Not inclined to change Legally invalid

In the article, “India’s idiot nationalism” (March 3), Aakar Patel has rightly pointed out that nationalism also resides in the Congress. It is, however, incomprehensible why he equates nationalism in India today with Hindutva.

Rewind to 1962 when Communist leaders were arrested by the Jawaharlal Nehru government for supporting China’s aggression. Nehru was considered to be a champion of civil liberties. I do not recall that many advocates of free speech demanded an open debate on the issue then.

However, during the heyday of socialism, the Left could lose no debate. If nationalism is a religion, so was socialism and quite a vulgar one at that, considering the Latin origin of the term pointed out by Patel. If Hindutva has no problem with unlawful behaviour today, the Left had no qualms in using methods such as “gherao” — it was not considered an infringement of the rights of helpless officials, if not a tycoon. India is thus rightly said to be a land of many religions and each religion brooks no debate.

Taking into account the definition of a debate furnished by the columnist, I wonder how many intellectuals in India are truly open to changing their views in the face of evidence. Ignoring those crossing over for material gains or for personal reasons, there are few intellectuals who seem to have changed their views based on debate.

Vijay Nadkarni Mumbai legitimate in the initial stages and in the category-wise “coverage” of the various goods and services at the level of the Centre and states. Perhaps, it has become difficult to unravel the mystery of the much talked-about GST regime.

The latest news indicating that the GST Council, chaired by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, is likely to get the power to raise the rate up to 40 per cent for any item in future without the need for parliamentary approval, has not been welcomed by experts, who want the rates to be moderate even in future. Their concerns merit the GST Council’s consideration.

However, the possibility of increasing GST rates in the near future, at least up to the “revised” peak rates, cannot be ruled out. But why is the government keen to technically skip even the parliamentary scrutiny of the implementation of its indirect taxation scheme at any time after its scheduled date of roll-out on July 1? Why could these rates not be rationally kept at reasonable levels, which might facilitate the invocation of requisite amendments in future?

Is the government wary of striking the wrong chords by treating GST as a panacea for the existing multiple indirect tax system, even by “re-fixing” its ceiling as high as 40 per cent? Isn’t such a move self-defeating? Higher the rates higher would be the revenue collected by the Centre and cash-starved states. It would be a win-win situation for both, but a huge cost for the masses.

Kumar Gupt Panchkula In the letter, “End tax exemptions” (March 1), S Kumar has suggested that some tax exemptions be withdrawn by executive order. This suggestion is legally invalid. Tax exemption can be withdrawn only by another notification. Both the exemption and the notification withdrawing it are exercises of delegated legislation. They are legislative actions because they are required to be placed in Parliament; they are not executive orders. Sukumar Mukhopadhyay New Delhi