> The postscript and the militant posture taken in the main text are obviously contradictory in nature.

Why do you say so? Is it so inconceivable that unsubstantiated allegations of the grossest sexual misconduct provoked me to react? OK, I'll throw you an open challenge. You know my identity (unlike some, I prefer not to hide behind this cloak of anonymity). If you want, I can send you all my personal details. You then try and prove that any significant link exists between me and Dinesh Sharma. If you can, I shall publicly eat my words. If not, you shall (a) reveal your identity in this forum, and (b) undertake to stop casting unfounded aspersions on the motives of people. I think that's as fair a deal as any, what do you say?

> Considering he has the number of concerts and the number of albums released as the bench mark, one thing that is sure is that he is not aware of the yardsticks used in the world of classical music to measure an artist's intrinsic worth.

Correction, I use concerts and albums as a benchmark of an artiste's _career_. It was in response to the statement: "it appears that her career graph as a musician was going great with an upward swing. This is totally in-consistent with some body in depression."

My reaction to this: There is very little to show that her career was on an upward swing. Ergo, there is little reason to believe her career was actually doing fine. And if so, it is not at all in-consistent (sic) with depression.

> How much of an authority is the author of the post on Shanti's musical virtuosity?

Where did the question of musical virtuosity come from? As I pointed out, the dearth of concert engagements and CD releases tend to bely claims of a burgeoning career. Top-notch artistes have had disappointing careers. There are enough examples in the musical world even - Munawar Ali Khan, Ishtiaq Hussain Khan, DT Joshi, Fahimuddin Dagar, Shamsuddin Faridi, Asghari Bai, and so on.

If you still insist on questioning my authority (to which I myself make no claims, you may note), please feel free to do so. But do keep in mind you are stretching my statement way beyond its original context.

> But he is confident about Dinesh Sharma's ancestral wealth and that he is a successful business man. By the same token very influential as well.

So what's your point here? Just because he's influential, we must believe he did kill her? If not, what conceivable relevance does your observation bear to the question whether he killed her or not? Granted, if it transpires he did indeed kill her, then his putative influence can help hush up matters. But you've gone to Step 2 directly, taking Step 1 for granted!

> Sexual preferences in today's world are acceptable but sexual perversion is not. Ever heard of male ego Mr.Majumdar?

Exactly! If sexual perversion is not acceptable, do you think unsubstantiated accusations of such practices are even slightly more acceptable?

Ever heard of proof, Mr/Ms Anon? Ever heard of the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt? Ever heard of common decency? And yes, ever heard of libel?

> Think about this from the point of view of the sublime, sensitive, beautiful free spirit who refused to bow to the lord and master and who chose to live life on her terms and chose to go without killing her soul.

I am prepared to believe this morsel of unabashed sentimentality, just so long as you proffer something, anything really, by way of solid evidence.