ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

A+| A| A-

Necessary Change

.

I am surprised not so much by   the tendentious content of the letter of Jayati Ghosh, C P Chandrasekhar and Abhijit Sen (January 8) as by the fact that it has taken so long for them to write it.

Having applauded EPW for its “strength and popularity” which they rightly attribute to EPW being “a forum for a wide range of opinions within the country”, the authors of the letter are upset by EPW publishing views which they consider similar to those of “official spokesmen and sections of the mainstream press”. Don’t they see an obvious contradiction between the two statements? Apparently they want EPW to endorse ‘their’ views to the exclusion of ‘other’ views. This is evident from their touching thought that “it [EPW] has consistently provided alternative positions for those who question the mainstream or elitist [whatever that may mean] perspectives” and that “many respected scholars have chosen to publish in EPW and given it academic credibility of a high order in the past because of their faith in this project [sic]”. Doesn’t the editorial on the Insurance Bill reflect the alternative position of those who do not agree with the hoary, hackneyed and empirically unproved cliches of the authors of the letter and others of their ilk? Does it not show that EPW is in fact a broad forum?

Dear reader,

To continue reading, become a subscriber.

Explore our attractive subscription offers.

Click here

Comments

(-) Hide

EPW looks forward to your comments. Please note that comments are moderated as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear. A comment, if suitable, may be selected for publication in the Letters pages of EPW.

Back to Top