Letters to the Editor — May 29, 2020

Wandering trains

The government has woefully failed in providing a speedy and comfortable journey, with adequate water and food, for the migrants in their worst hour of crisis (“5 persons on Shramik Special trains die in U.P.”, May 28). It’s bizarre that some trains were halted for long hours or diverted to totally unrelated locations. The Railways says the trains were diverted due to “congestion”. I fail to understand how there is no congestion when more than 18,000 long-distance and suburban trains are running in the country in normal circumstances, but there is high traffic when there are such few trains on the tracks. This only shows the lack of meticulous planning.

Kamal Laddha,

Bengaluru

How can a country that performs rescue operations in the neighbourhood and exports medicines and food to various countries be so apathetic in dealing with its own? India must focus more on rescue efforts on its own soil. Poor logistics and planning in a country with a large population has led to a totally avoidable man-made crisis when there was already a health crisis to deal with.

Harsh Vardhan Singh,

Bijnor

The suffering of the migrants shows that people get respect on the basis of their economic value, not their human worth. Our moral indifference has been revealed during this pandemic (“The heavy burden of social suffering”, May 27).

Vandana,

New Delhi

Offer to mediate

It is ironic that President Donald Trump has offered to mediate between India and China when U.S.-China relations are worsening by the day (“Now, Trump offers to mediate between India and China”, May 28). India has always placed great faith in bilateralism. Even on the Kashmir issue, it firmly rejected all third-party interventions. It is high time the U.S. desisted from playing the ‘big brother’ role and left arbitrations to bodies like the UN that have the mandate to mediate between member nations.

C.V. Aravind,

Chennai

Too little, too late

It is disheartening to note that the plight of migrant labourers has come to the Supreme Court’s notice only after the deaths of so many (“Supreme Court gets stinging letter from senior lawyers”, May 28). The court should have taken cognisance of the issue in March-April when the migrant workers began their long journeys home. The court has functioned even at midnight in the past, but could not deliver justice to the poor. Instead it adjourned their petitions or refused to admit them. It looks as though only when pressure was mounted on the court, by sections of lawyers, the media, and the Opposition, did the court step in to function as a constitutional court. This intervention may be too little, too late.

S.K. Narula,

New Delhi