> >Whether SH's questions are an an inquisition or it has >>dishonorable aims, it is an opportunity to clarify >one's position and to find new converts.
**** The AIM thingie is for people who understand that. Not everybody does. For those who do not understand it , it is "gorur aagot twkari bai, xing jwkari ghaanh khai". In this forum, I like to think, people don't follow others like sheep. At least they should not. Would be very unbecoming. It would be tragic not just for the Oxomiya identity, but also their humanity. It is for that reason, those who are unwilling or unable to gear their activities to an honorable objective, but are yet at ready to oppose others who do, do not do their societies any favors. They remain part of the problem, with nothing to contribute to a solution. In this instance the objective ought to be quite clear. But we will see. >It is ridiculous to be letting that opportunity go. *** I agree. What an opportunity it was, to enter into a dialog, to inquire and learn why ULFA took up arms, under what conditions, and what have changed to those conditions, that the inquisitors bank on to devalue their sacrifices in the pursuit of freedom; while recommending solutions to problems they know nothing about. >Imagine a sales guy doing that in an organization! **** Life is a whole lot more than a sales job. Eugene O'Neil told that story in heartrending details. At 6:48 PM -0700 10/11/07, Rajib Das wrote: >My apologies for responding late on this. > >In as much as SH or UB have strong points of view, so >do spokespeople of ULFA - at this point I guess the >only voice for debate from the ULFA's side seems to be >RB. Precisely why it really does not matter how low or >high he/she is in the pecking order! If this logic >were to be extended, there is no reason for SH or UB >to have a conversation with RB (or for that matter >you) since your mind is made up in any case. > >I don't see how this argument can be tenable! > >Whether SH's questions are an an inquisition or it has >dishonorable aims, it is an opportunity to clarify >one's position and to find new converts. It is >ridiculous to be letting that opportunity go. Imagine >a sales guy doing that in an organization! > >Unless maybe, there is no longer that energy and >belief in that position! > > > > > >--- Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> >I don't know whether it is clear or not - Utpal and >> >others seem to have attempted to make it clear - >> that >> >the real interest is in a response from ULFA. >> >> >> **** Yes , that was very clear Rajib. >> >> But since they did not get it to their >> satisfaction, I asked the question of SH who >> first brought it to us if he thinks or Utpal and >> others do, that therefore the question/s have no >> satisfactory answer? >> >> It was a leading question . I asked that very >> deliberately, with the aim of eliciting a >> specific answer. >> >> But I can see why SH wouldn't respond :-). We >> will see how Utpal fields it, if he does. >> >> >> **** But how does it matter, whether the esteemed >> org. responded to it? It would be nice if it >> were to have been addressed by ULFA, but they >> don't do a lot of things many Assamnetters will >> like for them to. SURRENDERing for example. >> >> >> Couldn't they tell that Rubi Bhuyan was not >> someone with the expertise of an able Press >> Secretary? Knowing that they still went after RB >> like a pack of stray dogs after a bicycle rider >> at Kukurmuta, didn't they? And imagine--there >> were those who call themselves JOURNALISTS among >> them! >> >> >> How does that fit with what Utpal's AIM, his >> objective, was in RB's inquisition? That is what >> I would like to hear from Utpal about. If it was >> as sincere and honorable as SH vouched for, there >> should be no problem sharing it with us. We will >> then be able to weigh the effectiveness or >> appropriateness of the questions for achieving > > Utpal's objectives. >> >> >> Wouldn't you want to as well, as a mature, >> honorable person, even though you don't have any >> sympathy for ULFA's cause ? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> At 10:12 AM -0700 10/8/07, Rajib Das wrote: >> >I don't know whether it is clear or not - Utpal and >> >others seem to have attempted to make it clear - >> that >> >the real interest is in a response from ULFA. >> > >> >Even though C-da has articulated A LOT in this >> forum >> >(I am sure everyone agrees with the that), his >> >articulations do not amount to a response from the >> >esteemed organization. > > > >> >--- Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Utpal: >> >> >> >> I have found what I was looking for. >> >> >> >> >> >> You wrote that you were reading my responses to >> >> SH with a lot of interest. I feel honored, >> >> considering that many tell me they never read >> >> what I write or give a damn. >> >> >> >> >> >> I will attempt to answer your questions, but >> NOT >> >> as in an inquisition or interrogation, where you >> >> ask the questions and I am required to give the >> >> answers, while "---dont wish to join you in a >> >> debate". >> >> SH also refuses to debate me. I understand he >> has >> >> no time for such. I like to think that you have >> >> at least a little more time than SH, considering >> >> you put together that exhaustive list of >> >> questions for Rubi Bhuyan. And I have no reason >> >> to think that you all prefer to pick on easy >> >> targets only. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> SH declared on your behalf that your >> >> >> >> "--- purpose was a DIALOGUE, and that too of the >> >> "sincere" variety and the best way we could have >> >> started was by >> >> seeking answers to questions that are plaguing >> the >> >> minds of most >> >> "educated", "middle class" Assamese people. >> >> >> >> >> >> Taking his word for it, before I give any >> >> answers, would you kindly share with us what the >> >> primary objective of your ( and others' too, if >> >> you share theirs) question/s was/were? >> >> >> >> I ask, because it was not clear. I am no >> >> journalist, just an ol' homespun observer. But >> I >> >> know from observation, that dedicated and >> >> effective journalists ask questions with an >> >> objective in mind and keep asking, seeking until >> >> they arrive at the objective or find the answers >> >> that help them achieve their objective/s. >> >> >> >> What was your objective, your AIM? >> >> >> >> >> >> After that I propose to engage in a give and >> >> take, ask/answer/follow-up and so forth, as in a >> >> civil dialogue between two mature persons. I >> >> promise not to ask anything personal or call you >> >> names or question your intelligence or >> integrity, >> > > comment on your language skills and indulge in >> >> other such confrontational or condescending >> >> tactics. If you wish you can appoint one or more >> >> ombudsmen/referees of your choice monitor the >> >> dialogue, but only for form/tenor of the >> >> discussions--not on the subject matter/s. >> >> >> >> Is that a fair deal? >> >> >> >> You are also welcome to have others in your >> team, >> >> perhaps no more than say two more persons. I >> >> don't want to get into what I termed the other >> >> day a feeding frenzy of scavengers. >> >> >> >> I am hoping that you will not decline on account >> of >> >> your sixth question below: >> >> >> >> > 6. Since you say you do not speak for ULFA >> and am >> >> NOT PRIVY to >> >> > its policy-making, would not it be >> >> >better if ULFA talks directly to all of us? >> >> with regards, >> > > >> >> >> >> The answer to that is this: >> >> >> >> Let us assume that ULFA is incapable of >> >> answering your questions, as was concluded >> >> by many of the inquisitors. But that does >> >> not mean these are unanswerable. I can >> >> field those questions. We will let you >> >> and the netters judge how well or how poorly. >> >> >> >> You are interested , after all, in seeing >> >> if these resolvable issues. If I can answer >> them >> >> satisfactorily, and if ULFA does not have >> >> anyone in its policy-making body capable > > >> of dealing with them, they can always >> >> HIRE me. I will be pleased to help them, >> >> having proven in this forum that I am up >> >> to it. That is the kind of work I do for a >> living, >> >> as a consultant, solving other people's >> >> problems. And in this era of globalization, >> where >> >> boundaries of state is an obsolete >> >> concept as you all declared, the fact of my >> being >> >> an ex-pat ought not to be an issue. >> >> >> >> Shall we ? >> >> >> >> c-da >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >=== message truncated ===> >_______________________________________________ > > assam mailing list >> assam@assamnet.org >> >http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org >> > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ >Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? >Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on >us. >http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 > > >_______________________________________________ >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
