Now we go back to our preamble. We have talked of power there, and the sense in which we have talked of is one of unmitigated power and of the senseless exercise of such power that violently hits the fragile soul of our young democracy – merely 70 years compared to hundreds of years of some advanced, truly functioning, and civilized Western democracies. In his intertiolly respected book A Grammar of Politics, Prof Harold Laski, of the London School of Economics and Political Science and one of the most brilliant political theorists the world has ever seen, says of the state power as manifestation of the “will of the state” and argues that such attachment between state will and state power is “of a peculiarly majestic kind”. And then he argues further: “But the exercise of that force is always a moral issue, and the judgement passed upon it is a judgement made by each one of us. Citizenship, that is to say, means the contribution of our instructed judgement to the public good. It may lead us to support the state; but it may lead us also to oppose it. The will of the state is only my will in so far as I freely lend my judgement to its enforcement…” Now, if we freely lend our judgement to the enforcement of the will of the state vis-à-vis the Assam government’s belated action on Amchang, we are left wondering whether such will could have been better shaped after it being informed of the really, and not any politically motivated, humanitarian concerns for a helpless indigenous community well on time, and whether all who mattered in the corridors of power right when the illegal encroachment was taking place (the Congress) had a vested will to simply look the other way when such anti-wildlife settlement was on ubated under its very nose. Do any self-righteous netas have any answers?