Assessing Modi’s Leadership of India

To the Editor:

As an Indian American living in the United States for a long time, I have been a strong supporter of the media for their active stance against people like Donald Trump who engaged in egregious behavior while in office. But I’m totally aghast at the tirade against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in “During Modi’s Visit, Biden Plans to Focus on Common Interests” (news analysis, June 22).

For the past year or so, you have published articles critical of Mr. Modi, accusing him of being authoritarian and anti-democratic. You seem to lump him in the same group as Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Viktor Orban.

This article talks about a crackdown on dissent under Mr. Modi and India backsliding in democracy. Similar articles have pointed out large-scale incarceration of political opponents ever since Mr. Modi’s party has been voted to power.

Are we living in an alternate world? I’ve not seen any mass jailing or subversion of democracy in India as is happening in other countries like Turkey.

I can understand that the West is upset about India’s neutral stance in the Ukraine-Russia war and India’s continuing to buy oil from Russia despite Western sanctions. As S. Jaishankar, India’s foreign minister, has said, India will do what is good for India.

Every country has an obligation to take care of itself first.

Mudi Ramesh
Kensington, Md.

To the Editor:

Re “Modi’s India Isn’t What It Seems,” by Maya Jasanoff (Opinion guest essay, June 22):

Like Professor Jasanoff, I am Indian American. For many years after Indian independence in 1947, except for a brief period when J.F.K. was president, Indo-U.S. relations were marked by misunderstanding and acrimony.

Perhaps the lowest point was reached in 1971 when the U.S. Seventh Fleet sailed into the Bay of Bengal, threatening India during its war with Pakistan.

For Indian Americans, the joint Indo-U.S. effort to finally acknowledge shared interests in a global order based on the rule of law is a welcome relief, and we are grateful to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for encouraging this initiative. However, all this has to be set against the erosion of civil rights that is ongoing in India today.

The resilience shown by U.S. career officials against the authoritarian dictates of former President Donald Trump has been absent in India. The U.S. has to exert greater pressure to strengthen civil governance in India or all our mutual interests in good governance will come to nothing.

Bharat S. Sarath
East Brunswick, N.J.

To the Editor:

Prof. Maya Jasanoff makes some valid points about harassment of minorities, journalists, media, etc., and the sliding of democratic norms in India. But Narendra Modi becoming an autocratic ruler is far-fetched. The Indian public will not stand for it. Case in point: His party recently lost an election in the Indian state of Karnataka.

In the mid-1970s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed an emergency rule to subdue opposition. At the time I believed that the Indian populace would not stand for it. Sure enough, Gandhi’s party lost in 1977 when she called for an election. Having learned her lesson, she was back in power three years later.

Mr. Modi is popular because he has provided a stable government and made substantial progress during the last 10 years. The general public cares about that and will ignore faults of his and his party’s rule. Opposition parties are splintered.

With a country as large as India, there are bound to be some imperfections from our Western point of view. But I am confident that India will handle it as best as it can and prosper.

Eswar G. Phadia
Wayne, N.J.

Trying to Make Sense of Donald Trump: ‘An Exercise in Futility’

To the Editor:

Re “To Jail or Not to Jail,” by Maureen Dowd (column, June 18):

Everyone seems to be trying to make sense of Donald Trump’s disordered mind and unpredictable behavior. As if he did this because of this, and then this happened and he did/said this other thing.

Trying to make sense of Mr. Trump is an exercise in futility. He is impulsive, irrational and thoughtless, lacks introspection and has no conscience. He acts on a whim, makes up things as he goes along, and everything is done in his own interest without concern or consideration for anyone else in the world. That’s it.

If I were explaining him to a child, I’d say, “He’s a bad man.” And he is. Now, what are we going to do about it?

Kathryn Janus
Chicago

To the Editor:

Maureen Dowd compares Donald Trump to Hamlet. But he’s more Macbeth or Richard III, men who violate higher moral laws to grasp power. And in many ways Mr. Trump ticks the boxes of the tragic protagonist: a man of high estate whose reversal of fortune flows from fatal flaws, usually overweening pride and blindness to his own weaknesses.

What remains to be seen is if Mr. Trump’s downfall will bring about an anagnorisis, the tragic hero’s recognition that he brought it all upon himself. Will a playwright or opera composer or movie director portray him tragically? Or will he only inspire satire. “Springtime for Trump”?

Arnold Wengrow
Asheville, N.C.
The writer is professor emeritus of drama at the University of North Carolina at Asheville.

Depoliticize Helping the Homeless

To the Editor:

Re “Policy to Fight Homelessness Becomes a Target of the Right” (front page, June 21):

Everyone loses when we politicize our response to homelessness, especially those we say we are trying to help. It is shameful that in America nearly 600,000 people experience homelessness on any given night.

I have worked as a shelter director and service provider for 25 years. To suggest that our policies are enough and our efforts are meeting the need is irresponsible, yet to throw them out is misguided too. We need to build upon what we have, open our minds, expand our options and listen to people with lived experience, rather than fighting about which solution is right.

There simply is no one-size-fits-all solution to address homelessness. People experiencing homelessness are diverse, and our solutions need to match that diversity. Communities need more tools including shelter, treatment, employment and housing.

I have worked with the right and the left, and common ground is possible if we move beyond labels toward an integrated response.

Isabel McDevitt
Philadelphia
The writer is the former C.E.O. of Bridge House, a homeless services agency in Colorado, and co-founder of Work Works America, which helps communities address homelessness.

Those Annoying Noise Machines

To the Editor:

Re “Chronic Noise Proves Deadly” (Science Times, June 20):

The bane of suburbia is the gas-powered, two-stroke leaf blower. Not only do those infernal things emit an ear-piercing sound, but they also generate an incredible amount of exhaust. Ban them!!

Mark Maddaloni
Closter, N.J.

To the Editor:

Your analysis is much appreciated. In Brooklyn, the noise from helicopters heading to and from the Hamptons has gone from an occasional annoyance to a constant. To ferry, what, two or four people at a time, tens of thousands are subject to noise so loud that it sets off car alarms on the ground and scares children.

On Friday and Sunday evenings their low-altitude flyovers happen dozens of times in the space of a few hours. Flying at such low altitude may save fuel and time for the carriers, but doing so over densely populated areas is the height of selfishness.

John Wilkens
Brooklyn