C'da,
>I am sorry to see your having to equivocate on the answer.
Really! And, I thought, I was pretty clear, and really there was no attempt on my part to delibrately mislead whatsoever.
Perhaps you could rephrase your question (whether to vote for Modi or not)? Again Modi is just a fall out of this flap (whether we agree or not with him). The real issue IHMO is whether the US is exercising its power & influence appropriately (diplomatically)?
This Modi affair is an internal Indian matter -whether he is a monster or a saint. The GOI did make a fromal request for his visa, and the US turned it down - that was a slap on the GOI's face.
The US was within its rights to deny the visa, and India would now have similar 'rights' to deny some US bigshot a visa, in the future.
--Ram
>From: Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Ram Sarangapani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu
>Subject: RE: [Assam] Re: Now What?
>Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:36:41 -0600
>
>Ram:
>
>I am sorry to see your having to equivocate on the answer.
>
>c-da
>
>
>
>
>
>At 2:35 AM +0000 3/20/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>>C'da,
>>
>>I agree with Barua in the sense, it really does not matter whether
>>or not Modi gets the visa. Like I said before, no skin off our
>>noses.
>>
>>Having said that, I do have a problem with the US singling out one
>>person, based on some reports and pressure groups. Modi is just a
>>case in point. He hasn't been convicted of any crime in Indian
>>courts, the Govt. of India made the request, both the treasury and
>>the opposition are not happy with the US Govt's decision.
>>
>>**I ask all the other netters the same question too. I would have
>>voted no, as I indicated earlier. >I know it would cause a lot of
>>discomfiture among some :-), **
>>
>>I really don't think netters are going to lose sleep over Modi, but
>>many are upset, by the US acting once again as 'holier than thou'.
>>
>>At the least its caused a diplomatic flap, and its possible the US
>>may see the writing on the wall and reconsider.
>>
>>BTW: Modi it seems will still "attend" the Hotel/Motel thang by
>>addressing the meet thru satellite.
>>
>>--Ram
>>
>>anta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> >To: "Barua25" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Alpana B. Sarangapani"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu>, "Chan
>>Mahanta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >Subject: [Assam] Re: Now What?
>> >Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:42:44 -0600
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Rajen:
>> >
>> >
>> >Knowing what we we do, if you were asked to vote on the issue of
>> >whether to
>> >give Modi an US Visa, how would you vote ?
>> >
>> >I ask all the other netters the same question too.
>> >
>> >I would have voted no, as I indicated earlier.
>> >
>> >I know it would cause a lot of discomfiture among some :-), but
>>I
>> >like to
>> >think you would not have to agonize over it.
>> >
>> >
>> >c
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >At 5:09 PM -0600 3/19/05, Barua25 wrote:
>> >> > Question is now what?
>> >>
>> >>What to do. Just follow the Golden Rule. Those who have the
>>gold,
>> >>make the
>> >>rule, always.
>> >>Rajen
>> >>
>> >>----- Original Message -----
>> >>From: "Chan Mahanta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >>To: "Alpana B. Sarangapani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
>> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
>> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
>> >><assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu>
>> >>Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 2:10 PM
>> >>Subject: Now What?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> I think all of you folks indignant with the US State Dept.
>>for
>> >>>not
>> >>> giving a visa to Modi are right. Modi's fault is that he is
>>a
>> >>>Hindu,
>> >>> and CM of a Hindu state. Thus his war against the Muslims is
>>not
>> >>>as
>> >>> just as the US war against the Muslims. All Modi did was
>>turn a
>> >>>blind
>> >>> eye while Gujarat burned. He did not even declare a war like
>>the
>> >>>US
>> >>> did on Iraq.
>> >>>
>> >>> After all the BJP did to support US policies, this is what
>>the
>> >>>BJP
>> >>> poster-boy, Modi, gets!! You can't win for losing, can you?
>> >>>
>> >>> Question is now what?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> At 1:02 PM -0600 3/19/05, Alpana B. Sarangapani wrote:
>> >>> >I agree again.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >While killing people in a real warfield or killing by
>> >>>instigating or
>> >>> >supporting (directly or indirectly and not stopping it,
>>even
>> >>> >when you have the ability - administrativel power to stop
>>it) a
>> >>> >riot, is the same thing, it depends on how today's
>>"civilized"
>> >>> >people see it.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >In a civilized society, a war gives the license to kill to
>>the
>> >>>killers.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > >From: "Barua25" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >>> >>To: "Rajib Das" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chan Mahanta"
>> >>> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "umesh sharma"
>> >>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >>> >><assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu>
>> >>> >>Subject: Re: [Assam] From the ToI/US denies visa to
>>Modi-some
>> >>>more
>> >>> >>Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:20:22 -0600
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>I think the case of "war" (which is always considered a
>>"just
>> >>>war" by
>> >>the
>> >>> >>country involved) applies in this case which differentiate
>> >>>between
>> >>people
>> >>> >>getting killed in war and and people being killing for
>>ethnic
>> >>>cleansing.
>> >>> >>I found out that 4000 American soldiers were killed in the
>> >>>liberation
>> >>for
>> >>> >>Italy during WWII ( I think about 50000 Italians).
>> >>> >>Now 1500 American soldiers got killed in Iraq war.
>> >>> >>War does not bring amy guilt feeling to any country. Only
>>case
>> >>>of guilt
>> >>we
>> >>> >>find in history was the case of Ashoka with the Kallinga
>>war
>> >>>where he
>> >>felt
>> >>> >>so much guilt that he changed his religion to Buddhism
>>which
>> >>>many
>> >>attribute
>> >>> >>to the eventual downfall of the empire.
>> >>> >>This is the norm of our present phase of civilization!!!
>> >>> >>Kill or get killed.
>> >>> >>Rajen Barua
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>----- Original Message -----
>> >>> >>From: "Rajib Das" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >>> >>To: "Chan Mahanta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "umesh sharma"
>> >>> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu>
>> >>> >>Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 9:54 AM
>> >>> >>Subject: Re: [Assam] From the ToI/US denies visa to
>>Modi-some
>> >>>more
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> > If body count be the metric on which guilt is
>> >>> >> > established, I wonder whether we need to wonder at all
>> >>> >> > as to who is a more guilty person - Bush (and
>> >>> >> > Rumsfield)or Narendra Modi. By conservative estimates
>> >>> >> > they would have killed 100 times over. Oh yes, they
>> >>> >> > also got as many of their own (American soldiers)
>> >>> >> > killed.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > So, shall we say, the position espoused in this e-mail
>> >>> >> > is a demonstration of typical American disregard of
>> >>> >> > law.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > --- Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > >> >
>> >>> >> > > Umesh:
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > >So with that analogy -- it doesn't seem that US is
>> >> > >> > > taking that
>> >>> >> > > >extreme step -- so does US really blame Modi for
>> >>> >> > > hindu-muslim riots.
>> >>> >> > > >I do not see US doing anything when riots are going
>> >>> >> > > on anywhere -
>> >>> >> > > >unless the terrorists bomb US -like in Sep11.
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > There are limits, boundaries which even a Bush
>> >>> >> > > admin. or Wolfowitz or
>> >>> >> > > Rumsfeldt would not cross, and should not. The
>> >>> >> > > pogrom of Muslims in
>> >>> >> > > Gujarat is a horrible stigma to the Indian
>> >>> >> > > civilization. But that
>> >>> >> > > notwithstanding, the USA cannot and should not
>> >>> >> > > attempt to intervene
>> >>> >> > > militarily. It should have ( I don't know if it did)
>> >>> >> > > intervened
>> >>> >> > > diplomatically. My guess would be is that it did,
>> >>> >> > > perhaps to no
>> >>> >> > > avail. But that is not an US failure: It was a
>> >>> >> > > singularly Indian
>> >>> >> > > failure.
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > Therefore, your doubts, as expressed in the
>> >>> >> > > question" So why this
>> >>> >> > > nonsense?" is an illustration of more of the same:
>> >>> >> > > An appalling
>> >>> > > > > Indian disregard to the rule of law.
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > c-da
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > At 2:24 AM +0000 3/19/05, umesh sharma wrote:
>> >>> >> > > >C-da,
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >I cannot agree or disagree with you since the issue
>> >>> >> > > u mention about
>> >>> >> > > >Indira Gnadhi and Indian Americans reactions about
>> >>> >> > > many issues -
>> >>> >> > > >since I do not know anything about them.
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >However, I would say that if my neighbour is
>> >>> >> > > butchering his or her
>> >>> >> > > >children -- I would enter by force --and stop
>> >>> >> > > her/him.
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >So with that analogy -- it doesn't seem that US is
>> >>> >> > > taking that
>> >>> >> > > >extreme step -- so does US really blame Modi for
>> >>> >> > > hindu-muslim riots.
>> >>> >> > > >I do not see US doing anything when riots are going
>> >>> >> > > on anywhere -
>> >>> >> > > >unless the terrorists bomb US -like in Sep11.
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >So why this nonsense?
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >Umesh
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >Hi Umesh:
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >At 9:58 PM +0000 3/18/05, umesh sharma wrote:
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >>C-da,
>> >>> >> > > >>
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >I am not an expert on international visa law- but
>> >>> >> > > if we start giving
>> >>> >> > > >visas based on our perception of what happens in
>> >>> >> > > other countries
>> >>> >> > > >--then I would say that we are interfering in the
>> >>> >> > > affairs of that
>> >>> >> > > >nation.
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >*** There is no such thing as Int'l Visa Laws. Each
>> >>> >> > > country has its
>> >>> >> > > >own rules, and often have agreements or
>> >>> >> > > understandings for
>> >>> >> > > >reciprocity etc. with other countries. And the more
>> >>> >> > > powerful or
>> >>> >> > > >influential a nation is, the more arbitrary they
>> >>> >> > > can get about what
>> >>> >> > > >they choose to do.
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >However the US not granting a visa to Modi or
>> >>> >> > > whoever, does not
>> >>> >> > > >constitute interference with another country's
>> >>> >> > > internal affairs.
>> >>> >> > > >That complaint of interfering with the internal
>> >>> >> > > affairs of another
>> >>> >> > > >country usually emanates from people attempting to
>> >>> >> > > keep their
>> >>> >> > > >internal dirt under their rug. Unfortunately, or
>> >>> >> > > fortunately in this
>> >>> >> > > >case :-), there are people here in the USA who have
>> >>> >> > > an interest in
>> >>> >> > > >what goes on in India. I am certainly pleased to
>> >>> >> > > see that the
>> >>> >> > > >progressive desis here including Muslims ( I don't
>> >>> >> > > automatically
>> >>> >> > > >exclude them)
>> >>> >> > > >chose to raise their voice and send a signal.
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >Not that it is going to hurt Modi. If anything he
>> >>> >> > > will now be a
>> >>> >> > > >greater hero to all his supporters, all those
>> >> > >> > > rioteous :-) Hindus
>> >>> >> > > >who believe that India is theirs and Muslims don't
>> >>> >> > > belong there. Who
>> >> > >> > > >knows, he might become the supreme leader of the
>> >>> >> > > BJP now.
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >>
>> >>> >> > > >>
>> >>> >> > > >I do not know whether it is supposed to be ethical
>> >>> >> > > that if there is
>> >>> >> > > >a fight going on in a neighbor's house -- then you
>> >>> >> > > stop letting a
>> >>> >> > > >member from that family into your own house. That
>> >>> >> > > is what Modi's
>> >>> >> > > >visa stoppal amounts to be.
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >*** Good analogy. What do you think? Would you
>> >>> >> > > consider your
>> >>> >> > > >neighborly and human duty to interfere with the guy
>> >>> >> > > next-door
>> >>> >> > > >attempting to butcher his children? What do you
>> >>> >> > > think of Indira
>> >>> >> > > >Gandhi's interfering with Pakistan's internal
>> >>> >> > > affair when they were
>> >>> >> > > >slaughtering B'Deshis?
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >c-da
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >>
>> >>> >> > > >>
>> >>> >> > > >Umesh
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >PS: I mentioned about the truth being what the
>> >>> >> > > powerful say -- an
>> >>> >> > > >instance -- the Union Carbide (USA's MNC) killed
>> >>> >> > > 10,000 people in
>> >>> >> > > >Bhopal in Dec 1984 and maimed 200,000 (and thats a
>> >>> >> > > very hard and
>> >>> >> > > >concrete fact) .
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >Still India dare not ban it from its land --for the
>> >>> >> > > fear that all US
>> >>> >> > > >based MNCs would stop coming to India or that India
>> >>> >> > > would stop
>> >>> >> > > >getting defense supplies from powerful USA. If
>> >>> >> > > India had been
>> >>> >> > > >powerful - its truth would have prevailed and Union
>> >>> > > > > Carbide (and its
>> >>> >> > > >current owner Dupont) would be banned from India.
>> >>> >> > > But weak India
>> >>> >> > > >cannot implement something which is the truest of
>> >>> >> > > the truths
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >*** Business-interests often trump justice, doesn't
>> >>> >> > > it? What do you
>> >>> >> > > >think of it?
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >>
>> >>> >> > > >>
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > === message truncated ===>
>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >>> >> > > Assam mailing list
>> >>> >> > > Assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu
>> >>> >> > > 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!?
>> >>> >> > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
>> >>> >> > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >>> >> > Assam mailing list
>> >>> >> > Assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu
>> >>> >> > 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
>> >>> >>Assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu
>> >>> >>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
>> >Assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu
>> >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
>
