Sir — It is laudable that Indians are not holding back from helping their fellow citizens in these very dark times. But in hailing these people as heroes, we should not forget that they are doing the job that the government has failed to do. This is not to take anything away from the kindness of people, but a country is not supposed to run on the goodwill of its citizens. We elect representatives by spending thousands of rupees of public funds to do just this. No time is wrong to demand accountability from the government, especially when one has bungled up as badly as ours has with the pandemic.

Rima Roy,
Calcutta

Sage advice

Sir — Around the time when the Narendra Modi regime was meeting and trying to make up for its massive mismanagement of the Covid-19 crisis, the Supreme Court — the only hope for Indian democracy — asked the government whether it has considered Section 92 of the Patents Act, 1970, which enables compulsory licensing of patents in a public health emergency. This echoes the advice of the former prime minister, Manmohan Singh, who wrote to Modi, “I believe this is the time to invoke the compulsory licensing provisions in the law, so that a number of companies are able to produce the vaccines under a licence”.

Given his hubris, Modi did not even acknowledge Singh. The health minister responded to the letter instead. This is the same person who claimed that the Vedas had theories superior to the theory of relativity. How can one expect a rational reply from this person? “History shall be kinder to you Dr Manmohan Singh ji if your offer of ‘constructive cooperation’ and valuable advice was followed by your [Congress] leaders as well in such extraordinary times,” the health minister tweeted.

This government has only one trick up its sleeve — feed people lies and bombast. What happened to the claim of ‘Modi hai toh mumkin hai’? Why can the prime minister not make India’s betterment a possibility? Even though India is being ravaged by the second wave of the pandemic, Modi’s pride will not allow him to take the advice of a former prime minister. We will have to see how the government responds to the Supreme Court’s concerns, not just regarding Section 92 of the Patents Act, 1970 but also about its comments in the context of clamping down on those criticizing the government or asking for help on social media.

Bidyut Kumar Chatterjee,
Faridabad

Sir — Compulsory licensing can be the shot in the arm we desperately need to tackle this crisis. This is a weapon in the hands of the governments to supply its citizens with generic versions of patented drugs, either through domestic production or imports. Section 92 of the Patents Act, 1970 empowers the Central government to grant licences to applicants who are willing and can manufacture the said drugs. In simple words, if the patented drug costs thousands of rupees, we can make its generic version at a fraction. But does the Narendra Modi government have the wish or even the inclination to help people over lining the pockets of capitalists?

Jayant Singh,
Calcutta

New age

Sir — The prestigious American daily, The New York Times, recently decided to rename its ‘Op-Ed’ page and instead call contributions to the section “Guest Essays”. Articles were first called “Op-Eds” because they were printed on the opposite side of the editorial page. In the digital age, there is no geographical ‘Op-Ed’. It is a relic of an older age and an older print newspaper design. Not long after the NYT had added its Op-Ed page, many other foreign newspapers had followed suit. It will be interesting to see if any of them follow the NYT’s lead in renaming this page.

The advantage of an Op-Ed section is that it provides the opportunity to educate and inform a large audience about important issues. Such articles are particularly useful to sway public opinion and dispel common misconceptions. It may be outdated, but many of us still look forward to this section.

Ranganathan Sivakumar,
Chennai