One of the favoured threats of many of today's
politicians is the one expressed by the GMAS leaders
-- that "we shall not be responsible for the violence
that follows". It's a threat which seeks to
pre-absolve the people making the threat. It's
self-evident that when such a statement is made,
violence if it follows is pre-meditated and therefore
all the more blameworthy.
I am all with Pravin and Miguel -- and the many calmer
voices on this forum -- who have argued against this
insidious approach to a resolution of the SEZ issue.
As someone else pointed out, the GBA and other
movements like it (rooted in a Gandhian belief in
non-violence as the only legitimate means of obtaining
one's rights) have shown that much can be achieved
without violence, and without the threat of violence.
Statements such as these underline why it is essential
for all concerned but law-abiding people to side with
the apolitical, as it is the politicians -- of all
sides -- who have the least regard for the rule of
law.
Aniruddha Sen Gupta
Porvorim
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
