I refer to Jose Colaco's message under this subject. I am extremely doubtful whether Jose has been following the debate on this subject, otherwise he would have thought 100 times before shooting from his keyboard.
Instead of going into the entire Ramayana and Mahabharata of the issue to get him acquainted, I will use a simple example as Jose has a keen legal mind in addition to his medical qualification. Example: 'A' is killed. Initial police reports indicate that 'B' and/ or his supporters are behind the killing. 'B' appears before TV cameras and assumes responsibility for the killings and even issues a signed press statement to this effect. 'A's supporters have a long enmity with 'C'. 'A's supporters go on a rampage killing 'C's family members and relatives and destroying 'C's properties. This carnage goes on unabated for over 45 days with the active support of 'A's political godfathers. Now comes 'X' who says that 'A's supporters attacked and killed 'C's family members and relatives as retaliation for 'A's murder. Police investigations are on and no conclusions have been arrived at so far. Now the poser to you: 1.Can 'C' be held responsible for 'A's murder before completion of police investigations and filing of chargesheet? 2.Can 'A's supporters inflict violence on 'C' and his family members/ relatives because they have a long enmity with 'C' and want to believe that 'C' is behind the crime? 3.Can the violence against "C' by "A's supporters be considered as retaliation for 'A's murder? 4.Can the admission of 'B' that he is responsible for the murder of 'A' be ignored? 5. Is 'X' right in holding the view that the attack on "C' is retaliation for 'A's murder. I look forward to your reponse. Regards, Marshall