Ashutosh, I thought of giving you the last words on this, as you always seek, but let's face it: your list of a, b, c, and d are nothing more than `arguments for the sake of an argument.' I am saying it, because you aren?t saying anything new, expressed or implied, than Kanak?s points about the circumstances that led to the massacre. Have you even read the article fully? Also, are you just a naïve or are you trying to be an ?obnoxious? by repeating the same argument time and again that ?civil society leaders care more only if one of their own is on the news-headline.? Isn?t it the same in your case? Wouldn?t you care more and do something of your capacity, had it hit you more personally? Isn?t it a KATUSATYA everywhere? But, no, you went extra-miles to demonize people like Kanak and other civil society members (not Tulsi Giri, Sarad Chandra Shah, Bharat Keshari, and others who have the 'power' to make the above 4 wishes of yours come true) for ?playing the usual game.? Hence, my last point to you is that you often poke at the weaknesses of the fledging civil-society that is already stifled by the autocratic King and the cronies you have had a fortune to be associated with for all these years. Have guts to see the larger picture: if you wanna blame the civil-society for not doing enough, first blame the feudal mindset of monarchy and the bhai-bhardars who never want to see civil society flourishing in the first place. For me, your obfuscation: shaping, slicing and selectively presenting data and facts, is another attempt to distract, if not mislead, the people with genuine cause. Rather than celebrating and building on the strength of civil society, you chose to demonize them and for that, I would say, you sound no different to me than Tulsi Giri trying to pulverize the civil society for being 'driven by foreign donors...'