•Is the judiciary walking far too close to the stated domain of politicians (‘CJI says judge who disagreed...’, IE, August 24)? The CJI’s reaction is a surprising development. More importantly, recent developments have had the potential to tarnish the judiciary’s image. Given that all citizens look to judges for fair practice, it’s not out of place for us to expect them to act in the utmost dignified manner. It’s in fact surprising that rather than contemplating a plan of action to undo the damage, the judiciary gives the impression of being game for political oneupmanship.

— I.B. Dutt Ahmedabad

•The CJI’s comments about Justice Shylendra Kumar are strange to say the least. On the one hand, judges are free to declare their assets while on the other when one such judge decides to do so he gets criticised as one who is inviting attention. This entire episode is sending out wrong signals to the people.

— M.C. Joshi Lucknow

Big differences

•There are essential differences between L.K. Advani’s and Jaswant Singh’s endorsements of Jinnah. The former’s endorsement was merely a polite gesture to his hosts, without undermining the day’s Indian leadership. However, Jaswant Singh has targeted the Indian leadership adversely. Further, when faced with criticism, Advani was contrite while Singh has gone overboard with the media.

— R.J. Khurana

Bhopal

Thick lines

•Sudheendra Kulkarni has raised a timely and pertinent question over the issue of Partition (‘Was partition inevitable...’, IE, August 23). The crux of the argument points towards Jinnah’s “villainous” role which led to the Hindus and Muslims moving apart. Further, Kulkarni’s recognition of Jinnah’s role in the partition and Jaswant Singh’s reluctance in acknowledging it underlines the crucial differences between the positions and could compound the fall-out which will be harmful for a complex and mutli-layered society as ours.

... contd.