Harsh Sethi's article A little tact won't hurt (May 7) articulates a number of questions surrounding NGO interventions, but skirts the most fundamental of these - apart from not being governmental, what exactly is an NGO like Sahayog? The article says that the entire local political spectrum and even leading senior citizens were ill-disposed towards Sahayog.

With no local support base even after years of being "active" in the region, can such NGOs be considered caring activists? About the booklet AIDS aur Hum with which all hell broke loose, the article says that, given male migration from hills, the promiscuous sexual behaviour suggested is not inconceivable. Equally, one might say, given that many scientists contest the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, it is not inconceivable that AIDS has nothing to do with sexual behaviour. Sahayog has muffed up, passing off stray remarks as scientific findings and violating basic ethical norms in reporting. The article says the situation turned vicious due to the combination of the specific form of presentation and a context of a high degree of mobilisation against outsiders as part of a statehood movement. It is rarely that the genuineness of concern and competence of NGOs is questioned. And is that not what is needed, with ever increasing NGO activity being driven by funding patrons and their agendas, with no strings of accountability attached?

Gita Dewan Verma, Delhi