I did not cite this example to show discrimination against Assamese. Mind
it, there will be non-Assamese from outside among those Sainik School
students. My intention was to show the contradictory attitude of two arms of
the same federal government. Cheers!
From: Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rajib Das <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Snail Mail: Postal Department, India
>Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:09:41 -0500
>
>That was a very good explantaion, Amlan.
>
>
>But needs a couple of additional explanations to clear it up
for our
>befuddled friends:
>
>
>
>1: It is obvious that ONE arm of the Central govt. has failed
in its duty
>of delivering the mail in the manner it has promised the
people. That in
>itself is NOT a sin,or a crime meriting a federal case. It
could have been
>an accident. The mail truck from the PO to the airport could
have been
>washed away by flood waters. THe mail-deliverer might have used
it to cook
>his dinner. Whatever.
>
>2: But for the UPSC, another arm of the all knowing, all
powerful Central
>god of the nation, to have ignored the appeal to re-consider
the issue,
>even though its sibling, the postal dept. caused the problem
for the
>students; is unconcionable.
>
>3: Those who are entrusted with the powers, in this instance
the many armed
>god, OWNER of two arms involved, must be held responsible,
ACCOUNTABLE. If
>that does not happen, the whole exercise is MEANINGLESS.
>
>
>Now how do the citizenry extract accountability?
>
>
> a: By going to a reliable forum, where after a trustworthy and
competent
>investigation would establish guilt or innocence and if guilty
would assess
>damages, and may either recommend redress of the grievances or
award
>damages.
>
> b: Take to the streets, shut the whole place down.
>
> c: Go beat up the post-master.
>
> d: Call Assam Netters to judge.
>
>
>I would now invite the befuddled Netters to examine which of
the above
>seems to be an appropriate tack? And if none above, perhaps
something else?
>I am not going to point out the right answer here, because if
the befuddled
>pick the right ones themselves, they would have ownership of
the
>decision--and therby will be a far better means of selling the
idea (
>thanks to my management seminar fundas here!)
>
>4: I don't recall ANYONE, much less the perennial offender,
yours truly;
>who has claimed in THIS instance, that it was a case of
discriminating
>against the Assamese. It is either a case of serious
reading/comprehension
>deficiency or a case of some variation of bi-polar disorder
causing hearing
>of voices not sopken ( Dr. Tilok, any comments, if you are
listening ?).
>
>I did however raise the possibility that the clerks-from-hell,
the suck-up
>and piss down bunch, who are not only expected to be able to
read the
>rule-books but also are expected to be able to exercise good
judgement and
>are paid to SERVE the citizenry with their tax rupees, might
have iognored
>the appeals, because the appealers were nobodies--just a bunch
of losers
>from Assam. If it were a bunch of students from DElhi, I do
believe the
>response might have been somewhat more thoughtful. I raise that
possibility
>because of my willingness to be observant and what I have seen.
>
>
>cm :-)
>
>
>
>
