There are some good leaders - but some of the problems lie with the fact that some of the core members (leadership) of these organizations do not see eye to eye with others.
There are too many things at stake here: ego trips, power trips, 'we founded this', 'they broke away from us', 'we broke away from them', 'they are not our members', ' we are the only (and first) Assamese org', ' we have more members' etc. While a lot of this may be just plain human frailty, they do seem to tell us that we do not have the capacity to unite for any cause. Other than these things in the way - there doesn't seem to be much to hold us back from unifying.
Over the last couple of years, there seems to be some effort to come together under one umbrella like the conventions (Conferences). At least that is a step - but the leaders of these Organizations do need to move forward beyond this point and aim for only one organization. That I presume would cater to the wider audience.
I do not think it is necessary for one to join one organization or another so that a change can be affected in policy. In fact, I do know of people joining one such organization, thinking that they may be able to influence some decisions. No such thing happens in reality though. Now these same people have gotten so fed-up, that they have turned in their badges.
My question---Do you really happy to see all these small small difference between and among these small number of people? I know-the answer is "NO". I feel, it will be OK to keep 3 president, 3 secretary and 30, 40 50 executive member for that propose unification if necessary.
This sounds like the Iraqi Governing Body. In fact this may actually work in Iraq - but I seriously doubt if it will work for us. :)
Ram Sarangapani
_________________________________________________________________
<b>MSN 8:</b> Get 6 months for $9.95/month. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
_______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
