Dear Mahanta da
By being in US for many years, if you feel that you
will be teaching queen's English to the netters, I
will be constrained to call it a PREPOSTEROUS idea.
Mayur
Chandigarh
--- Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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it was withdrawn.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.
> >
> >
> >
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
