The point of contention is whether Mr. Lalit Modi is entitled to get humanitarian help from the government or not (“ >Fault lines open in Modi govt. ”; “ >Ex-Ministers behind conspiracy: Lalit Modi ”, and Editorial, all June 16). Is his proximity to the Union External Affairs Minister, Sushma Swaraj, a disqualification? Of course, he has to be tried for his numerous economic offences, but Ms. Swaraj’s action has in no way influenced the government’s pursuit in this regard.
S. Sridhar,
Chennai
Conceding for a moment that Ms. Swaraj did help Lalit Modi to get documents to visit his kin, I see no impropriety (Editorial). Did not 50-odd MPs sign a document asking the U.S. government not to grant a visa to Narendra Modi, a Chief Minister then?
P.R. Iyer,
Chennai
Mr. Modi is a wanted person. There is no justification to show any leniency towards him. Yet, Ms. Swaraj, otherwise a gracious personality and thus far a clean politician, has evinced empathy towards him on account of his wife’s terminal illness. As expected, he has misused it and, if media reports are to be believed, is said to be out partying. It now appears that Mr. Modi has always been in close association with Ms. Swaraj’s family. The least that the Minister can now do is to persuade Mr. Modi to surrender before the Enforcement Directorate.
V.V. Damodaran,
Taliparamba, Kerala
Humanitarianism is not something that the state extends to ordinary offenders or innocent undertrials languishing in jails. If Lalit Modi had subjected himself to the processes of the law, a compassionate judge would have readily granted permission to enable him to visit his ailing wife. However poignant his personal travails may be, the fact that Ms. Swaraj went out of the way to favour the former raises serious questions about probity in public life.
It has become untenable for the Prime Minister to allow Ms. Swaraj to retain her ministerial post. Those holding high political offices are not entitled to the benefit of doubt unless there is incontrovertible proof and perceptible evidence of the absence of mala fide intent.
V.N. Mukundarajan,
Thiruvananthapuram
Had there been urgency for Mr. Modi to sign the consent forms for his ailing wife, Ms. Swaraj could have mentioned a time period within which Mr. Modi would have been allowed to visit Portugal. Giving a vague justification merely on ‘humanitarian grounds’ only escalates the claim of excessive favouritism shown by Ms. Swaraj.
Agam Singh Bedi,
Mohali, Punjab
While the conduct of Ms. Swaraj in facilitating Mr. Modi’s travel to Portugal is indeed blameworthy, the silence of Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, the person in charge of the agencies investigating into the alleged questionable financial dealings of Lalit Modi, is equally intriguing. The nation would like to know whether the indulgence shown to this high-profile individual by a senior colleague, and in the Ministry of External Affairs has compromised investigations. Given the manner in which this issue has been addressed so far, it does not appear that this government is serious about bringing him back to Indian for the ongoing investigations.
S.K. Choudhury,
Bengaluru
