Most readers expect more deeply studied articles from a reputable daily such as The Hindu. That said, the bias of the participants against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, comes out very clearly (OpEd page, ‘Parley’ – “What are the amendments that the CAA needs?”, December 27). One expected a clear explanation as to why the Act should be scrapped or changed substantially. Most of the discussion seemed to be around a vague concept such as international law, whereas it is a settled fact that only a signatory nation is bound by any international convention. One must also consider that fact that countries like the U.S. regularly flout international conventions when it suits them — the Paris convention on climate change being an example. Perhaps a discussion on the Act vis-à-vis the Constitution would have been ideal.
P.M. Narayanan,
Aluva, Kerala
