Dear NL Team,

Congratulations for Sardh Shatabdi (150) episodes. Keep Haftas behind the paywall. Indians in general don’t appreciate that comes for free. Period.

Sorry for writing this email too soon after my previous email. But this was important to draw team’s attention. This is regarding the topic discussed in last Hafta on Rama Setu.

Anand Ranganathan’s argument that faith shouldn’t come in the way to country’s development cannot be argued against theoretically. But that is only applicable for people who believe in just black and white. The real world is nothing but shades of grey.

Now forget about Rama Setu’s religious significance for the moment. But what about its environmental and ecological significance? Be it a man (monkey) made or natural occurrence, it is a reef site and there is worldwide concern on saving coral reefs. I am from Queensland, Australia where there is a “Great Barrier Reef”. Australian government spends millions to protect it and lose billions in getting businesses too for the same. I am an engineer and I have witnessed many national and international projects that can boom country’s economy, rejected by environmental courts just because their effluents will affect the reef. Not immediately but in coming decades and centuries. “Sustainability.”

The Rama Setu site is part of the Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park and the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve which includes some very precious flora and fauna and has 10 km buffer zone around the park. One wouldn’t want big diesel ships navigating around that.

Regarding its religious significance, Hinduism has a tradition of giving religious significance to ecology, perhaps in order to protect them. But like always in India, things are generally discussed along religious-political narratives and not through its own objective significance.

As a scientist, I think Anand’s position on this was quite unexpected and contrary to the stand he generally takes. I am sure he must have entirely missed its ecological significance.

Regards,

Bhavesh Bhatt

Dear NL panelists,

I just finished listening to this week’s Hafta and got a little pissed so I’m going to talk only about what led to that before my disappointment subsides and I lose motivation to write about it. It might seem like nitpicking, but as a subscriber and long-time well wisher of NL, I believe that attention to the littlest of things goes on to bestow greatness.

My favourite panelist at one time was Anand R (not anymore but why, is a topic for another day) but now it’s firmly Manisha. The fluency and compassion of her pen (can’t stress how much I loved her story on Hadiya) and well-researched arguments in NL Hafta are an asset. Never let her go! So, please don’t cut her mid-sentence in Hafta! I have noticed most NL panelists do that again and again, unconsciously I’m sure, but please don’t. It’s most annoying. I want to know what she thinks on most topics and not just on those she has written about.

Another point. I love the freewheeling nature of Hafta and don’t mind Abhinandan’s cursing at all, but I was a disappointed at the masuka/mashooka joke in today’s Hafta. Guys, we live in this time of political correctness and I know that can be a bane at times, but you guys are growing, and your reach is getting bigger. There’s a certain responsibility that comes with it and you don’t want to be sending a message that making light of anything associated with a grim reality is okay as long it’s intended for harmless laughter. One of the best things about Hafta is the banter, the jokes, but, there’s a fine line right? I’m only criticising because NL is very dear to me and I believe you should be critical to those you care about the most.

Regards,

Sayani

Hi mufatkhor here,

Wanted to bring to notice a couple of things:

1. Regarding Pakistan conspiracy by Modi: It’s not very far-fetched as the Pakistan parliament actually came out with a 21-point guideline to exploit India’s faultlines which includes reaching out to opposition parties amongst others. This also has to be viewed in context of [Mani Shankar] Aiyar’s remarks in Pakistan about removing Modi from power. Also the MEA wasn’t informed. Regarding Pakistan being in trouble themselves and hence not being in a position to create trouble is being rather naive. They continue to foment trouble in Jammu and Kashmir, Myanmar and Bangladesh despite all the turmoil in their country. Also, saying certain offices are beyond reproach in the national discourse is a bit too much considering the conduct of the former VP (PFI, RSTV), Army chief (Adarsh) and the PM (list is too long) as well as the commentary on the current army chief by some so-called intellectuals.
2. Regarding condom ads: It’s an advisory and not a ban. The advisory targets the titillating nature of the ad which may not be suitable for consumption by kids below a certain age, happens in other countries as well. Those ads do not contribute anything even remotely towards sex ed or safe sex awareness. To then have a view that because they are being regulated hence the government is regressive is a specious argument. And if people say what about the deo ads, go ahead and complain to the ASCI.

Apologise for the rant, tried to keep it short, working towards getting a subscription.

Akash

Hi NL Team,

Kudos to your efforts. In the effort to minimise redundant words, I’ll keep the compliments succinct. Am a big fan of your show, your entire endeavour, and love the ensemble crew you put together to weave a bi-partisan, multi-faceted, textured narrative to most issues. Anand R is my favourite – in my opinion, one of the brightest minds around. I will save my opinions on the others for the sake of brevity.

So the reason I am writing: a subscriber brought up an extremely important point in a letter last week expressing his grouse for Abhinandan’s language clean-up, which I think you folks didn’t pick up on. If eyeballs influence content in ad-based model, subscriber feedback would influence content in a subscriber-based model – assuming you are trying to maximise revenue/keep your revenue stream happy. In both cases (whether you are ad-based on subscriber-based), the quality of your content will be determined by your editorial decisions – NOT by whether your money comes from subscribers or advertisers, and the extent to which the editorial decisions are influenced by the paying entities (subscribers or advertisers) will be based how much importance you assign to their feedback (and their revenue, indirectly).

I bring this up since I have tried to write in the past too, about how I think the way you espouse the merit of subscriber-based news over ad-supported news is logically flawed. Let’s see if I can get you to read this one.

Thanks,

Chintan

PS: I subscribed because I felt your effort was a cause worth supporting. The paywall definitely nudged me in that direction too.

Hi,

Congratulations on your 150^th episode. You have been doing great work, and hope it continues. I am a subscriber since you started the paywall, and yes it made me subscribe.

Why I like NL Hafta? I like it because it gives me a platform to hear balanced views on most subjects. Why is it balanced? Because the panelists are open about their own biases. That’s why.

I like both Anands to be in the discussion always. If they are not there, it gets one-sided where mostly everyone agrees with one another. Specially Anand Ranganathan, because he can match others with his assertiveness while Vardhan is too polite. So please keep this in mind while deciding on the make-up of the panel. If both are not available, you should get some guest to fill that void. I am a little left of centre. But I  think the presence of a different POV enriches the discussion.

Extending the same point, I have one observation about NL Interviews. Mostly we see NL Interviews are conducted by people who are supportive of the guest’s POV. For example, Anand Vardhan interviewing Manu Joseph, or Ranga taking Bibek Debroy’s interview, or Abhinandan taking to Hartosh and so on. Kindly shed some light on how it’s decided. We, as viewers, would like it more when someone critical of somebody’s work interviews them (decently unlike in television). Like, for example, if Anand Ranganathan interviews Romila Thapar or Rajdeep (don’t think they will agree though), it would really create a buzz.

Also many a times, we miss asking which in my mind is the most relevant question because we are focusing too much on current events. Like for example I haven’t seen anyone asking any of these JNU guys what they understand by their Left ideology. What do they understand by Communism? What is their economic policy? Why do they think that Communism has failed throughout the world, and why do they think it can succeed in India? How are they different? Stand on disinvestment, job creation and sovereignty of the country. What is their position on China and so on?

The same applies for AAP guys. The discourse is so much on the surface and partly the reason why we have leaders like Sambit and Poonawallas hogging the limelight .

Lastly, I am having a personal dilemma which I want you to discuss. With this #MeToo  campaign, a lot of women have come forward and rightly so. Many perpetrators have been identified and have to bear the consequences of what they did to these women. Recently one Republican politician committed suicide after being accused of sexual harassment. In his suicide note, he absolved himself of any wrongdoing. I know in cases of rape and sexual harassment it is considered right to believe the victim. But  the whole premise of law is innocent till proven guilty. Now if any woman can accuse any man on twitter and there is no burden of proof, it’s going to be misused sooner or later.  Even if out of 100 cases, it happens only twice, it’s still two happy lives destroyed wrongfully. So what should be the ideal recourse for this?

Thanks to you all, and keep doing the good work.

Raghu Sharma