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