|
I consider it fair in such case of
"Betonit poril ow, baxu.deba.ye nomoh".
And why we ask for fairness in
life?
What this fairness is based
on?
When the innocent girl in Dhemaji died,
did we ask for fairness?
Rajen
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 9:30
AM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Sunil Nath in
Tehelka
People hope
lot of things. ULFA hope that GOI will grant Independence. For its position
also, ULFA has to distort lot of views. In some case it is better not to try
to set the record right when you find that it does not serve any purpose. In
such case we have a saying:
>Betonit poril ow, baxudebaye
nomoh.
That is fine Rajen. That is your choice.
My only comment is that if that is how you wish to deal with it, then was
it fair or appropriate to accuse ME of SPINNING, or attempting to distort the
record of your views as expressed in Assam Net?
c
At 9:16 AM -0500 6/30/05, Rajen Barua wrote:
*** But you have the ability, or so one
might hope, to set the record straight. If I am distorting your views,
spinning, why not tell everyone HOW ?
People hope
lot of things. ULFA hope that GOI will grant Independence. For its position
also, ULFA has to distort lot of views. In some case it is better not to try
to set the record right when you find that it does not serve any purpose. In
such case we have a saying:
Betonit
poril ow, baxudebaye nomoh.
Rajen
----- Original Message -----
From: Chan
Mahanta
To: Rajen
Barua ; [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 8:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Sunil Nath in Tehelka
At 7:48 AM -0500 6/30/05, Rajen Barua wrote:
You are again
violating the basic garden variety type logic and trying to
spin.
*** But you have the ability, or so one might hope, to set the
record straight. If I am distorting your views, spinning, why not tell
everyone HOW ?
Bye
Bye.
Rajen
----- Original Message -----
From: Chan
Mahanta
To: Barua25 ; [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 7:35
AM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Sunil Nath in
Tehelka
>It must be our desi
gene that I cannot understand you
*** I won't necessarily debate the point.
>But if you
question the very basis and legitimacy of such
demands
*** That was in reference to your
assertions.
>I had been voicing
for such a platform for a long time.
*** You are the one who asserted with 'logical' analysis
that ULFA had no basis for its demands or grievances for which it took
up arms.
Then you turned around to recommend an alternative to ULFA
to negotiate with GoI, when talk of ULFA/GoI talks seemed like a
possibility. I know you have company, but it was amusing. Even people
like Shantikam Hazarika and Dainik Asom Editors see no point in
negotiations between the ULFA and GoI. That is from some of
Assam's best among its movers and shakers.
If Assam had no grievances, no legitimate demands, then
how come all of a sudden an alternative forum is required to negotiate
with GoI ? You may not agree with ULFA's methods, but that is entirely
different from Assam not having legitimate grievances, including that
of self-determination. Something that its intelligentsia and its
political class raised in the image of and beholden to the degenerated
Indian system and accountable to none, failed to address, leading to
the emergence of ULFA. That was what I wrote about when you proposed
it and Ram rah-rahed it a few days back.
What is the rationale here that I missed, other than
seeming to try to have it both ways?
At 11:07 PM -0500 6/29/05, Barua25 wrote:
>But
this whole thing is predicated upon whether there IS a problem,
whether Assam has any legitimate grievances or
demands.
I think you may call it
my desi gene. I donot understand what you are trying to say here. I
think Roy's whole proposition was to come up with a set of alternate
practical demands for negotiation with GOI. But if you question
the very basis and legitimacy of such demands, and an Assamese
suspects that Assam may not have any legitimate demands at all,
then how one will negotiate with GOI and on what basis GOI will
grant anything to Assam. Without your knowledge you are also
making ULFA's sacrice and their struggle for the last 25 years a
Hobo Diok type of big joke for Assam. You are saying something
like Tarun Gogoi who is saying now that there is no problem of
illegal immigration problem in Assam. The question is how then
you support Roy in his proposal to come up with a set of alternate
demands. Are you suggesting that someone should again come up a set
of alternate demands purely on emotion like ULFA did 25 years
ago.
It must be our desi
gene that I cannot understand you
I say Hobo
Diok.
Rajen
----- Original Message -----
From: Chan Mahanta
To: Barua25 ; [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 10:06
PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Sunil Nath in
Tehelka
But this whole thing is predicated upon whether there
IS a problem, whether Assam has any legitimate grievances or
demands.
Those who cannot acknowledge that to begin with,
cannot possibly embark on developing those demands to bring to the
table with GoI, can they? If they do, they would be some of those
despicable characters that attempt to have it both
ways.
At 9:55 PM -0500 6/29/05, Barua25 wrote:
>If
forces outside the ULFA want to influence the terms of
negotiation and get their ideas about what a secondary set of
>demands ought to be, they ought to go about forming public
opinion on this independently of the ULFA and hope the
>organization will echo them in their own political
interest.
I agree in
principle to this idea. In fact I had been voicing for such
a platform for a long time. This we may call the
Assam-GOI platform, outside of the ULFA-GOI box (virtually
ignoring ULFA). This is a must for the Hobo Diok Assamese
whether there is ULFA or not. The idea is to come up with a
set of sensible legitimate and rational demands for Assam
which ULFA itself cannot raise on technical grounds. For obvious
reasons, ULFA cannot (and should not) enter this platform during
the negotiation phase for reasons pointed out by you.
(It would be
incredibly stupid if the leaders of the ULFA were to say we want
independence for Assam and, by the way, lets also talk about
handing over the rights to oil extraction to the state
government.). In fact
ULFA should understand that this Assam-GOI platform is going to
discuss issues which ULFA cannot on its own discuss or negotiate
due to the position they are taking. This way ULFA can achieve
something without loosing face. Once GOI has agreed to grant
some agreed broad issues to Assam through this Assam-GOI
discussions, ULFA can later join the platform activley in
finalization of details.
Now the question is
what may be a set of such demands. This is not easy that one can
just come up with a list. It will need indepth study of Assam's
onging problems. I am really surprised that so far there has not
been any such platform among the Assamese population for
discussion of these problems. Even among the political
parties there is no such discussions. Frankly speaking this
means that we donot know what we want for Assam short of
sovereignty.
In order to
quantify what we want and why we want we need to discuss
among ourselves, intellectually and rationally, so that we can
decide what is in Assam's best interest short of sovereignty and
short of trying to throw the Indian system
out.
Rajen
Barua
.
----- Original Message
-----
From: "Roy, Santanu"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29,
2005 9:04 PM
Subject: RE: [Assam] Sunil
Nath in Tehelka
> I think one should not
forget the logical contradiction between demanding sovereignty
and making public a set of supplementary demands. This holds no
matter how unlikely or unrealistic the event that the GOI is
going to agree to grant independence. Sovereignty is virtually
all encompassing. It would be incredibly stupid if the leaders
of the ULFA were to say we want independence for Assam and, by
the way, lets also talk about handing over the rights to oil
extraction to the state government.
> Even if the ULFA
leadership is not Harvard trained, they have at least shown the
intelligence to not say something like that.
> If forces
outside the ULFA want to influence the terms of negotiation and
get their ideas about what a secondary set of demands ought to
be, they ought to go about forming public opinion on this
independently of the ULFA and hope the organization will echo
them in their own political interest. But they should not expect
that at this stage (and even many stages ahead), the ULFA is
going to go around publicly voicing the details of their minimum
acceptable point.
>
Santanu.
>
>
_______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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
|
