Amidst the two extremes of the portrayal of Indira Gandhi by columnists — one as a scheming, ruthless autocrat and the other as a sagacious emancipator of the nation — Shekhar Gupta’s ‘The idea of Indira’ (IE, October 31) comes out refreshingly unskewed. Leaders become significant not so much by what they do, but by their reading of the prevalent political milieu, events and circumstances of the times, and by the clarity of their resultant actions. The hallmark of a good raconteur is to observe and analyse rather than get addicted to a personality or a pet thesis. Gupta has attempted to

do this.

— R. Narayanan

Ghaziabad

An enigma

This refers to Pratap Mehta’s ‘The original Mrs G’ (IE, October 30). It’s a well-researched article, truly food for critical thinking. In the post-Nehruvian-era, and even today, no political leader has risen to that status. She truly became the leader of the masses and of the whole country. She inherited unparalleled political acumen and passion for India. It’s true that a strong democracy demands two equally strong political parties. Unfortunately, not only Indira but even her father never really liked to have that ideal textbook situation for Indian democracy. However, if we ponder the last century’s world history, there hardly was a political leader who didn’t possess such traits. And which hasn’t wilfully assaulted institutions?

Nehru’s projection of good intent, and his showcase policies of creating linguistic states, gave birth to “unity in diversity” — and also fuelled bitter provincialism in the long run. On the other hand, Mrs G’s intoxication of power and paranoia in identifying every opposition with a foreign

... contd.