'JUDICIAL SUPREMACY'
CK Lal ('The fallacy of supremacy', #467) says a strong court, or what he calls 'judicial supremacy' will hurt minorities in a country as diverse as ours, but he misses an obvious point. The alternative to 'judicial supremacy' is majority rule, and without a strong court that can restrain the majority and protect minority rights, the majority can do whatever it very well wants to the minority. If, after the Hindi oath row, you think Nepal is unsafe for minorities, check out China, where the government freely oppresses Muslim minorities (as the violence last month attests)
and the court's restraining arm is nowhere in sight.

Why is a strong court good for minorities? If laws and ordinances are passed by majority vote, then minorities have no say in them, which means they can't defend themselves against malicious policies, like a policy to systematically disenfranchise some small ethnic community to serve business interests. This is where the court comes in, at least in a functioning democracy. The court can step in to defend the minorities and invalidate the policy by gesturing to a constitution that, as in our case, protects equal rights for all.

Name withheld,
email

SHOCKED
Until I read Katy Elliot's article ('You are what you eat', #467), I thought the shinier the vegetable the better. Now I know to keep away from them. I'm shocked that I've only discovered this now, after years of buying shiny vegetables, and that the government hasn't done anything to make people aware of the problem. They should consider setting up billboards at popular vegetable markets that explain the dangers of pesticides and what to watch out for. I think it's as serious a problem as inflation, and if the government raided, if half-heartedly, vegetable warehouses to control hoarding, then they should be just as willing to do the same to control the misuse of dangerous pesticides.

Beena Pant,
email

HINDI
I do not understand this hue and cry over the language that Mr. Vice president took the oath in ('Swearing in Hindi', #466). It is just distracting us from our main tasks - to write a new constitution, to restructure Nepal, including other tasks such as implementing what was agreed on in the comprehensive peace agreement. We must focus our energy towards it. The planet will not collapse if he does not take the oath in the Nepali language.

I personally do not care what language the leader speaks (or does not speak). Let the parliamentarians (or people) elect the person who can win the heart and soul of Nepalis.

Prakash Shrestha,
email

* In 'Swearing in Hindi' (#466) Prashant Jha pretends to explain the Hindi oath row, but ends up justifying Jha. I think this is an occasion for everyone to swear in the language they understand, after all, to 'swear' means to 'use offensive or obscene language, especially to express anger' (Oxford English Dictionary).

Puspa Pant,
Aberdeen

FEDERALISM
Ratna's Sansar's 'Jumping the Gun' (#467) is a simple, well-expressed article that touches on the more practical aspects of federalism hitherto ignored by those clamouring for a new set-up. Federalism is no panacea.

Prabhu KC,
email