A:
>I guess there is nothing wrong with the system as iit exists
if others can make >use of it and profit at the same time.
The fact is that we have been able to >do so for reasons best
known.
*** If there is nothing wrong with the system as is, then why opt
for autonomy is what I was questioning. But I won't press the point if
you would rather not get into it :-).
>If I remember correctly (I was not around at the time, the
ULFA movement began >with a view to rooting out corruption within
the Assam Government and >establishing a "better
government." Even after 25 years or so, it has failed
>in its initial movement and has now shifted its stance.
*** I wasn't there either. But I know of the disaffections and
the rumblings that began way back in 1962 or so.
But I have a question here: If the so-called legitimate
government/s, with the claimed people's support, with the control of
resources and with a constitutional mandate, would not, or could not
do anything to usher in better government in a quarter century
since open insurgency broke out, how do you think a rag-tag band of
under-equipped, untrained insurgents, constantly on the run from the
world's third largest standing army, could have established that
"better govt."?
Are we being facetious, or are we being frivolous ?
>One cannot change the system overnight or even another
individual, but one can >start by changing oneself. This is
what we need to do.
*** I am sure that is a well recognized philosophical argument.
And the proof is in all the "hardworking", right-thinking,
desis that fled -- to more fertile grounds abroad.Just look at
us.
Question is what "overnight" stands for--I mean in
human years?
Sardonically yours,
somo :-)
At 8:54 AM +0800 12/9/04, Anjan K. Nath wrote:
I guess there is nothing wrong with the system as iit exists if others can make use of it and profit at the same time. The fact is that we have been able to do so for reasons best known.
If I remember correctly (I was not around at the time, the ULFA movement began with a view to rooting out corruption within the Assam Government and establishing a "better government." Even after 25 years or so, it has failed in its initial movement and has now shifted its stance.
One cannot change the system overnight or even another individual, but one can start by changing oneself. This is what we need to do.
----- Original Message -----From: Chan MahantaTo: Anjan K. Nath ; Chan MahantaCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 11:31 AMSubject: Re: [Assam] Include UK in talks.At 10:47 AM +0800 12/8/04, Anjan K. Nath wrote:
Yes, Autonomy or the Federal Type of Government.
*** Yes, but WHY do you need autonomy? What is wrong with the present system? It IS a federal system as they claim, isn't it? Are we suggesting what it is claimed to be,is not?If so, why isn't it changed? Could it not have been changed in a quarter century? And if it could not be changed in a quarter century, WHEN and HOW will it be changed? Would you hazard a guess?>Had we been more concientious and hard working, we would not be talking of >being "exploited"Are we suggesting, that to live in the jungles, and willingly becoming cannon-fodder is the nature of 'lazy', kaniya-kharkhowas spouting 'exploitation' slogans? Somehow the picture is not a believable one.
Independence at this stage is not acceptable to many and perhaps, not feasable too. BUT within the present system it can still work as has been shown by Punjab, Kerela, Karnataka, Maharashtra and others.
Had we been more concientious and hard working, we would not be talking of being "exploited", but rather exploiting greater opportunities in ourselves and others. Mere talking will not help and neither will killing, but hard work and a positive mind might. There is no sense in Delhi bashing when we, the people, elect our representatives to parliament and the legislature. We have also have had our people represented as President, Speaker, Congress President, and what-have-yous. In spite of it all, we still complain. Prosperity can never come this way and, maybe, neither can peace. What is a "mutually acceptable" formula is difficult to define here if one is to go by the formula that created the SULFAs and other such bodies. What we need is not a magic formula, but rather a committment from the masses that they will take stock of their affairs and strive to a better society devoid of murder, mayhem, and manipulation!
Anjan
----- Original Message -----
From: Chan Mahanta
To: Anjan K. Nath
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Include UK in talks, says ULFA
O'A:
>--- Why can't we?
*** Great question. And this is exactly where the root of our troubles is. Olop daw-koi khandi saale' iyatei urohi gosor wr tw paba, buisa?
>--What we can do is strive for more autonomy
*** WHY do we need AUTONOMY? What is wrong with what is in place?
And here resides the answer to your question.
I would submit, that 'we cannot ---' is because of the asymmetrical arrangement of being dominated and exploited that Assam and the NE peoples find themselves in, after the British handed them over to India in nice little package, when they left.
The checks and balances of Indian democracy never worked. It is dysfunctional. And it is unchangeable. It is the tattered behemoth that is unable to change course.
That is why you want AUTONOMY, that is why ULFA wants independence. To be able to fashion your own destiny, without having to be dependent on the mercies of the dysfunctional Indian state or its constitutional bounds or the legendary Indian benevolence - economic, cultural, religious or you name it.
I would hope the parties to the conflicts would be able to talk instead of killing each other, and find a mutually acceptable formula, to live side by side, in peace, and maintaining and enriching those shared bonds, but never again in the asymmetrical arrangement of today's.
O's
At 7:34 PM +0800 12/7/04, Anjan K. Nath wrote:
O' Chan,
For that matter how many countries as we know today existed and still exists in the same form and shape from days of yore? Britain itself was a combination of England, Scotland and Wales with Anlges, Saxons, Jutes, Celts, Scots, and what have-yous who could unite under one nation. Why can't we?
At least we can conjecture from the Proto-Indian texts that India did exist as a nation before the so-called Aryan invasion followed by other invasions in due course of history. The term "Mahadeva" symbolized as the five-pronged trident (meaning great) along with the picture of a fish (ruler) appears several times denoting that a great ruler ruled the country. The trouble is that what we refer to as India dates to the Aryan civilization, but even so, the oft quoted Aryan text, The Rig Veda, does refer to India as a nation.
Now, what point of history do we take? The rule of Asoka, the Mohamedians, or the British? And with specific reference to Assam, why do we begin from the Ahoms? Weren't the Ahoms invaders too?
I don't have any books on Assam History at hand, but from what I remember, Chao-Ka-Pha (Chukapha) the discontended prince from the Khunglung family of Shan states (Hukong Valley) plundered his way to the Brahmaputra Valley (somewhere near Namrup) sometime in 1228 A.D. After some 13 years of living as farmers, they eventually ran into conflict with the Morans and then started the other battles won by either intrigue or force of arms.
If we say that India was unified by the British, then we have to accept THAT date as the starting point for the sake of debate, hence my contention that we have the right to ask the British to restore Pakistan and Bangladesh to pre-independence times. This may be wishful thinking, but we have to face the realities as they exist, and we cannot undo what has been done and accepted for over 56 years.
What we can do is strive for more autonomy and work harder to achieve a better standard of life and living within the system.
AKN
----- Original Message -----
From: Chan Mahanta
To: Anjan K. Nath
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Include UK in talks, says ULFA
Hi Anjan:
Coleridge aside, Bharat of yore was not a state. It was a multitudeof states, princely or pauperly, that live together in proximity with
each other, dealing with each other, trading with each other,
fighting with each other, sharing certain common bonds; such as their
gods, or their cultural attributes, food habits and whatever preceded
Bollywood movies. But still they were individual, sovereign entities,
UNLIKE today's India, herded together by a centralized power
structure. Had such an arrangement worked, no problems. But it did
not, it does not. So what is the alternative? Remain the joint family
ruled by the patriarchs, and in constant turmoil--or 'beleg hoi
thaka', but remain a family in peace, each to her own, living within
their means,separately, even if in different standards?
To me, the choice is a no-brainer.
And it has nothing to do with receding to the ice-age, or the stone age.
C
At 10:11 AM -0800 12/7/04, Anjan K. Nath wrote:
>O' CM,
>Dhemali koribo napai, ne?
>
>As S.T. Coleridge says: For a total poetic experience one needs to
>merge the improbable into the probable and the probalbe into the
>improbable. The present situation seems to be one such exercise --
>one of negative capability.
>
>I made my remarks with that view in mind. India has been fragmented
>by foreign rulers and this would have gone well if we were, say, the
>Union of Indian States or even the United States of India. Fact is
>and was that India was a nation of princely states, but collectively
>known as Bharat. And like the Confederate of German States, it
>united as the Republic of India and has been so for the past 50
>years or so.
>
>As Alpana rightly pointed out, should we go back to the Ice Age to
>determine what was India? Maybe we can be closer to history and
>simply settle the boundary when the Pala Kings ruled. You see,
>there is no end to this sort of argument, except, perhaps, in humour.
>
>AKN
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Chan Mahanta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Anjan K. Nath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Rajib Das" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 7:12 PM
>Subject: Re: [Assam] Include UK in talks, says ULFA
>
>>At 8:04 AM -0800 12/6/04, Anjan K. Nath wrote:
>>>And while the British are here can we ask them to re-align the map
>>>of India so that we get back what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>O' Anjan:
>>
>>Eh ki kwahe tumi? Nijor naak kati xotinir jatra bhongo koribo
>>kujase neki he'?
>>
>>Would you really want to have, in a healthy body and in sound mind,
>>B'desh or Pakistan back ?
>>
>>sondon.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Rajib Das" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>To: "Chan Mahanta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 6:10 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [Assam] Include UK in talks, says ULFA
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why UK? Why not Bangaldesh? They understand ULFA
>>>>best!!!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--- Ujjal Pathak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>who is ULFA?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:13:44 -0600, Chan Mahanta
>>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> One person's view: It makes a lot of sense!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The British not only knew Assam's history better,
>>>>>it helped create
>>>>>> it. They also were more earnest about Assam's
>>>>>welfare than the Indian
>>>>>> govts. have been. Even today, Indian Govt.
>>>>>operatives in Assam or its
>>>>>> policy makers setting Assam's destiny ( by and
>>>>>large--I know there
>>>>>> are exceptions) have little, if any real knowledge
>>>>>of Assam's
>>>>>> conditions, its history,and its needs, nor do they
>>>>>have any respect
>>>>>> for Assam's rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it was very apt for ULFA to seek UK's good
>>>>>offices in finding
>>>>>> a political solution to this never ending>>>>>conflict. I hope they would
>>>>>> actively seek the UK's participation and succeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Include UK in talks, says ULFA
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1132018,000900030004.htm
>>>>> >
>>>>>> In what could only worsen the deadlock between the
>>>>>United Liberation
>>>>>> Front of Asom (ULFA) and the government, the
>>>>>militant group has put
>>>>>> another condition for talks with the Union
>>>>>government, demanding that
>>>>>> the United Kingdom should also be called upon to
>>>>>take part in the
>>>>>> proposed negotiations "whenever they take place".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As surprising as it may seem, this according to
>>>>>the ULFA was
>>>>>> necessary as "the British have more knowledge
>>>>>about the history of
>>>>>> Assam than the Indian government".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Putting forward their argument, ULFA
>>>>>commander-in-chief Paresh Barua
>>>>>> told the local media last night that Assam was not
>>>>>a part of India
>>>>>> until the last Ahom king, Purandar Singha, was
>>>>>forced to sign the
>>>>>> Yandabu Treaty by the British in 1826.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "As it was the British who annexed Assam to the
>>>>>Indian union, putting
>>>>>> an end to the six-hundred-year rule of the Ahoms,
>>>>>it is imperative
>>>>>> that the ruling British government be present in
>>>>>the discussion on
>>>>>> Assam's sovereignty," Barua said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Asked about their stand on "sovereignty" Barua
>>>>>said that the ULFA had
>>>>>> not compromised the issue. Talks with the
>>>>>government, he said, would
>>>>>> now be possible only if the government agreed to
>>>>>their demand on
>>>>>> involving the UK. He said his organisation
>>>>>continue fighting till its
>>>>>> objective "sovereignty" was achieved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ULFA leader's statement came hours after
>>>>>Jnanpith Award winner
>>>>>> and professor of Delhi University Dr Indira
>>>>>Goswami told the media
>>>>>> during here last evening that she was hopeful that
>>>>>effort to bring
>>>>>> the ULFA and the Central government would be
>>>>>fruitful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dr Goswami has been in touch with the ULFA
>>>>>leadership for quite some
>>>>>> time now, in her effort to bring the militants to
>>>>>the negotiating
>>>>>> table. She, however, declined to comment on the
>>>>>ULFA's sovereignty
>>>>>> demand.
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Assam mailing list
>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mailing list FAQ:
>>>>>> http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change options:
>>>>>> http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
>>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>Assam mailing list
>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
>>>>>
>>>>>Mailing list FAQ:
>>>>>http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
>>>>>To unsubscribe or change options:
>>>>>http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>__________________________________
>>>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>>>Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
>>>>http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Assam mailing list
>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
>>>>
>>>>Mailing list FAQ:
>>>>http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
>>>>To unsubscribe or change options:
>>>>http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
_______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
