libertarian wrote: Sometimes a small variation in wording can make all the difference in meaning. Thus organisation of which a member assassinated Mahatma Gandhi and the organisation that killed Gandhi do not say the same thing. The apology by "The Statesman" was for the later phrase which the original text of the apology put in quotation marks. The former puts the blame squarely on one individual who happened to be a member of the organization; the latter suggests a direct responsibility on the part of the organization. In the context of the United States one cannot validly discredit the legacy of Abraham Lincoln solely on the basis of his membership in the same party as George W. Bush. I do not have adequate background in the matter to take a position about which is correct, but I can be sensitive to the wording change. The gratuitous references to communists and Marxists do not help anyone to understand the complex and highly distressing events in Gujarat. The Communists of India are not a unified group. Communist has become a collective term for several splinter parties... so which of them is relevant here? When you mention "communist" in relation to Indian events to people who are totally unfamiliar with Indian politics, you will find yourself appealing to prejudices that have more to do with communism as it has developed in other countries. The reference to communists is a straw man argument. It is based on the presumption that others will see anything associated with communists as necessarily bad. If the reader can be made to associate the views of one Gujarati faction with the communists, then it will imply the conclusion that anything associated with that faction is also bad. This is a very dishonest way of debating. Those of us outside of India who take the trouble to somewhat inform ourselves about India, will feel cheated if we need to plough through endless streams of biased propaganda from either side. Let statements be evaluated on the basis of what is said rather than who said it. The senseless violence in Gujarat needs to be explained in terms of Gujarati events, and not by reference to a newspaper from West Bengal or a politician from Kerala. Ec