Right on! But then "with her or against her" is going a bit far, isn't it? It is immaterial whether you are with her or against her. Or for that matter ignore her. She is just a messenger that has just her standing in Indian and Assamese society to move forward on. She does not have deterrant capabilities, she does not have feet on the streets, she does not have money to move any things.
The problem still remains one of you are either with GOI (or against) OR to a far lesser extent with ULFA (or against). --- Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ram: > > > >MRG cannot be seen as taking sides (GOI or > ULFA). If she is, then she > >loses credibility. Her role ought to be just to > facilitate the talks > >and act as a conduit for messages back & forth. It > should be nothing > >more. > > > **** What do you think are the chances of MRG coming > seeking > approval on what you or I might deem she SHOULD do? > > In this case, it is with her or against her. There > is no middle > ground. She is not submitting to > desi-democratic-decisions her. She > is doing what she feels need doing. > > > > > > > > At 12:08 PM -0500 6/15/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote: > >C'da, > > > >> Only thing I get is that some of our fine, > morally upstanding, loyal, > >> patriotic desi-demokrasy bhokots are burnt up > for MRG's support of > >> ULFA's determination to go into negotiations > without surrendering to > >> GoI demands first, like they seek, but are > afraid to express it. > > > >Huh! Are they? > > > >>So they attempt to have it both ways ---support > MRG, but don't want ULFA > >> to be able to go to negotiations without > renouncing their main > >> objective. > > > >Let Ulfa keep its demands intact. That is what they > have said all > >along. So, we know that, and its not anything new. > > > >What people may not want is that the GOI capitulate > or agree to > >demands that they really cannot realistically > fulfill. > > > >MRG cannot be seen as taking sides (GOI or ULFA). > If she is, then she > >loses credibility. Her role ought to be just to > facilitate the talks > >and act as a conduit for messages back & forth. It > should be nothing > >more. > > > >--Ram > > > > > > > > > > > >On 6/15/05, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Hi A: > >> > >> > >> That is very very subtle indeed. Sorry I missed > it altogether. You > >> know how I am, just an old Jokaisukiya black and > white, right or > >> wrong, my way or the highway type , down to > earth dude, unable to > >> differentiate nuances of statecraft and > politics :-). > >> > >> Thanks for attempting to set it straight. > >> > >> But what is the difference A? I still don't get > it :-). > >> > >> Only thing I get is that some of our fine, > morally upstanding, loyal, > >> patriotic desi-demokrasy bhokots are burnt up > for MRG's support of > >> ULFA's determination to go into negotiations > without surrendering to > >> GoI demands first, like they seek, but are > afraid to express it. So > >> they attempt to have it both ways ---support > MRG, but don't want ULFA > >> to be able to go to negotiations without > renouncing their main > >> objective. > >> > >> > >> I don't know A. I don't see any moral clarity > here :-). > >> > >> c-da > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> At 11:15 AM -0500 6/15/05, Alpana B. Sarangapani > wrote: > >> >Hi C'da: > >> > > >> >Aapunar siro-porisito aao-paak loguwa > kotha-khini porhi robo > >>nuwarilu aaru. :) > >> > > >> > >So you don't support MRG really, because she > has insisted with the > >> >>GoI that they OUGHT to discuss the ULFA's > central demand--that of > >> >>sovereignty for Assam. > >> > > >> >I don't remember reading anywhere that MRG > "insisted with the GOI > >> >that they OUGHT to discuss the ULFA's central > demand - the > >> >sovereignty for Assam", but read that the > 'talk' between the two > >> >must take place, even if it includes the topic > of Assam's sovereinty. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >>From: Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >>To: "Rajen Barua" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[email protected]> > >> >>Subject: Re: [Assam] Correspondent, why avoid > asking , No peace > >> >>without Sovereignty restored? > >> >>Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:58:59 -0500 > >> >> > >> >>So you don't support MRG really, because she > has insisted with the > >> >>GoI that they OUGHT to discuss the ULFA's > central demand--that of > >> >>sovereignty for Assam. > >> >> > >> >>But you cannot say that, and instead indulge > in semantics, > >> >>attempting to have it both ways. > >> >> > >> >>You sure have made a very impressive stand > here Rajen--one of > >> >>principled courage :-) > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>At 10:57 AM -0500 6/15/05, Rajen Barua wrote: > > > >>>No I don't think I am changing the context. > : > >> >>>When MRG says: > >> >>> > >> >>>"I am sympathetic to the causes the ULFA have > been fighting > >> >>>>>for the past 25 years. Whether they would > get a sovereign state > >> >>>>>or > >> >>>>>not is a different matter, but it should be > discussed at the > >> >>>>>negotiating table." > >> >>> > >> >>>she does not seem to mean ULFA should have > the RIGHT to bring the > >> >>>topic to the negotiating table. > >> >>> > === message truncated === __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html _______________________________________________ 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
