DS editorial

I do not agree with the editor that the opposition's demands 'reflect the socio economic realities'. Violence, as said, is a prime factor 'for social degradation and upsetting the balance of cordial atmosphere'. It could be handled in a positive manner if both the parties were sincere and self-respecting. Elimination or control of godfathers should not be the sole responsibility of the government but joint efforts must come forth.

Problems like corruption, price spiral, dismantling of a building (the power centre!) are not the creation of a single party. These problems have been perennially there and need to be addressed collectively. The mention of a building, as a cause of discontent, ah me ! is not rational. I really don't agree with those veterans in the opposition who could include a building in their rancorous charges!. Their posture of bringing in a tea-shop-gossip into a national resolution is comical and deplorable. For argument's sake, if inmates of some buildings are 'eyesore for some', they should be dealt with on the basis of specific complaints under the rule of law.

The cry of the day is not demolition of a building of sand and stone, but the demand of the majority is that the opposition should abandon the politics of confrontation, violence, culture of hartal and burning people with indignation after setting fire to cars and buses. And instead of issuing ultimatums to the government, they should fight for our rights by attending parliament. The press always feels obliged to pronounce the leader of the AL as the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament(LOP). If the AL leader does not attend parliament at all, can she be called the LOP?