In the post appended below Marshall Mendonza, after offering me a conditional apology and claiming that he was giving me the benefit of the doubt is now spreading outright distortions and falsehoods to malign me. Please disregard the garbage he has written below. This man is engaged in a dishonest negative political activist campaign against me. Here are examples of blatant distortions and falsehoods that he is trying to sell you:
"Sandeep, while I agree with you that Santosh did condemn the violence, his condemnation was not unequivocal." ....Marshall Mendonza This is the same thing as saying Marshall's condemnation of the Mumbai terrorist attacks was not unequivocal because he praised Arundhati Roy's article, and tried to raise extraneous issues, including unrelated crimes perpetrated by Hindu extremists in the midst of that atrocity. "He then welcomed an article by Gurumurthy (of RSS) which was trying to whitewash the violence as 'a broad perspective'." ....Marshall Mendonza He is dishonestly leaving out the fact that I retracted my comment when I found out about this author's partisan affiliation with VHP, and the fact that he was as biased as Marshall on the opposite side. "Then he assertively supported the RSS inspired news item in Indian Express trying to nail R K Nayak as the kingpin and mastermind behind the swami's killing, all the while thrashing articles by Julio Ribeiro, Khushwant Singh, Karan Thapar, George Menezes, Shashi Tharoor, Vir Sanghvi, Maxwell Pereira and many others as partisan propaganda." ....Marshall Mendonza The above is both a distortion and a fabrication. Unlike Marshall, I have supported no story. I provided the Nayak story as an example of the kind of story that Marshall studiously avoids posting because of his partisan prejudice. This story was widely reported in the mainstream media, including the Indian Express (Please see: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/net-closes-in-on-cong-mp-for-orissa-swamis-murder/403507/). The politicization of Julio Ribeiro's article that I spoke out against had nothing to do with the Orissa riots. I have never commented on the articles of "Khushwant Singh, Karan Thapar, George Menezes, Shashi Tharoor, Vir Sanghvi, Maxwell Pereira and many others" What I have asserted, and what I stand by, is that Marshall Mendonza has engaged in partisan propaganda, and has circulated at least one communally incendiary rumor. He is also now trying to deceive you that the word "retaliate" only means what he says it means. The truth is that it also means the following: "retaliate - To return like for like, especially evil for evil". In fact, this is its first meaning in this online dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/retaliate That is why almost all mainstream news reports you read of the riots state that they were "retaliatory" or in "retaliation" for the murder of the swami. Finally, please note below that Marshall is now trying to ridicule and demean Sandeep. The smileys mean nothing when the preceding sentence is abusive in nature: "Even Ram Jethmalani would have been impressed and proud of him:-) If he seeks an alternative career other than medicine, he and law are made for each other:-)" .....Marshall Mendonza Cheers, Santosh --- On Thu, 3/12/09, Marshall Mendonza <[email protected]> wrote: > > At the outset, I must compliment > Sandeep for his very spirited defence of > Santosh. After all, that's for friends are for. Even Ram > Jethmalani would > have been impressed and proud of him:-) If he seeks > an alternative career > other than medicine, he and law are made for each other:-) > >................................................. > > Sandeep, I am sorry, I cannot agree with you. One, the > dictionary meaning of > retaliation is reprisal, revenge, vengence, retribution. > Killing innocent > people can NEVER ever be called retaliation. Let us not > even attempt to put > a spin on the word to suit our convenience or support our > argument. It is > just not on.What happened in Delhi in 1984, in Gujarat in > 2002 and in Orissa > in 2008 were not acts of retaliation but pure goondaism and > vandalism. The > aggressors in all cases were goaded on by their leaders to > kill and destroy > innocent people supported by a pliable administration for > political gain. > One cannot retaliate against a party who has done you no > harm in the first > place. And secondly, if we consider ourselves a civil > society, there is a > legal process for every grievance. Taking law into one's > own hands can never > be condoned or justified. Let us not legitimise the word > retaliation. >
