At 9:36 PM -0500 9/23/02, Alpana Sarangapani wrote: >> 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.
*** I was not talking about the Hindi language ( or VERNACULAR) characterizations of 'terrorism' Alpana. Remeber how the vernacular press exaggerates things :-)? >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. *** Its OK Alpana. I know when to fold :-). >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). *** I can understand how political correctness can dilute the message. But there is more to it. It is the issue of 'moral clarity', or seeing the world in blacks and whites, with greys all wiped clean off the picture. As I always say, it is NOT a true picture. And when we hold up a black and white image of the world and tell people look folks, this is it; it stretches credulity. It might work for a short while, but soon enough people wake upto the realities. And when that happens, the media cannot go on the same tack. Because without believability they don't survive. That is why the media, the credible ones anyway, are careful about using language, and phrases and words judiciously. >But, lets call a spade a spade - they terrorize the common Assamese folks. *** You must come from a world very different from the one I come from A. I know I am not as widely traveled as many of you guys. My world in Assam was very isolated, very tiny and probably totally de-sensitized to terror. You know how anthropologists talk of mutations in isolated societies. My world must be one of such mutants and deviants. Maybe that explains my condition as well :-). >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!! *** The most brazen of free speech amongst MY people consisted of the ability to go to the 'nongola-mukh' ( gate) and deliver full bore 'g--l gaali' to the objects of their displeasure. And the biggest businessman around town probably was the odd man out in the village, who went peddling cheap clothing from the carrier of his rickety bi-cycle at 'haats'( bazaars) in the surrounding villages. Maybe I am exaggerating a tad bit here. It isn't exactly the same any more. But NOT much different. That is the recurring story of MY people, A. No 'terrorist' in his right mind would dare infringe on the free speech rights of MY people. An aunt or a grandfather with a sharp tongue would know exactly how to put an upstart 'terrorist' in his place instantly. And he would be a raving lunatic to go ransoming the businessmen amongst them. See why I can't relate to your worries :-)? >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. *** I have to agree with some of your charges here A. But here "---these people >have taken the Assamese for a ride, looted and pillaged all--they made sure >that their children were born in the best hospitals, went to the best >schools in India and abroad. ---", are you talking about the "terrorists" or are you talikng about youyr 'democratically' elected leaders and the centrally trained and dispatched civil servants :-)? >They control their operations - from far off >lands. *** Like Delhi for example perhaps :-)? >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. There >were the educated "intellectuals" who gave "guidance" to the movement. These >were mostly after political mileage. *** I know EXACTLY what you mean. >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. *** Can't agree with you more A. Before we close this chapter, just take a second look at the litany of your complaints, and see if they could have anything in common with MY people :-). Take care. c-da >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. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >>
