MyVoice: Views of our readers 13th October 2026
In Short
A short, time-bound follow-up report on what was fixed would show that the exercise was more than theatre. Questions answered in public rarely need barricades, and trust grows fastest when nothing is hidden.
Share :
MyVoice: Views of our readers 13th October 2026
Emulate village panchayats’ example
A government that fears a crowd has already admitted that the crowd is worth hearing (“Govt must engage with protesters, not suppress them”, (THI Oct 12). Why not borrow an idea from the village panchayat, where disputes are settled by sitting down under one roof? Let the Election Commission and protest leaders meet in a televised open hearing, with a retired judge as the referee, and let each side place its evidence on the table. Citizens could watch, as they do a cricket match, and judge the arguments for themselves. If the complaints are baseless, the hearing will prove it; if not, corrections can begin pronto. Protesters, in turn, should bring specific cases, not just slogans. A short, time-bound follow-up report on what was fixed would show that the exercise was more than theatre. Questions answered in public rarely need barricades, and trust grows fastest when nothing is hidden.
Veda Chidanand, Bengaluru
Protection of free expression is paramount
Apropos “Govt must engage with protesters, not suppress them”. Subjugation is fundamentally the wrong response to the ongoing public protests against the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the actions surrounding Gyanesh Kumar. A resilient democracy relies on the public’s right to question institutional decisions and demand systemic transparency. Attempting to forcefully suppress or silence the dissenting voices only undermines civic trust and deepens political polarization. The ECI’s authority as a constitutional body depends entirely on public confidence. When citizens voice grievances regarding electoral governance or leadership changes, authorities must respond with transparent, democratic dialogue rather than heavy-handed containment. Silencing critics fails to resolve underlying doubts; it merely erodes the core democratic principles our institutions are established to uphold. True stability requires accountability, open engagement, and the protection of free expression.
Ranganathan Sivakumar, Chennai-603210
Protecting property is a civic duty
With reference to “Govt must engage with protesters, not suppress them” (THI, Oct 12), buses, railway stations, roads and public buildings belong to citizens, irrespective of their political affiliations. Damaging these assets during demonstrations ultimately makes taxpayers bear the cost of repairs. Protesters should therefore distinguish between opposing a government decision and harming public facilities that serve everyone. Organisers must communicate clear rules to participants, while the police should intervene proportionately when there is violence or vandalism. Where responsibility for damage is established through due process, appropriate legal and financial consequences should follow. Protecting public property is a civic duty, even during political disagreement.
K Sakunthala, Coimbatore-641671
Protests cannot obstruct emergency services
With reference to “Govt must engage with protesters, not suppress them” (THI, Oct 12), the right to protest must be protected, but its exercise should not bring daily life to a standstill. Road blockades, cancelled trains and disrupted transport impose an unfair burden on workers, students, patients and small traders. Public assets are maintained with taxpayers’ money and should never become targets of political anger. Protest organisers must ensure that demonstrations remain peaceful and do not obstruct emergency services. The administration should identify suitable protest venues, maintain alternative transport arrangements and prevent damage through proportionate policing. Democratic expression and public convenience must go together.
Abbharna Barathi, Chennai-23
Balanced approach can protect civil liberties
Apropos “Govt must engage with protesters, not suppress them” (THI, October 12). Peaceful protest is an essential democratic right, and the government must listen to genuine grievances. However, the destruction of public property, vandalism and disruption of essential services cannot be justified in its name. Ordinary citizens should not suffer because of political confrontations. The police, too, must be allowed to discharge their duties without obstruction or intimidation. Authorities should facilitate peaceful demonstrations, maintain dialogue with organisers and act firmly against violence. A balanced approach can protect civil liberties while ensuring public order and respect for the law.
A Myilsami, Coimbatore–641402
