Professor Cohen himself addressed the point with his rejoinder, A:
Refusing to classify all terrorist activities under a single head, the South Asia security expert instead drew a line between "idealistic terrorism, violent activities against real or perceived injustices, and criminal terrorism, under which a god cause is used as a cover for criminal activities." "However, we have never been able to come to a universal definition of terrorism, since as Ronald Reagan has said, `one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter." If you leave this part out of the pragraph you picked to highlight, then the meaning is lost. It would be cherry-picking. But when you put the above two pragraphs back in the basket, then the whole thing would makes more sense and thus would allow us to weigh the Indian Govt. policies regrding handling of 'separist groups'. Weighing the matter thus in perspective, what would YOU conclude about Indian policies on the matter? Ultimately it is not what an outside observer might characterize it as, under the context of diplomatic niceties and duties of guest to the host, that would make the difference, but how WE do, knowing what we do. Don't you think? At 8:41 AM -0600 10/31/03, Alpana B. Sarangapani wrote: > > >Thanks for sending the very interesting article, C'da. > > > >Just wanted to add that the title of the article (I think it is a direct >quote from Prof. Cohen's speech) is: > > > >US has lessons to take from India on terror: Cohen > > > >and I think everything makes very good sense including this: > > > >"Academics and policy-makers in the two countries should look for common >concerns, since I believe that, by and large, your country has been >successful in reconciling many complex differences, such as caste, religion >and language. I believe there are lessons for US policy-makers in your >handling of separatist groups," he added. > > > >What do you think? :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Netters might note that our fellow netter Prof. Sanjib Baruah is currently >with the Omeo Kumar Das Institute of Social Change and Development, where >Stephen Cohen presented the following. > >cm > > > > > >Eminent scholar Stephen Cohen in the city on Thursday. (Sentinel) > >By a Staff Reporter >GUWAHATI, Oct 30: "As far as the political response to the September 11 >attacks is concerned, I believe that the Bush administration over-reacted >in declaring a `war on terrorism'. The language used by the Bush >Administration in defining their policy on the issue of terrorism was >actually not useful. Global and Islamic terrorism cannot be dealt with as a >form of total war," said Professor Stephen P Cohen, an internationally >respected scholar on South Asia and a top advisor to the US Government on >foreign policy matters, while delivering a talk entitled "September 11: New >Research Agendas", in the city today. > >Professor Cohen, Senior Fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program of the >Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, and a consultant to various >foundations and US Government Departments on international security >matters, delivered the talk at the Omeo Kumar Das Institute of Social >Change and Development here. > >"Prior to the September 11 attacks, global terrorism had not been a >priority for the Bush administration. Their number one strategic concern >had been the rise of China as a potential threat to US interests. There had >also been some thought about India as a counter-balance to this growing >Chinese presence. However, the September 11 attacks changed all that," >revealed Professor Cohen. > >On the effect of the September 11 attacks on US attitude towards terrorism >in other countries, Prof Cohen said: "After the attacks, Americans became >more interested in countries such as India, which have facing terrorist >activities for quite some time. I believe now we have greater sympathy and >understanding for the problems in other countries." > >On the current state of Indo-US relationships, Prof Cohen felt that after >the attacks, "the Indian government hoped that the US government would >fully side with them against Pakistan. However, this has not happened, >since there are limits to which the US can pressurize Pakistan to give up >support to terrorist activities in India." > >However, Prof Cohen added that both the US and India shared a vital >interest in ensuring that Pakistan did not become a 'jehadi state'. > >"Academics and policy-makers in the two countries should look for common >concerns, since I believe that, by and large, your country has been >successful in reconciling many complex differences, such as caste, religion >and language. I believe there are lessons for US policy-makers in your >handling of separatist groups," he added. > >Refusing to classify all terrorist activities under a single head, the >South Asia security expert instead drew a line between "idealistic >terrorism, violent activities against real or perceived injustices, and >criminal terrorism, under which a god cause is used as a cover for criminal >activities." > >"However, we have never been able to come to a universal definition of >terrorism, since as Ronald Reagan has said, `one man's terrorist is another >man's freedom-fighter." > > > > <http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUS/2734??PS=>Cheer a special someone with a fun >Halloween eCard from American Greetings! _______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
