This refers to the unfortunate analogy that Mr. M.D. Nalapat has drawn in his article, 'Jhatka is better than halal, Mr. Gujral' (October 24). Mr. Nalapat seems to suggest that Jhatka is both literally and metaphorically a bold, decisive approach to "doing what is right". Halal, on the other hand, is represented as a slow, compromising method as a slow, compromising method which drains away the vital fluid and prolongs the suffering of the dying animal (or cause).

We respect Mr. Nalapat's right to his opinion, but he ought to have been more circumspect in his choice of metaphor, given the communally surcharged atmosphere which unfortunately prevails in our country ... The eminent writer has involved himself in a classic case of misconception. From the physiological point of view, halal involves the severing of the throat, windpipe and jugular vein without cutting the spinal cord so that the blood, which happens to be an excellent medium for bacteria and micro-organisms, is drained off. If the jhatka method, the nerve fibres enveloping the heart are likely to be damaged, causing cardiac arrest and permitting the animal's blood to stagnate in the blood vessels.

... The end-product of a jhatka is unhygienic, while that of a halal is perfectly hygienic.

If the analogy is applied to the political scenario under discussion, it seems that what the Indian Parliament needs today is a drainage of impurities, effected by a process that is slow but thorough. If anything, it is thanks to several jhatkas that the Union government has become the wavering victim of coalitions and trade-offs today.