom” and then going on to say that “Narendra Modi entered Amethi like a conquering Roman general.” In reality, Mr. Modi’s speeches at Amethi were devoid of political maturity and sincerity. The worst part was his deceitful twisting of Priyanka Gandhi-Vadra’s comment on his “low level politics” in order to communalise the atmosphere.
By calling Amethi a family constituency, a Nehruvian bastion and a Nehru-Gandhi borough, the writer has only insulted the electorate of the constituency. He seems to forget that this was the same constituency which humbled the Gandhis after the Emergency. It seems to have become fashionable by the intellectual elite to term a win by anyone belonging to Nehru-Gandhi family as feudal and dynastic and their defeat as a triumph of democracy. This is not just hypocrisy but also intellectual dishonesty.
Baikadi Suryanarayana Rao,
Kumar Vishwas was not given the coverage he deserved. If the media had supported him it would have spelt the triumph of democracy in Amethi. Be it Rahul Gandhi in Amethi or Narendra Modi in Gujarat, nothing is ever permanent. Change is the spice of life.
Like the dynastic phenomenon, the growth of pocket boroughs and bastions of top leaders is a reflection of the self-serving and feudalist tendencies of our politicians. If Amethi is so bad as far as infrastructure is concerned, why aren’t the Gandhis giving it their all to improve life there?