Editor,
The release of Epstein’s files has opened a hornet’s nest. What shocks the world the most is the involvement of celebrated figures in depraved indulgences. It is terrifying to see young children crying while being sexually abused and tortured. These revelations undoubtedly betray the trust of millions who once admired those celebrities and followed them as their role models. No other revelation has evoked such widespread disgust in this century. Followers of those celebrities now watch in disillusionment as their idols are named in connection with Epstein’s murky world.
Melinda French Gates, the former wife of Bill Gates, was among the first to speak out. She lamented: “No girl should ever be put in a situation that they were put in by Epstein and various other people around him. It’s beyond heartbreaking.” Her words reflect personal disgust and pain. They also express a broader condemnation of the exploitation that has come to light after a long wait.
Victims, some of whom were very young and pushed into the dark hole of exploitation at the time, are now coming forward with courage to name those heartless perpetrators. Among the most startling claims are those aimed at the current president of the United States, Donald Trump. Photographs and videos circulating online are presented as clear proof. They have fueled public outrage. Many now express contempt for leaders entangled in such allegations. The evidence is abundant.
What is most disturbing to me personally is the revelations involving internationally known spiritual master Deepak Chopra, who authored a number of insightful books. A man who built his reputation on guiding and inspiring people to seek peace and happiness within, not outside, has now been linked to emails that virtually belie what he once stood for. Yes, his words to Epstein, “God is a construct, cute girls are real”, are most disgusting. The castle of integrity and reverence that Chopra once commanded has now collapsed into pieces, proving that even those who preach transcendence can be enslaved by carnal desire.
Apart from the top-ranking linguist Noam Chomsky, the most celebrated scientist, Stephen Hawking, who consistently applied his mind to the mysteries of the infinite galaxies, was also invited to Epstein’s “block hole”. What a paradox!
What a contrast, how our hearts could have agreed to be ruled by such leaders. Their alleged vile urge to torture tender children for sadistic pleasure is a crime against humanity itself.
Well, on social media, everyone roars in chorus that these files are not the inventions of fantasy or tales from hell. They are, in fact, records drawn from the island Epstein owned and frequented, supported by photographs, videos, and email exchanges brought to light by the prestigious Department of Justice. If such evidence cannot stand in a court of law, what more is required to establish accountability for deeds so vile and decadent!
Now, the entire world’s population should stand together to condemn these acts relentlessly. We must demand fitting punishment for those fiends in suits and boots! If we don’t do that, the future of this civilisation might be enveloped by the darkness of depravity. Imagine the “traumas and pangs” of those children. Imagine the plight of those ill-fated women who even committed suicide. Have empathy for humanity.
Yours etc.,
Salil Gewali,
Shillong
Uproar in Parliament: Congress Versus NDA
Editor,
This has reference to the uproar over Rahul Gandhi quoting from General Naravane’s unpublished memoir in Lok Sabha. Members of Parliament in India are barred from quoting unpublished books under Rule 349 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha. This rule governs what MPs are allowed to read or cite during speeches, restricting references to material that is not formally published or tabled in the House. Rule 349 specifies that MPs may only read or quote from published material, official documents, or items formally laid on the table of the House. Books, manuscripts, or drafts that are not in the public domain cannot be cited. The Speaker has discretion to allow or disallow quotations, especially if prior notice or permission has not been given.
The Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi attempted to quote from former Army Chief General M.M. Naravane’s unpublished memoir. Senior ministers objected, and Speaker Om Birla invoked Rule 349 to stop him. The rationale: citing unpublished material undermines the authenticity of parliamentary records. However, there are exceptions where MPs can quote from books, newspapers, or magazines if they are already published and with the Speaker’s approval. Rule 349 is the operative provision: it prevents MPs from quoting unpublished books in Parliament to maintain the integrity of proceedings. The practical implication is that only published, verifiable sources can be cited, and even then, prior notice to the Speaker is often required. The Speaker has discretion to enforce this rule and disallow quotations. Further Rule 352 governs admissibility of documents. Any document or material quoted in the House must be authentic, verifiable, and accessible. The rule prevents MPs from introducing unverifiable or private material into official records. Even if a book is published, MPs often need prior notice or permission to quote.
The Speaker can stop any citation that violates House decorum or authenticity standards. The rules exist to ensure parliamentary debates are based on verifiable sources and prevent Members of Parliament from citing drafts or private notes that may later change. It also keeps proceedings free from speculative or unverified material. Hence the operative Rule 349 is reinforced by Rule 352 as together they ensure that only published, authentic, and verifiable sources can be quoted in Parliament. In practice, this means MPs cannot quote from books that are yet to be published, as seen in the recent case involving Rahul Gandhi and General M.M. Naravane’s memoir.
In moments of high drama—like the uproar over Rahul Gandhi quoting from General Naravane’s unpublished memoir—Congress often frames its interventions as moral or ethical challenges to the government. But when the chamber is dominated by noise, interruptions, and procedural objections, the “voice of reason” gets drowned out. This happens because each side speaks to its base, not to persuade the other. Rules limit what can be said, making “reason” seem like defiance. Congress may prioritize visibility over procedural compliance, aiming for headlines rather than quiet persuasion. In essence: Congress may well be trying to project reason, but in the din of parliamentary noise, reason is often overshadowed by political theatre.
Yours etc;
VK Lyngdoh,
Via email
