The thinking is flawed, limited even. It would actually be funny, if it weren?t pathetic. An NGO (non-governmental organisation), Media Watch, organises a workshop in collaboration with Gender Links, another NGO based in South Africa. The workshop is about the representation (or lack of) women in politics. Representatives of all political parties are invited to express their party?s views on the matter.

Sane and healthy initiative, wouldn?t you say? Except that, when you are dealing with paranoid people, you cannot carry out sane and healthy exercises. It simply doesn?t work. Prime minister says he will attend. Then sends his minister of women?s rights to represent him with his apologies. OK, would you say, those things happen. But when the MSM leader decides to have himself represented by another minister, the theory that coincidences do not exist comes back to mind.

The leader of the Labour party, however, accepts the invitation and rather tactlessly - or jokingly - invites those present to vote for Labour if they want the situation of women to improve. Ok, joke, huh? At least Ramgoolam, for all his failings, has a sense of humour. Arianne Navarre-Marie speaks at the function and gives the impression she?s supportive of the agenda.

But what happens later? The government issues a statement saying that, in the light of the opposition leader?s ?propaganda? without a rebuke from the president of the organization, they aren?t prepared to view the NGO as a non-political organization anymore. Where are we going? So, one is not allowed to express oneself anymore? Every little thing that happens has to be interpreted in terms of political colour?

We see this behaviour everyday with those politicians. Some of them refuse to so much as speak to you if you write something that disapproves of their action. If you happen to have a name that could be associated with one of their adversaries, you are doomed. I suppose one of the reasons why that decision was taken is because the president of Media Watch happens to be the wife of former MMM Dev Virahsawmy. I suppose consultant Nita Deerpalsing?s questions as to why no women were nominated to replace the resigning ministers did not please our paranoid friends. Maybe if the question had come from somebody with a different family name, things would have been different?

Think I?m going over the top? I?m not so sure. How can we make any progress if we are going to play petty politics for the rest of our lives? I already knew our friends driving in the big cars were paranoid and petty. I thought they would be clever enough to limit this behaviour to journalists. But they have been had, haven?t they?

What we can gather from the government?s communiqué is that it was never interested in gender issues in the first place, that it could not care less about more active female representation in politics, that it is all just a big sham. Fair enough. At least, we know now, don?t we?