I would agree with C-da on the absurdity of the piece on multiple fronts. Given the gist of how C-da has presented his argument, there are a few things that come to mind:
1. Logically, the PCG is ULFA's spokesperson/s and so it should be presenting the ULFA's case in the negotiations. That means, the PCG does NOT necessarily present Assam's case. Just ULFA's. 2. In the para related to "enlightened Asomiyas", C-da did not refer to the "ordinary Asomiya masses". It is perhaps not their infantile observation or analysis that these ordinary folks are fed up of violence. Maybe because it is a fact STARING at you in the face, Sentinel can be expected to understand that little bit of logic. Strange the PCG or the ULFA does not get it! 3. I guess because the Sentinel is after all such a dumb rag, it thinks of "sovereignity" as utopian or impractical as opposed to harmful (or non-beneficial) for Assam. I WISH however, that the enlightened folks at the PCG and ULFA could explain WHY this sovereignity is beneficial after all. Despite the exhortations I haven't heard a single, logical argument to point towards even the horizons of an answer. 4. The final point - rather a question - is about the Bangladesh / ISI factor. What really is the ULFA / PCG / sympathizers position? Giving a condescending grunt as a response to an "infantile" editorial is not an intelligent or enlightened response by any means. --- Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK Ram, let us take a detailed look at the > Sentinel's opinion that > impressed you and Bhuban Kokaideu , not to mention > the silent ones, > so: > > > >Given that the PCG was hand-picked by the ULFA to > further its own > >interest, and given that the PCG did >actually > present a very > >partisan view of the whole 'insurgency' riddle as > if it was to voice > >not the >Asomiya concern but only the ULFA's, one > would readily > >conclude that the very process of peace >was on a > shaky ground. > > > *** Self-fulfilling prophecies are not something > that thinking > people hold in high esteem. If the Sentinel was so > prescient, and had > no trust in the ULFA or the PCG, what did IT do, to > do the right > things, as it may so deem, by the people of Assam? > > > *** Is it not rudimentary logic, that if ULFA > delegates someone, to > look after its interests in a possible set of > negotiations with whom > it has been fighting, namely the GoI and its > apologists and proxies > in Assam, that it would delegate people who have at > least EMPATHY > with their cause, if not complete alignment? > > Would it not be entirely infantile for the Sentinel, > and others who > think like it, to expect it would be otherwise? > Like selecting a > group of people that would represent the thoughts ad > wishes of the > Sentinel for example? > > And to think that the rag would air its illogic in > this fashion, for > the world to see, is quite amazing. It demonstrates > its own surreal > existence and life in denial. > > > >It is not only the wise and enlightened Asomiyas > who negate the idea > >of Asom's sovereignty, but, as of >now, it is also > the ordinary > >Asomiya masses who have had enough of senseless > violence - the > >reason why >the State remains so backward - that > went in the name of > >a romantic revolution, continuing as ever. > > *** If the Sentinel here represents the WISDOM of > these 'enlightened > Asomiyas', one can only shudder at the enlightenment > and wisdom > referred to. > > > >The writing on the wall is that sovereignty is too > utopian,------ > > > *** Utopian means something that is 'ideal but > impractical'. One > would like to think the editorial writer at least > knows what the > words he/she writes mean. > > If sovereignty for Assam is too ( sic) 'ideal but > impractical', then > what is reasonably 'ideal but practical' for Assam, > as an alternative > but acceptable middle ground for Assam? Mind you > now, the Sentinel > does not decry sovereignty as something undesirable, > just that it is > too impractical. > > After all, parties to a conflict enter into > negotiations not to > surrender, but to find an acceptable middle ground > or some trading > that will satisfy both, don't they? > > Would those who can think, not want to know from the > Sentinel > therefore, what they, who represent the 'wise and > enlightened > Asomiyas' , think is as ideal as sovereignty for > Assam but also > something more practical? > > > > > especially at a time when the very notion of > sovereignty has > >changed in the wake of >transnationalism and > globalization. > > > *** I can't believe what an absurd and unreal world > these editorial > writers live in! Can you Ram, with a straight face, > tell us that > these words reflect the the realities of the world > today ? Is it NOT > the Sentinel that is indulging in something 'too( > sic) Utopian' ? > > > > >---Not only this,(the absurdity of assuming that > somehow the idea > >and need for sovereignty of nations is now passe') > by this time the > >ULFA must have also had the wisdom - out of its own > >experience with > >the Indian state - to understand that there is > absolutely no reason > >to dwell on >the sovereignty theme , that too for a > State whose > >populace has so much to share with the rest of the > >country. > > > *** Huh? That ULFA should know by now that 'there > is absolutely no > reason for sovereignty now' ? Why? Because this > state has so much to > give away, to let be stolen by the rest of the > country? > > I don't know whether to laugh or cry! These guys are > just too unreal!! > > > > And one expected the PCG to make the ULFA > understand this simple fact. > > *** Based on what? What is this expectation of the > PCG based on? If > the ULFA, having given thousands of lives over > twenty years, have NOT > listened to its detractors like the Sentinel, and > held the third > largest standing army of the world at bay, expects > the PCG now to > bring them around to the Sentinel's line of > thinking? > > How much more absurd can one get Ram? Tell me, > please! > > > >Having said this, what now transpires is that the > ULFA might have > >never wanted to sit for direct >talks with the > Government of India. > >After all, the ULFA's desire for peace in Asom also > means > >the >desire of the Bangladesh-ISI duo for the same > peace - which > >cannot be. > > > *** How deeply perceptive of the Sentinel, whose > wisdoms ooze thru > the lines of this infantile piece! > > > >annex the State, and the notorious ISI ever think > of normalcy in > >this part of the country? And so the voice >of ULFA > C-in-C Paresh > >Baruah sounds not like an Asomiya's that would > rescue Asom from an > >imminent >doom - annexation by Bangladesh and the > making of an > >Islamic state (since Bangladesh is not secular but > >Islamic). > > > *** Now we begin to see the real truths here. It is > the fear of the > not-secular (how very un-Indan, heh-heh!), but > Islamic state of > B'desh., isn't it? > > Well, whatever happened to the idea of sovereignty > being === message truncated ===> _______________________________________________ > assam mailing list > assam@assamnet.org > http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
