Who owns copy rights

It appears that there were 4 groups fighting for non merger. What a blunder
by omissions of individuals, who played stellar roles and are now in a
select gallery of recognition. They were  by far not confined to the narrow
ideology of any group  pre  and post poll

Does it matter to express views for someone to be born before or after
historical events ?  History is distorted by coloured visions of partial
and bias of individuals committed to their own goals and perspective .Just
because some one has documented the event, that its gospel truth and
sacrosanct  History is like bones and interpretations that gives it flesh
,Such interpretations provide continuous scope and new perspectives .What
history books, and authors may be quoted which are considered to be
authentic and accepted without questioning in historical  reporting  of
Opinion polls.? Is the  writer spreading the discordant view on true
opinion poll, seeking relevance to  be treated as most reliable and
infallible person ?. It appears that opinions are retrieved from the
archives of decadent memory  without any reference to books and authors.
Remember that many more  persons were witness to the situation then, though
they have not written the events or just utter to be different and popular.
Those that have perused such historical events are definitely competent to
express their opinions .How the 4 disparate political groups coalesced
under one banner without a leader and a common platform is difficult to
fathom . It was indeed fact the Dr Jack was undisputed leader  of the so
called coalition, if there was one,.The groups therefore fought with a
common cause and purpose and naturally the credit goes to the leader in
forefront,  That merger can be credited to one individual is a fallacy
perpetuated spreading canards The other front  leaders of merger are
eclipsed  to suit the bias of the writer.To chide  about  birth dates is
the most hollow argument to  be heard on views of merit and facts. I have
never heard any  the individual arrogating exclusive knowledge of the
events  as the sole author on the truth and history of opinion poll and
subject it to the critics. Giving press reports to confuse and derail the
popular thought does not qualify one to be and  among counted great
respected  historians .M ere expressions of opinion cannot confer  the
title of a historian .There is no constitutional validity for the first and
only poll, defined as referendum by legal luminaries .God forgive, if the
opinion poll was lost there is never any  legal remedy against such a move.
The validity was also legally challenged ,There was strong resentment
against the opinion poll not encompassing a separate state and language,
leaving open agitation once again, instead of settling more important
issues Rightly as history records fresh agitation for separate state and
language, hence there was significant difference of opinions among the non

Nelson Lopes Chinchinim

Reply via email to