C'da
>Yet another one of those statements assigned to
> me,but something I NEVER said. Because I always knew
>that it was NOT about economic development
Nor have I. But I believe economics is at the root of
the problem, and I did mention religion, identity etc
as other factors. But here it is from an earlier post
from you:
>Incidentally, one of the most glaring omissions or
>ignorances some of you demonstrated last week about
>Assam's alienations were your beliefs that it was all
>about economic development or lack of it.
>Shows how much you guys are out of it.
First of all, I never said it was all about economic
development. But I subscribe to idea that economic
development (or lack there of) was a basis for
insurgence in Assam.
People is Assam (NE) were already feeling the
disparities meted out by the Center (stepmotherly
treatment), and it was a good basis to go on. Then add
to this a dash of 'Assameseness' ,and a dash of
'identity' or what have you, and one one can draw up
enough to form insurgent group.
> >Why don't we see insurgent groups in any of
> the advanced countries? Do you believe, any any of
> them would want to break away from success?
There were no selective choices here. Forget the US,
where states have autonomy, what about Eurpoe or even
Japan. Why has it not occurred in those countries? I
attribute is to success the nations as whole have, and
people would find no reason to break away.
Now, Santanu has brought up some good points. It is
true that Bihar and UP lag behind Assam (and also
other NE states) in many economic indicators &
education.
I attribute this to:
(a) Bihar/UP are the hindi belt. There cronies are in
Delhi. They get generous helping, and often from the
center.
(b) The NE states are very well educated. Education
lets one know what disparities are around you. The
Biharies or UP wallahs may not deem it necessary to
kill the golden goose here - why would they ever think
of breaking up. This is a great deal for them -why do
anything else.
>I know why though. It is so much easier to deal
> with money, and we can always place the blame for
> having no money to laziness of the kharkhowas :-).
Thats pretty intuitive! Where has anyone implied that?
A tad bit touchy here, are we -:)? C'da, many of us
have written about this. Most of have placed the blame
if you will on a number of areas and 'parties'. What
we always have said is this: You cannot blame the
Center for everything, and absolve the other parties
of any omission or wrongdoing.
Again, please tell us what this insurgency is all
about. If its not about economics as a backdrop, what
is it?
-- Ram
--- Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ram:
>
> >You are comparing apples to oranges in this
> situation.
>
>
> By jove you got it :-).
>
>
> But why selectively here, and not in:
>
>
> > > >Why don't we see insurgent groups in any of
> the
> >> >advanced countries? Do you believe, any any of
> them
> >> >would want to break away from success?
>
>
>
>
> >And I have
> >always supported more autonomy for states in India
>
>
> Tsk, tsk---the honchos at Hastinapur did not listen,
> did they :-)?
>
>
> >I thought your
> >implication in an earlier post was that economics
> has
> >nothing to do with the cries for freedom (in the
> NE).
>
>
> Yet another one of those statements assigned to
> me,but something I NEVER said.
> Because I always knew that it was NOT about economic
> development
> alone and argued so right here in Assam Net. It is
> you folks who
> dumbed things down to
> rupees and paisas. I know why though. It is so much
> easier to deal
> with money, and we can always place the blame for
> having no money to
> laziness of the kharkhowas :-).
>
>
> Look at Santanu's comments. He is another person who
> always
> understood what it has been about.
>
> c-da
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 2:52 PM -0800 1/5/05, ram Sarangapani wrote:
> >C'da,
> >
> >> There are aren't they? But they don't hold the
> >> Federal Govt. responsible. They do not charge
> the
> >>Feds with step-motherly treatment. They don't
> accuse
> >>them of ignoring them or exploiting them. They
> hold
> >>the feds responsible for a lot of things, but none
> >> whatsoever the Indian union's constituents do.
> >
> >You are comparing apples to oranges in this
> situation.
> >The US system of governance is totally different.
> The
> >states do have more autonomy than India. And I have
> >always supported more autonomy for states in India.
> So
> >the question of step-motherly treatment does not
> come
> >about here - the states are responsible for their
> >success or failure to a large extent.
> >
> >Inspite of this, states like California complain
> that
> >states like New Mexico get more than they
> contribute.
> >Further, states in the US have also whined about
> not
> >getting enough funds promised by the Feds for
> Homeland
> >Security and first responders. Some of the states
> feel
> >that other states got better treatment(funding)
> than
> >others. Right or wrong, that is the preception.
> >
> >In an emerging economy like India, the pressures
> are
> >greater and there is not enough of the pie to go
> >around to everyone's satisfaction - so, naturally
> the
> >there is a food fight.
> >
> >>They do not charge the >Feds with step-motherly
> >>treatment
> >
> >What does step-motherly treatment mean? Has it
> >anything to do with economics? I thought your
> >implication in an earlier post was that economics
> has
> >nothing to do with the cries for freedom (in the
> NE).
> >My contention still is economic development and
> growth
> >has a lot to do with such unrests.
> >
> >--Ram
> >
> >
> >
> >--- Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Ram:
> >>
> >>
> >> You have made a bunch of comments that won't
> hold up
> >> under scrutiny.
> >> But that is for later. Let me just ask you this:
> >>
> >>
> > > >Why don't we see insurgent groups in any of
> the
> >> >advanced countries? Do you believe, any any of
> them
> >> >would want to break away from success?
> > >
> >>
> >> Are there no less developed states or groups in
> the
> >> USA for example?
> >>
> >> There are aren't they? But they don't hold the
> >> Federal Govt.
> >> responsible. They do not charge the Feds with
> >> step-motherly
> >> treatment. They don't accuse them of ignoring
> them
> >> or exploiting
> >> them. They hold the feds responsible for a lot
> of
> >> things, but none
> >> whatsoever the Indian union's constituents do.
> >>
> >>
> >> Why do you think is the reason?
> >>
> >>
> >> c-da
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> At 1:54 PM -0800 1/5/05, ram Sarangapani wrote:
> >> >Hi Umesh,
> >> >
> >> >There are many reasons for any kind of unrest.
> Many
> >> of
> >> >the root causes are because of economics.
> without
> >> >growth and development, there are fewer jobs,
> >> >businesses don't thrive well and so. Then there
> >> arises
> >> >questions like 'have we been overlooked' or why
> did
> > > >xyz area get these benefits (and not us).
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.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
