> *** Then why all the brouhaha over it? Why all that hand wringing?
Its one thing to claim, and quite another in what one perceives.
Her interview the other day with the media, surely leaves some doubt
that she is impartial.
--Ram
On 6/15/05, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >If she is just a facilitator (as she has claimed several times), then
>there is no question for people to take sides with/against her.
*** Then why all the brouhaha over it? Why all that hand wringing?
Why all the pious sounding analyses? Why the attempt to have it both
ways among some of the Assam Net luminaries? Or for that matter why
all those expert recommendations on what MRG should or should not do?
At 1:23 PM -0500 6/15/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>C'da,
>
>> **** What do you think are the chances of MRG coming seeking
>> approval on what you or I might deem she SHOULD do?
>>
> None whatsoever, and not that I care.
>
>> 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.
>
>Is she acting on her own behalf only? Pardon me, I was under the
>impression that she was trying get the talks going - for the peace in
>Assam. If she is, then she would be responsible for her actions to the
>people of Assam (and to a lesser extent the people of India).
>
>> In this case, it is with her or against her. There is no middle
>> ground.
>
>If she is just a facilitator (as she has claimed several times), then
>there is no question for people to take sides with/against her. They
>would just be thankful that she has deveoted time and effort for a
>noble public cause.
>
>--Ram
>
>
>
>On 6/15/05, 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.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>If MRG clarifies otherwise that she meant her statement
to say ULFA
>> >> >>>should have the RIGHT, I will withdraw my support (not that my
> >> >> >>>support cares).
>> >> >>>In the last news report I found added evidence for my continued
>> >> >>>support for her action.
>> >> >>>That is the issue.
> >> >> >>>Rajen
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>----- Original Message -----
>> >> >>>From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Chan Mahanta
>> >> >>>To: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Rajen Barua ;
>> >> >>><mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>> >> >>>Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 10:00 AM
>> >> >>>Subject: Re: [Assam] Correspondent, why avoid asking , No peace
>> >> >>>without Sovereignty restored?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Rajen:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>You have changed the contexts around : The one in which I asked
>> >> >>>you the question, and the one in which I made my comment.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>But That is fine. I can see the your need for doing that :-).
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>However, you wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> But my support to MRG was based on my understanding
that she was
>> >> >>>>just trying to bring peace without actually believeing in ULFA's
>> >> >>>>misson or goal.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>and
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> >You are trying to show that MRG is taking a position that ULFA
>> >> >>>should have a RIGHT, which I >don't find anywhere, and definitely
>> >> >>>not in her words in this report.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>*** But look at the highlighted part of the previous Sentinel
>> >> >>>interview with MRG below.
> > >> >>>
>> >> >>>Whast do you make of that?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>I asked you that before. The last time you commented that we have
> > >> > >>to be careful an bout these newspaper reports. You
implied that it
>> >> >>>was not reliable enough to draw conclusions from.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>However you have found it convenient to use this recent
interview,
>> >> >>>from the same paper more reliable .
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>That is your choice. You are entitled to cherry pick what suits
>> >> >>>your particular need on a particular day.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>But that does not add any credibility to your commentary, does it
>> >> >>>:-)?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>c
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>_______________________________________________
>> >> >>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
>> >>
>>
