Archive · 19 Sep 2026
Letters Debate BRICS Menu, Hindi Promotion and Political Contradictions
The letters discuss food, language and politics in India.
Some writers thought the BRICS dinner should have included both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food.
Another writer said the host country has the right to choose its own menu.
The letters also debate whether Hindi should be promoted over regional languages and English.
Critics worry this could weaken India’s linguistic diversity.
One writer says language policies should not force Hindi on southern states.
Another letter points out what it sees as a contradiction in J.D. Vance’s praise for Emily in Paris.
The writer says Vance’s political party often criticizes single and childless women.
These are opinions from readers, not an official ruling on either issue.
Letters disagree over whether the BRICS Summit’s vegetarian dinner respected hospitality and cultural diversity.
Supporters say the host government may choose the menu and showcase India’s vegetarian traditions.
Critics argue that an entirely vegetarian menu overlooked India’s non-vegetarian population and guests’ preferences.
Two writers oppose presenting Hindi as India’s national or dominant link language, citing constitutional and regional diversity.
One letter criticizes J.D. Vance’s praise of Emily in Paris as inconsistent with Republican attitudes toward single, childless women.
- Who
- The letters were written by Snigdha Roy, Shibaji Roy Choudhuri, K. Chidanand Kumar, Kamal Laddha, A.G. Rajmohan and Abhijit Chakraborty; they discuss J.D. Vance, the BRICS delegates and Indian language policy.
- What
- Readers debate the BRICS Summit’s vegetarian menu, Hindi’s role in India and the perceived contradiction in J.D. Vance’s praise of Emily in Paris.
- When
- The letters refer to a BRICS Summit dinner and articles dated September 17; Vance’s comment is described as recent.
- Where
- The discussion concerns India, including the BRICS Summit, and includes letters from Calcutta, Bengaluru, Anantapur and Howrah.
- Why
- The writers differ over hospitality, dietary diversity, the protection of regional languages and the consistency of political views about women.
Critics of Imposition
Defenders of Host Choice
BRICS dinner menu
Critics of Imposition
Critics said an entirely vegetarian menu imposed dietary preferences, failed to reflect India’s broader food diversity and may have disappointed meat-eating guests.
Defenders of Host Choice
Supporters said choosing the menu is the host government’s prerogative, and that serving vegetarian food appropriately showcased India’s substantial vegetarian tradition.
Hindi and English
Critics of Imposition
Critics argued that promoting Hindi as a national or replacement link language could suppress regional languages and diminish English’s established role.
Defenders of Host Choice
The cited government position presents Hindi as a link language rather than a competitor to regional languages; the letters do not provide a fuller defense of that policy.
J.D. Vance and Emily in Paris
Critics of Imposition
One writer viewed Vance’s praise of a show centered on an independent working woman as ironic given Republican criticism of single and childless women.
Defenders of Host Choice
The letter provides no direct response from Vance or other Republicans, so the opposing position is not represented in the material.
- BRICS dinner
- The menu served to visiting dignitaries was described as entirely vegetarian.
- Menu supporters
- One writer said the host government has the prerogative to set the dinner menu and may showcase India’s vegetarian cuisine.
- Menu critics
- Other writers said the dinner should have included non-vegetarian options because dietary preferences differ and much of India eats meat.
- Language concern
- Letters warned that promoting Hindi as a national or replacement link language could undermine regional languages and English.
- Three-language policy
- One writer said the policy is intended to protect India’s linguistic diversity, at least in principle.
- Political criticism
- A letter criticized J.D. Vance’s praise of Emily in Paris while linking it to Republican comments about single and childless women.