|
>*** Yes, as a matter of fact I did consider it my solemn duty to
defend the concept of Assam for the Assamese as *I* saw it in
the context, because YOU >dragged the matter into the discussion.
I did not drag you into discussion.
You did it on your own. Nobody drag nobody into discussion in the net. We all do
it by choice. In your own words,
you did it by choice and it is
your interpretation to defend the concept of Assam for Assamese
and not Sumant Chaliha or somebody else.
I already showed you that your
defense of the concept of Assam for Assamese based on ethnicity (according to your definition of
Assamese) failed the test in case of Bengalis and other minorities living
in Assam. According to your definition, those will have to be
assimilated into Assamese (which you did not say how) before
they qualify as Assamese. Your concept has led you to a dead end.
On the other hand the definition of
Assam, as proposed by me, based on Nation concept of Assam is the safe
definition if we want to include all minorities in Assam irespective of their
clolor, creed, caste, language or religion.
Also if your above statement
is true, the following Gwal Gali must be wrong and
baseless:
>I try to help my friends who are not as articulate as they could be,
when I can.
>It is however unfortunate to see that instead of appreciating my effort
at educating you, threatened to 'attack' me, and then tried to devalue my
explanations >and criticized my methods.
>That is a real 'khai-paat-folaa' attitude, of biting the hand
that feeds. Hope you will take a New Year's resolution to overcome it in the
future.
You cannot do both at the same
time: Do something to defend your concept and gwal gali me as
khai pat fola.
RB
|
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
