>I'm just saying, please do not bring number of death as index of
the genuineness of any cause. Such arguments are placed in a
political meeting.
*** NOT ALL such examples are EQUAL. Those of us who are awake and
are endowed with an ability to reason, cannot paint them all with
the same brush. To do so will be abdicating our responsibilities as
productive and involved members of society.
At 3:39 AM +0100 10/4/07, uttam borthakur wrote:
I simply add the example of Kamala Saikia for your consideration,
despite my unwillingness. He did not such macabre death for any
reason.
Nazis too considered their cause 'holy' and now you are commenting
on it as genocide. I have stated unequivocally that I am not
questioning the legitimacy of ULFA's claim.
Kindly re-read what I have said: -
I'm just saying, please do not bring number of death as index of the
genuineness of any cause. Such arguments are placed in a political
meeting.
Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When the unfortunate killing of Sanjoy Ghosh keeps appearing as the
sole argument against ULFA's struggles, it is legitimate and
appropriate to weigh it against those who willingly gave their lives
in pursuit of their cause. And to attempt to compare the cause of
FREEDOM with that of genocide by Nazis or 9/11 or what have you
harks of either an absence of ordinary reasoning ability or an
intentional abuse of it. That simple.
At 3:11 AM +0100 10/4/07, uttam borthakur wrote:
Should the number of people laying down their lives be a bulwark of
any argument? So, did Nazis, so did 9/11 hijackers, .............
should I try to prolong the list where people might have laid down
their lives for a retrgrade cause. I am not commenting on the
legitimacy of the claim of ULFA here. I'm just saying, please do
not bring number of death as index of the genuineness of any cause.
Such arguments are placed in a political meeting.
Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When a dialog was being sought, one would have hope it had an aim, a goal.
In this instance, what was Utpal's aim?
Would it be reasonable to assume that for the kind of people
involved here it was to help find a solution for the impasse of a
quarter century?
And what did it turn out to be?
Did the questions posed have a sincerity of purpose, of discussing
the merits of each side's positions, hopefully to find common
ground and a solution?
Can an observer not reasonably conclude that it was in its
entirety , without exceptions, an inquisition; of a dispatcher,
by a band of obviously immature and self-righteous and
self-impressed intellectual goons intent only on devaluing and
insulting the hapless, messenger ill equipped to dish out in kind?
The start of the response cycle obviously could very well have
been an honorable one, to have a honest and sincere dialog, with
some of Assam's most privileged and purportedly 'educated'. Some
education that must have been! It could in no way, shape or form
have been interpreted by the inquisitors or well meaning observers
to have been a signal to submit to being insulted and to surrender
the goals that thousands of their fellow men had given their lives
for or to concede that they have all been wrong while their
inquisitors alone are right.
Was it?
> Intelligentsia or not, every human being capable of
communicating through the net is intelligent >enough to find what
is good for him and what is not.
*** If the aim was merely to assert one's own righteousness, it
played out just as expected. But who needs it?
>What is intelligentsia for one may not be so for another.
*** That is profound.
At 4:52 PM +0100 10/3/07, uttam borthakur wrote:
When two parties talk, be it in catechism mode or a dialogue, it
is inevitable that they would represent divers interests. Is there
any pre-condition for proselytisation?
Now, if the interests are so antgonistic that there is no point in
beginning the discourse, then why should someone start a response
cycle at all?
Does Pakistan have to run a check on India while entering a
dialogue or impose a pre-condition for conversion? Let everyone have
his say. Each would find for himself, what is acceptable and what is
not? I do not find any substance in the search for sincerity or any
comment thereon.
Intelligentsia or not, every human being capable of communicating
through the net is intelligent enough to find what is good for him
and what is not. What is saintly sermon for Mr. Laden may be
blasphemy for Mr. Bush. Intelligentsia is not a defined monolith.
What is intelligentsia for one may not be so for another.
Is there any scope for normative preachings here?
Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Before we pass judgement on the response, we also ought to be able
to judge the QUESTION.
What were the questions posed by Utpal designed to ?
To help him and others decide, if what ULFA has been fighting for,
Assam's sovereignty, is a sound and beneficial move for Assam?
And if they are persuaded by ULFA's response that they are sound,
Utpal and others would SUPPORT it?
Or were they designed to extract an admission from ULFA, that their
own notions and beliefs, that it is
patently bad for Assam, never mind HOW or WHY they have concluded
that their notions and beliefs are the truly wise and considered
opinions?
Is it therefore REASONABLE to evaluate INTENT for ULFA before
submitting itself to the INQUISITION?
Where is the ORDINARY integrity expected of the intelligentsia
here, if one can misuse the English word under the circumstances?
The sincerity of purpose?
It is obvious that those who consider themselves the 'educated'
and'wise', unlike ULFA, and who parade around wearing the garbs of
pillars-of society do not think so and thus the eloquent outpourings
of disappointment, not to mention the offenses to their genteel
sensitivities . Not just that, the self-fulfilling prophecies too of
the band of braves indulging in the "hola gosot baagi kuthar mora"
enterprise, justification why their masters don't talk to them, or
should not.
What is missing from the exercises is a rudimentary element of AIM
of GOALS. Never mind the need to explore the reasons WHY ten
thousand plus Oxomiyas have given their lives. No doubt their lives
were nearly not as valuable as one Sanjoy Ghosh's.
Aimless exercises unfortunately lead to nowhere. With such pillars
of society looking after its well-being, one hardly needs enemies to
tear it down.
cm
At 11:19 AM +0530 10/3/07, shantikam hazarika wrote:
It seems that some of us are being branded as part of an "unhappy
gang with their so-called education". And they would be 'selective'
in answering their questions; which means they would only reply to
'sincere' questions, from 'real questioners' after their
'background check done'.
Well, in case they have to do a background check in my case, let me
tell you that my life has been an open book and if a background
check is requird in my case, it simly shows how much these people
are in touch with reality or the ground situations.
Incidentally, let me also tell, that there has been enough
background checks done about these people, their cohorts,
sympathisers, beneficiaries, supporters, hangers one and what not.
Lot of people already know who benefits from their actions, who are
actually propping them up. For example when they killed Sanjay
Ghosh, it did not require much background check to find out why
they did so, what was the nexus behind that sordid deal and who
would be the real losers if Majuli is genuinely saved in a very
cost effective manner. Obviously, they are buying time to prepare
some obfuscating response, what we may call "saale bere kobowa"
reply in the name of background checks and what not.
Also they have already said that they would ignore "halfwit
questions and questioners". How more selective can your comfort
zone be...
Interestingly, I was reading something today and I came across the
follwoing phrase: The truth is that many terrorists are doing very
well out of violence. Extortion rackets give them a lifestyle they
cannot aspire in times of peace. They have money, excitement and
status: what more you seek in life?
Mantabya nisproyojan.
Shantikam Hazarika
Director,
Assam Institute of Management
PO Box 30, GUWAHATI 781001, India
HOME PAGE: <http://www.aimguwahati.edu.in/>www.aimguwahati.edu.in
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 17:17:14 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: assam@assamnet.org
Subject: Re: [Assam] assam Digest, Vol 26, Issue 66
To: assamonline
ULFA invites genuine sincere questions from persons(not gangs)
not happy with their so-called education ,wanting to KNOW how to
fight and win their great future in sovereign Assam .
Firstly we will have background checks done on real (?)
questioners. Please tolerate delays.
ULFA will ignore halfwit questions and questioners who think they
already know and are already bonded mentally or monetarily.
With Best Regards to respectable Assamonliners,
Rubi
--------------------
Call friends with PC-to-PC calling -- FREE
<http://get.live.com/messenger/overview>Try it now!
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
Uttam Kumar Borthakur
Get the freedom to save as many mails as you wish.
<http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_mail_5/*http://help.yahoo.com/l/in/yahoo/mail/yahoomail/tools/tools-08.html/>Click
here to know how.
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
Uttam Kumar Borthakur
Save all your chat conversations.
<http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_webmessenger_3/*http://in.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php>Find
them online.
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
Uttam Kumar Borthakur
Did you know? You can CHAT without downloading messenger.
<http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_webmessenger_2/*http://in.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php>Click
here
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
