Hi Bhuban Kokaideu,
>---a foray into
the pugilistic expertise of the participants.
*** You are right. And I take responsibility for notching it up.
But I did not make those judgements which precipitated it :-). We
cannot let simplistic and
baseless assumptions, however well intentioned, be the
criteria either for judging entire groups of people or for engaging in
a discourse while it is being used to assert a pre-conceived
'solution' to supposedly help Assam.
>>>"Jumping at the prospect of holding a plebiscite is simply preposterous"<<<
>It appears both
Mayur and Chandan have disagreement on the point.
*** You are absolutely right. But that is the CONFUSING part.
Because Mayur opened the issue, challenging me to accept the
notion, if I had any courage for it.
When I expressed support for it, Mayur's answer was confusing.
But I think it is a problem with use of 'high-sounding words' without
knowing its meaning. That damned English language again, continuing to
haunt our discourses :-) ! We will see.
>Now the
plebiscite. ULFA itself first suggested it. But it appears it was
withdrawn.
*** You are right, even though it was floated by others as well,
time to time. I don't know how ULFA views it now. But I don't recall
hearing anything about ULFA 'withdrawing it'. Personally, I think it
makes eminent sense.
>Some academics
have pointed out that the Indian Constitution does not provide
plebiscites.
*** That is a fake, make-believe, problem BK. India does all
kinds of things that are inimical to or in contravention of its
constitution, whose sanctity is entirely one of expediency; as
numerous examples would amply demonstrate. Just look at AFSPA or TADA
that have operated in the NE for decades, with the defenders of
constitutional sanctity and democratic values not to be seen anywhere
raising their voices against them.
But the 'urohi-gosor-wr' is somewhere else. The real fear of
Indian nationalists is opening up of the floodgates of other peoples,
other components of the tenuous union demanding the same. And that
fear is real, even though all those dedicated to democratic
values will not admit it. That should tell us something of the state
of the union with super-power pretensions.
>The history of
plebiscites in rest of the world is that the Government usually
manipulates it the way it likes
*** That too is true. But, SOME checks on that might be possible
in the Assam context, to come to a reasonable enough assessment, and
thus, hopefully, a closure.
>I don't think a restricted plebiscite requiring only, for example, a certain section of the people to participate >negates a very basic requirement of democracy.
*** Even though I might agree with you on that in principle, in
the context of Assam and in the context of the subject of contention,
it is a debatable matter.
As we well know, no one set of rules of democracy could be
proffered as the best
and thus applicable for all. They have to be crafted,
individualized, for different society's different needs, with the
essential principles as guide. Just look at the USA for example,
obviously one of the most effective democratic societies in the world.
But they do not allow those ideas that are fundamentally
opposed to its credo of a capitalist society to compete openly.
Similarly, those outside forces who do not want Assam to have
the right to its self determination, ought not to get the same billing
in determining the outcome, even though they should and perhaps
would get equal billing in matters after that fundamental question is
settled.
Regards.
c
At 4:35 AM -0400 9/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Language: en
The topic under discussion was an investigation into Assam's strength and weaknesses. For the last week or so it has turned out to be a foray into the pugilistic expertise of the participants. Are we not missing the wood for the trees?
However, I would like comment upon just one excerpt:
>>>"Jumping at the prospect of holding a plebiscite is simply preposterous"<<<
It appears both Mayur and Chandan have disagreement on the point. They rightly do so because it is a debatable issue. I raised it some time ago while discussing sovereignty; but it wasn't enlivened by any follow-up: the usual sequel to so many starters our contributors like to retrieve from the worldwide press. Actually that is how the net is largely sustaining itself, as I can see.
Now the plebiscite. ULFA itself first suggested it. But it appears it was withdrawn. Some academics have pointed out that the Indian Constitution does not provide plebiscites. Since the Mother of Parliament is increasingly making use of it, India cannot be totally barred from using it. The history of plebiscites in rest of the world is that the Government usually manipulates it the way it likes. I don't think a restricted plebiscite requiring only, for example, a certain section of the people to participate negates a very basic requirement of democracy.
Bhuban
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
