While the congress sheds crocodile tears over the perceived "lawlessness" in Gujarat, what did they do when Nandigram was looted, burnt and raped? Was that supposed to be an epitome of "lawful" governance? Is there one set of rules for the BJP ruled states and a completely another set of rules for the commies? Why don't we then talk about the 1984 massacre of the Sikhs all over Indian and point out that the congress also has blood-stained hands?
RE:Lawlessness... does its definition vary from Gujarat to West Bengal?
by Netflix on Dec 09, 2007 09:27 PM Permalink
No no when Sikhs are killed it is reaction. Hindus in Godhra were so crazy that in order to start a riot, they locked the train and burnt themselves. I do not know why right thinking Indian can say that Godhra, 1984, Bhagalpur, Gujarat, Nandigram all are dirty instances. Do not be selective and do not brand any party communal. Everyone is naked in this hamam
RE:Lawlessness... does its definition vary from Gujarat to West Bengal?
by Sahadevan KK on Dec 10, 2007 09:28 AM Permalink
Both culprit and witness get same punishment in Democracy. An innocent human being very easily being arrested, but a ruling culprit can roam here and there in our system.
