Dear BK:
>I find it
is hardly necessary to respond to Chandan's observations point by
point.
*** I understand. People have a pretty good idea by now about who
would view my observations in what light, regardless of content
:-).
>Acccording to my
understanding he is making an effort to generate awareness among
the people so that everyone of >us does his or her civic
duties and carry out the responsibilities entrusted upon us and above
all, abide by the law in >doing so. Perhaps such an appeal is
late in the day, but better late than never.
*** Of course it is never too late to stand up for what is right.
However what I take issue with is the implication that these are
things heretofore unbeknownst to the people of Assam. It just so
happens that nothing could be further from the truth. People have been
crying hoarse over these for decades.
>I don't think he
advocates an armed struggle to achieve the desired goal. He
clearly wants a peaceful revolution within >the law. If my reading
is incorrect, perhaps we may democratically decide the issue by asking
DNB for a clarification.
*** I don't think that would really be necessary. I just made the
point to underscore the naivete expressed and absence of substance in
the article, Ram's perceptions to its greatness notwithstanding.
>It is correct
that our democracy has not functioned the way it should. But Chandan
himself agrees that parliamentary >democracy has within itself
built-in mechanism to correct itself.
*** You make it sound like I have conceded the point under
duress, forced to admit it kicking and screaming :-). But that has
been the main point of my arguments on this matter, as it has been for
years in Assam Net: the dysfunctional state of the essential
institutions of democracy in the desi-avatar and the dire need for
radical reforms.
>The other day I
heard somebody saying that we criticise our parliamentarians
vehemently but have the people ever >recalled a single one of them?
They do change though at the end of their tenure.
*** Of course the players change. But does anything change
in governance, in its performance? And if not, why not? Should that
not raise a red flag in the minds of people who can reason?
>They do change though at the end of their tenure. I think it was Rabindranath Tagore who said that the person who >gives bribe is equally guilty as the taker of it. The unholy alliance between the constituency and the politician has to >break.
*** So the bribe giver is equally guilty now, because Robi Thakur
said so? I really don't give two hoots about WHO said those wise
words, but corruption
comes out of power. Those who have no power cannot exercise the
same degree of corruption as those in power can. Yes, if there were
effective and reliable recourse, then one could argue that bribe giver
is equally guilty as the bribe seeker. But knowing what we do, this
argument is patently untenable.
>What is a
society? Who are the people? It is you and me.
*** Aah, the "we are all guilty--so can't we just forgive
and forget?" argument!
But it is not a persuasive one.
>t is you and me.
Whether it be an ULFA leader or Congress/BJP leader, they will have to
work with the same public and >the same bureacracy.
*** That is the big flaw in the argument. No, a reformed
governmental system will NOT have to deal with the same old, same old.
That is the whole idea behind reforms. The AGP failed because they did
not realize where the problem lies--in the flawed system. It me must
be reformed, otherwise there will be no change, no matter who is at
the wheel.
>Are the ULFA or
for that any other insurgency leaders that great, dynamic,
honest capable of leading the country to >peace and
prosperity?
*** I am not in a position to speak on behalf of the ULFA.
But those who are ready to sacrifice their lives in defence of a goal,
one might think, might be smart enough to realize that if they get
power, they must not follow the same defective and dysfunctional ways
of desi-demokrasy. That they must put in place something
better.
>Perhaps they can
but we do not have any evidence of it.
*** Well, ever wondered why :-)? But what about the evidence of
all those administrations that have come and gone? What does
that tell us? What proof does that hold up?
>Personally I
believe in the powers and possibilities of a soveregin country
provided it has the right leadership.
*** Fair enough. But if it is that simple, that things are as
they are because there are no good leaders, then should it mean that
there is no escape from how things are, that it is inevitable, that it
is pre-ordained, engraved in Indian foreheads in accordance to Hindu
mythology and fate shall play out, regardless?
>Some of the
little countries have prospered beyond our dream.
*** What is their secret? Should we not explore that? Perhaps
there are lessons to be learnt. Perhaps we ought to look at
Singapore? They too were a British colony, just like India.
Should I ask, like our illustrious Assam Net intellectuals___why can't
India be like Singapore? Because Indians are lazy and corrupt, is that
why?
>At the same time
an armed struggle against the Government of India to achieve social
and economic salvation would >be unwise as it will bring in more
death and destruction.
*** Armed struggle is NOT the CAUSE, it is an effect. Had there
been a functioning democracy where the rulers could be expected to be
responsive, and could be held accountable, more than likely armed
struggle would not have happened. It happened because people had
no alternative left.
Regards,
c
At 1:18 PM -0400 4/24/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Netters
I find it is hardly necessary to respond to Chandan's observations point by point. Yes, DNB has not worked out how to fix the problem/s. Acccording to my understanding he is making an effort to generate awareness among the people so that everyone of us does his or her civic duties and carry out the responsibilities entrusted upon us and above all, abide by the law in doing so. Perhaps such an appeal is late in the day, but better late than never.
I don't think he advocates an armed struggle to achieve the desired goal. He clearly wants a peaceful revolution within the law. If my reading is incorrect, perhaps we may democratically decide the issue by asking DNB for a clarification. Alternatively, let's have a poll among ourselves, as what matters is whether independent of the author's own views, the impression we get from a reading of the piece is ambivalent.
It is correct that our democracy has not functioned the way it should. But Chandan himself agrees that parliamentary democracy has within itself built-in mechanism to correct itself. The other day I heard somebody saying that we criticise our parliamentarians vehemently but have the people ever recalled a single one of them? They do change though at the end of their tenure. I think it was Rabindranath Tagore who said that the person who gives bribe is equally guilty as the taker of it. The unholy alliance between the constituency and the politician has to break.
What is a society? Who are the people? It is you and me. Whether it be an ULFA leader or Congress/BJP leader, they will have to work with the same public and the same bureacracy. Are the ULFA or for that any other insurgency leaders that great, dynamic, honest capable of leading the country to peace and prosperity? Perhaps they can but we do not have any evidence of it. Personally I believe in the powers and possibilities of a soveregin country provided it has the right leadership. Some of the little countries have prospered beyond our dream. At the same time an armed struggle against the Government of India to achieve social and economic salvation would be unwise as it will bring in more death and destruction.
Bhuban
_______________________________________________ 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
