> I don't recall even the most srtident of Indian Nationalists like Advani, > Thakre Joshi and others like them referring to NSCN or ULFA as terrorist > orgs., or calling the late Phizo or Rajkhowa terrorists. Have you?
What are you talking about, C'da? The India media has always referred many of these groups as 'aatonk-baadi' or militants. 'Aatonk' (aatnonko in Assamese), according to the dictionary (Hem-Koxh) means TERROR, FEAR, DREAD. C'da, take your pick. It does not really matter how much you want to sugercoat their motives. As the song goes 'don't know much about history......' , I really don't know much about Israel, and that is the reason I wanted to steer clear of the Middle East situation. Your responses do weave around and around. Whether the Indian media and polititicains call the various "insurgent" groups in India as "rebels" etc really has no bearing - who knows what their motives are - maybe they are being politically correct (I am sure the English language is not an impediment here, as you had so deftly :) suggested). But, lets call a spade a spade - they terrorize the common Assamese folks. They intimidate and cow-down free speach and general freedom of the people by threatening their lives and business - and if you are comfortable with that, go ahead and call them "freedom fighters" - but for whom? definitely not for the people that we know!! Many innocent Assamese have been killed over the past decade. Ever since Assam has been plauged by these miscreants, people have not been able to freely express views. The saddest part of all this is that these people have taken the Assamese for a ride, looted and pillaged all this time for not something as noble as seeking "freedom" --- but for someting way too shallow - BECOMING RICH - without working. In the end they proved to be nothing but common thieves and thugs. You can call them what you want - the fact remains, in the end they are just common criminals and just that. Their depraved mentality has made sure to place Assam back by 50 or 100 years in development. For heaven's sake, let us not elevate their motives to anything higher than that. Let me repeat history, we all know: The Assam movement seem to have started with noble intentions - had the attention of the whole of India for a while - national newspapers had covered this "Gandhian movement" in the making. But soon, the "insurgents" or your "freedom fighters" saw that it was much better to make a fast buck while the going was good. They made sure that their children were born in the best hospitals, went to the best schools in India and abroad. They control their operations - from far off lands. They then made sure that whatever little development Assam was able to garner - was soon wiped out. They have only looked at thier own self-interest. And, one can't blame just the vulnerable youth here. There were the educated "intellectuals" who gave "guidance" to the movement. These were mostly after political mileage. Now you can dally around and put a lot of spin into all of these. But the fact remains: the truth is always the truth, neither you nor I can hide behind any amount of spin. With regards, --A. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chan Mahanta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Alpana Sarangapani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 1:33 PM Subject: Re: Detour From Dream > >Don't know about Israel. > > > > > I know, it is complicated Alpana. You didn't think I was going to throw an > easy one at you did you :-)? > > > > While I am at it, also try this one ( you all started it!): To Ariel > Sharons of Israel and Rush Limbaughs of the USA the PLO is a terrorist org. > and Yasser Arafat is a terrorist. However more than one US president had > entertained Yasser Arafat at the White House, and treats him like a head of > state. Colin Powell goes and meets with him to discuss mid-east peace ( > heh-heh, what an oxymoron). > > > What seems to be the matter here Alpana, Kamal, Dilip? Is the US dept. of State > ignorant of the meaning of the word 'terrorist'? And I never see main line > US journalists refer to Arafat as the Terrorist, Yasser Arafat. Who is > right here, and who is wrong? > > > > Now let us visit Assam: I have NEVER read ANY Asssam news media refer to > NSCN, or the ULFA, or the myriads of other such organizations or movements > as "terrorists". Nor do main line Indian news media. Not ToI, not the > Statesman, not Hindustan Times, not The Indian Express. They use euphamisms > like 'insurgents', 'rebels', 'ultras'. > > > I don't recall even the most srtident of Indian Nationalists like Advani, > Thakre Joshi and others like them referring to NSCN or ULFA as terrorist > orgs., or calling the late Phizo or Rajkhowa terrorists. Have you? > > > What seems to be the matter with them ? Maybe they don't know English as > well as Alpana or Dilip or Kamal :-). > > > But I really don't think so. The reason IS, what I alluded to in my first > response to Kamal, taking issue with HIS characterization of the unnamed > villains, which more than likely was a reference to the ULFA movement; is > that it is HIS personal viewpoint. > > While I won't ever attempt to deny Kamal, Dilip, Alpana their rights to the > usage of language as they see fit, the fact remains that it is > demonstrative of an INDIVIDUAL's personal perceptions and reactions, and > are not necessarily either THE TRUTH or even a widely held perception. > > > > cm > > > > > > > But, how is (the previous condition, that is) South > >Africa's condition the same with Assam and India? Doesn't Assam have her own > >elected ministers and cabinets? Are we, the Assamese "ruled" by the Indians? > >How many chief ministers (or xaak/bhaat khuwa ministers) we had were > >non-Assamese? I thought they were all elected by the people of Assam, > >weren't they? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 10:38 PM -0500 9/22/02, Alpana Sarangapani wrote: > >Hi C'da: > > > >> *** Thanks for reminding me Alpana. It is indeed helpful. > > > >Your sarcasm is well noted. :) > > > >I will be short. > > > >> were indeed terrified by the immense power that Gandhi wielded, in his > >> quest to get the British out of India. In that CONTEXT Gandhi could have > >> been called a terrorist, BY the British colonial powers. Menachem Begin > >WAS > > > >They were terrified by his immense presence, NOT terrorized by guns. Gandhi > >started fasting many times to stop violent incidents by even others. The way > >you are mixing up the two, it would be like, if the students in a school are > >terrified by a strict (but the best) teacher, then the teacher could be > >called a terrorist? > > > >> >Gandhi gave up everything, not just his family but also all material > >> >possessions, could you say that for any of the present day terrorists? > >> > >> *** You ask very easy questions A. We know that Osama Bin Laden > >> lives/d a spartan life of a very ordinary man in the caves of Afghanistan. > >> Is he therefore the same as Mahatma Gandhi? > > > >I thought I just reminded you of the non-violence 'ahimsa' part - You just > >thanked me for it, didn't you? :) > >Uxh! even the thought of comparing the two even make me sick to my stomach. > > > >> Again CONTEXT. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist not only to the Afrikaaner > >> apartheidists, but also to our very own VP, then Congressman Dick Cheney, > > > >> *** I am willing to go along with you if you could tell me who were the > >> good guys and who were the bad, in South Africa and in Israel. > > > >Don't know about Israel. But, how is (the previous condition, that is) South > >Africa's condition the same with Assam and India? Doesn't Assam have her own > >elected ministers and cabinets? Are we, the Assamese "ruled" by the Indians? > >How many chief ministers (or xaak/bhaat khuwa ministers) we had were > >non-Assamese? I thought they were all elected by the people of Assam, > >weren't they? > > > >> *** Name calling might be able to soothe our troubled souls, but does not > >> prove anything :-). > > > >If observing and then narrating the real picture is name calling, how do you > >describe a situation? Keep reading it on newpapers and sit around with > >zipped lips? > > > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Chan Mahanta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Alpana Sarangapani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 9:53 PM > >Subject: Re: Detour From Dream > > > > > >> At 5:33 PM -0500 9/22/02, Alpana Sarangapani wrote: > >> >> *** "Terrorism"abd "terrorist" is a grossly misused term. Mahatma > >Gandhi > >> >> too was a terrorist. So was Menachem Begin. Mao Tse Tung no less > >> > > >> >C'da: > >> > > >> >Gandhi was all about non-violence - 'ahimsa'. Even his worst "enemies" > >knew > >> >that - forget his admirers. > >> > >> > >> *** Thanks for reminding me Alpana. It is indeed helpful. > >> > >> But you seem to have missed the context of my comment altogether. And THAT > >> is exactly what I have been pointing to. A terrorist, by definition, is > >one > >> who creates terror. Terror can come in many forms. The British > >colonialists > >> were indeed terrified by the immense power that Gandhi wielded, in his > >> quest to get the British out of India. In that CONTEXT Gandhi could have > >> been called a terrorist, BY the British colonial powers. Menachem Begin > >WAS > >> actually branded a terrorist by the British. But he is a HERO to Israelis. > >> Again CONTEXT. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist not only to the Afrikaaner > >> apartheidists, but also to our very own VP, then Congressman Dick Cheney, > >> who opposed Mandela's release from prison. But Mandela recd., the Nobel > >> peace prize, and is considered a hero by much of the world. CONTEXT! > >> > >> > >> >Gandhi gave up everything, not just his family but also all material > >> >possessions, could you say that for any of the present day terrorists? > >> > >> *** You ask very easy questions A. We know that Osama Bin Laden > >> lives/d a spartan life of a very ordinary man in the caves of Afghanistan. > >> Is he therefore the same as Mahatma Gandhi? > >> > >> > >> > >> >How, even for argument's sake?..so, anybody that STOPS evil doings like > >> >slavery, theft, robbery, rape, etc., etc. could be grouped with the > >> >terrorists ?- > >> > >> > >> *** That is YOUR perception Alpana. Again I remind you of Nelson Mandela. > >> > >> > >> >- is it like one group against another and each one is a > >> >"terrorist" in the other group's eyes? > >> > >> > >> *** It most CERTAINLY is so. And often the lines between right and wrong > >> get blurred. Menachim Begin believed he was on the right path. The British > >> did not. > >> Who in your mind was the GOOD guy, and who was the bad one in this > >context? > >> Will you have the same degree of courage that you display about branding > >> certain people terrorists in the Assam context, to JUDGE and BRAND either > >> the British or the Israeli freedom fighters led by Menachem Begin? > >> > >> > >> > >> *** The point I am attempting to make is that we have to be very careful > >> about our own sense of righteousness, lest it gets self-serving. > >> > >> > >> >I hope with your never-ending quest for 'fairness' - you are able to see > >the > >> >differences between the good guys and the bad. > >> > >> > >> *** I admit my own failures--in asserting my self righteousness. > >> > >> > >> > >> >However much one may try, the > >> >vast majority of people know a terrorist when they see one - > >> > >> *** I am willing to go along with you if you could tell me who were the > >> good guys and who were the bad, in South Africa and in Israel. > >> > >> > >> > >> >---- its futile > >> >defending these derelicts of society. > >> > >> *** Name calling might be able to soothe our troubled souls, but does not > >> prove anything :-). > >> > >> > >> Take care. > >> > >> c-da > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> And how could you even mention Gandhi's name in > >> >the same breath with other terrorist scum that we see all around us? > >> >Gandhi gave up everything, not just his family but also all material > >> >possessions, could you say that for any of the present day terrorists? > >> > > >> >The main ingredient for a terrorist is to convert and convince other > >people > >> >of their views by using terror and intimidation. > >> > > >> >> Washington too was one. To the Confederates Abe Lincon must have been > >one > >> >. > >> > > >> >How, even for argument's sake?..so, anybody that STOPS evil doings like > >> >slavery, theft, robbery, rape, etc., etc. could be grouped with the > >> >terrorists ?- is it like one group against another and each one is a > >> >"terrorist" in the other group's eyes? Is it that simple? Its not a name > >> >calling battle, its about what is right and what is wrong - who is doing > >> >what - who is terrorizing the common people and taking away the peace of > >> >mind of thousands of people and also minting money using terror tactics. > >> > > >> >I hope with your never-ending quest for 'fairness' - you are able to see > >the > >> >differences between the good guys and the bad. However much one may try, > >the > >> >vast majority of people know a terrorist when they see one - its futile > >> >defending these derelicts of society. > >> > > >> >with regards, > >> >--Alpana > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >----- Original Message ----- > >> >From: "Chan Mahanta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 11:34 PM > >> >Subject: Re: Detour From Dream > >> > > >> > > >> >> > Those who romanticize terrorism, should well advise the "ex-citizens" > >of > >> >> >India >to associate the people at large of the State with their > >> >> >"ideology", so that a >political platform can be created in order to > >have > >> >> >their "package" implemented. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> *** "Terrorism"abd "terrorist" is a grossly misused term. Mahatma > >Gandhi > >> >> too was a terrorist. So was Menachem Begin. Mao Tse Tung no less. > >George > >> >> Washingtom too was one. To the Confederates Abe Lincon must have been > >one > >> >. > >> >> Nelson Mandela was one too, to the white supremacist South Africans. > >> >> Unless it is DEFINED,with reference to context, it is a catchall term > >that > >> >> carries little meaning. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> *** I agree that a ploitical platform has to be created. But what IF > >such > >> >a > >> >> platform could not be created because it is declared illegal by the > >powers > >> >> that be, rendering all such attempts at a creating a political platform > >> >> anti-national at best and "terroristic" at worst? Heads I win, tails > >you > >> >> lose scenario, isn't it? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >And if they are not willing to do that, they should be isolated, > >hounded > >> >> >or >whatever it takes to expose their petty self-serving motives. > >> >Economic > >> >> >>depravation is not a convincing reason enough to pick up an explosive > >> >> >device. > >> >> > >> >> *** What if it is NOt that lack of willingness, but the willingness > >> >thwrted > >> >> by the powers that be? What should its ramifications be? Should the > >> >powers > >> >> that be forfeit its rights to rule? If not what should the penalty be? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> cm > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> At 10:02 PM -0400 9/21/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >> >In a message dated 9/20/02 10:50:36 PM Central Daylight Time, > >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> ><<*** They are, but so? What are you going to do about those who > >have? > >> >I > >> >> > mean other than preach ? And would preaching end the cycle?>> > >> >> > > >> >> > Those who romanticize terrorism, should well advise the "ex-citizens" > >of > >> >> >India to associate the people at large of the State with their > >> >"ideology", > >> >> >so that a political platform can be created in order to have their > >> >> >"package" implemented. And if they are not willing to do that, they > >> >should > >> >> >be isolated, hounded or whatever it takes to expose their petty > >> >> >self-serving motives. Economic depravation is not a convincing reason > >> >> >enough to pick up an explosive device. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > KJD. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >
