Us PolitiCo-eCoNomiC sYstem too PowerFul to be trANsFormed

Sir, Are we living through a revolution or a reaction? (3 December 2016) by Come Carpentier was an interesting read. I strongly agree with the author that “the US politico-economic system seems to be too powerful and deep-rooted to be radically transformed by any one President, especially one whose views are at variance with those of most leaders in his own party.” As I near 74, and as a longtime student of world history I take a long view of trends and ‘new’ developments, as they are usually only a reiteration of previous events but in a new style. The author is correct: the political nature/substance of the beast changes very slowly, if at all, during a single person’s lifetime. However, there are exceptions that prove the rule: in the US we have the case of Teddy Roosevelt, a true maverick from an established old money family, much the same as Donald Trump. Supreme Court that the National Anthem must be sung in movie halls (December 4). When the objective of a judicial verdict is laudable, the question of objecting to it should be, if at all, on solid grounds only. Supreme Court rightly considered singing national anthem as just one of the ways of inculcating patriotic spirit among the citizens. An element of compulsion to sing it is unavoidable when even now a large number of Indians cannot recite it or understand its meaning fully. It is relevant in the context of on-going terrorist attacks and recklessly aggressor neighbours India faces. As for the venue, it is also a song recognised as one of the best anthems in the world for its lyrical content and musical wealth and thus fits in a cinema theatre which exhibits songlaced films. It causes, if at all, inconvenience for about two minutes only. It does not infringe any material Constitutional right of the individual. Apex Court’s instructions about standing while singing it are consistent with Article 51A of the Constitution requiring respect for the Anthem.