Hi Jugal,
I grant you this - during the British times, yes, because of the
strong British ideals for magnanimity and that they were also sure of
themselves (they couldn't fathom that anyone would want to actually
break away from the Empire), they did allow certain oppossing points
of view.
But they too did NOT allow those to be expressed in violence. They
applied the laws against sedition very severely (Bhagat Singh an
example). Subash Bose was always in hiding. Even Gandhi was accused of
sedition, even though the British themselves knew he the apostle of
peace.
You may recall the number of times freedom fighters were imprisoned.
So, even in the British times it was not easy for freedom fighters.
And Sardar Patel died because of the beatings he sustained from the
British.
Now, in present day India, I think there is freedom of expression.
Just read the newspapers. They are not all singing praises of the
establishment. I do not think just talking about seperation or freedom
necessarily means that one could be killed or jailed.
In the case of South Africa, Mandela paid a huge price. Others like
Patrice Lulumba was hunted down and killed. Where do you see any
tolerance for seditious behavior (whether freedom was warranted or
not). Nations will, usually not tolerate such behavior, specially if
they are violent. In this country, you have incidents like Ruby Ridge.
I am not sure which democratic country will, in this day and age,
tolerate a section of its population going violent because they want
freedom? Can you or anyone, name one such country?
Britain again, came close to your definition, when they allowed Mullas
to preach violence in mosques on English soil. Now, with the bombings,
even the British patience has run out. Those Mullas now stand to be
deported/jailed immediately (if they preach violence and hatred).
It is not possible under current India's constitution to organize a
party or >movement that seeks independence in a legal manner.
Legally, I think, one can sue the Govt. of India (or the Union) for a
separation from the Union. It may NOT be in the Constitution, but
Indian Courts do allow anyone to challenge the constitution. Whether
the Supreme Court will hear such motions is another thing altogether.
Jugal, I really cannot think of one single democratic country that
will allow that in their constitution, a sedition clause. Does the US
allow that, the UK?
--Ram da
On 8/4/05, J. Kalita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have taken that into consideration, Ram da. During the British rule, it
was possible, within
the political system to talk about liberation or freedom. However, it's
impossible to do so in a legal manner in current India under its
constituion in a peaceful manner. It is not possible under current India's
constitution to organize a party or movement that seeks independence in a
legal manner. If someone tries to do so, they will be banned or even worse
killed by the India government that exists today.
Jugal
> Jugal,
>
> But you seem to be missing one important ingredient. All the people
> you listed below had mass followings and more importantly they did not
> have large sections of the people they wanted to 'liberate' NOT
> > wanting them to do so on their behalf.
>
> Does ULFA have those qualities, ie. a large section of the Assamese
> population following their core ideals?
> >
> Gandhi, Bose, Mandela were not elected memebrs, but they did command
> huge followings. Perhaps even Jinnah. And so did Mao and Hitler.
>
> Sometimes they were wrong (like Hitler) while at other times it paid
> off, like Mandela.
>
> Another important point is a 'populist leader or group' can get public
> support in two ways:
>
> By making people want such freedoms from their hearts.
>
> Or
>
> By using guns, threats, kidnappings, and 'or else' methods to 'win'
> people's hearts.
>
> IHMO, the former option is what the world looks up to and would at
> least give tacit support.
>
> What do you think the Assamese people will be more comfortable with?
>
> --Ram da
>
>
> On 8/3/05, J. Kalita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In the same logic, how did Mohandas Gandhi or Subhash Bose or Jinnah in
>> pre-1947 British India represent the people of India? Was Mohandas
>> Gandhi
>> elected to be President/Prime Minister/king/emperor or whatever of
>> pre-1947 India? Was he a demagogue? Did Nelson Mandela represent the
>> people of South Africa when he was languishing in jail? Was he elected
>> to
>> represent the people of South Africa? Was Simon Bolivar elected by the
>> countries of South America before he led the war for independence from
>> Spain? Were the framers of the US constitution in Philadelphia elected
>> by
>> the people of America?
>>
>> Jugal Kalita
>>
>> >
>> >> >Of course, we are all well-wishers of Assam. But what has that go
>> to
>> >>do with ULFA's 'interest' in an election conducted by Indian
>> >>authorities.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > *** Unlike me or you, ULFA is made up of people, who, rightly or
>> > wrongly, claim to represent the wishes of the people of Assam. Their
>> > constituency, their supporters, also believe that Indian political
>> > machinations have hurt Assam's interests.
>> >
>> > You may not accept that. But that is different.
>> >
>> >
>> >> >Who is the ULFA to tell the Assamese whom they should or shouldn't
>> >>invite from Delhi?
>> >
>> >
>> > Same explanation here.
>> >
>> >
>> >> >Why do you assume that just because some minister comes down from
>> >>Delhi to lecture, it is necessarily bad or polarizing for Assam.
>> >
>> >
>> > Come on Ram, you keep missing the obvious: ULFA does not recognize
>> > Indian controls over Assam. That is why they are telling Indians to
>> > keep out. It is not about whether it might be good or bad for Assam.
>> >
>> >
>> > But let me ask you this: Is it good for Assam, for its elections to
>> > be INFLUENCED by remote interests from elsewhere in India?
>> >
>> >
>> >> >Assuming ONLY regional parties participate in the elections, how
>> will
>> >>that benefit ULFA?
>> >
>> >
>> > I cannot speak for ULFA. But I am of the belief that Assam's
>> > interests are best served by political parties who are rooted in
>> > Assam, and whose elections are not interfered with by outside
>> > interests. That is what local self-government is all about.
>> >
>> >
>> >> >All of this just pure humbug. What the ULFA is probably trying to
>> do
>> >>is to draw some attention to themselves. They have been left out to
>> >>dry for a while, so passing a Dikat here and a Dikat there might
>> >>actually bring the spotlight on them.
>> >
>> >
>> > You may be right, or you may be wrong. Neither has anything to do
>> > with the premise of the original argument and conclusions, that
>> > started this debate.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>As for polarization problems, sitting cozily in Bangladesh, passing
>> >>dikats, and encouraging illegal immigration does more to polarize than
>> >>anything else.
>> >
>> >
>> > You can spin it anyway you wish. But can you show how ULFA is either
>> > encouraging illegal migration, or causing polarizations in Assam?
> >> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > At 11:03 AM -0500 8/3/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>> >>C'da
>> >>
>> >>> If you were to be an independent
> >> >>>observer and well-wisher of Assam, would that seem unreasonable or
>> >>>bad for Assam ?
>> >>
>> >>Of course, we are all well-wishers of Assam. But what has that go to
>> >>do with ULFA's 'interest' in an election conducted by Indian
>> >>authorities. They are the ones passing out dikats left and right, and
>> >>basically infringing upon the free will of the Assamese people (not
>> >>you and I).
>> >>
>> >>Who is the ULFA to tell the Assamese whom they should or shouldn't
>> >>invite from Delhi? Don't the Assamese in Assam know what is or what is
>> >>not polarizing, instead of having the ULFA intelligensia forcing them
>> >>to think otherwise and dictating behavior?
>> >>
>> >>Why do you assume that just because some minister comes down from
>> >>Delhi to lecture, it is necessarily bad or polarizing for Assam. When
>> >>Assam had no regional parties, was Assam more (or less) polarized than
>> >>it is now?
>> >>
>> >>Assuming ONLY regional parties participate in the elections, how will
>> >>that benefit ULFA?
>> >>
>> >>All of this just pure humbug. What the ULFA is probably trying to do
>> >>is to draw some attention to themselves. They have been left out to
>> >>dry for a while, so passing a Dikat here and a Dikat there might
>> >>actually bring the spotlight on them.
>> >>
>> >>As for polarization problems, sitting cozily in Bangladesh, passing
>> >>dikats, and encouraging illegal immigration does more to polarize than
>> >>anything else.
>> >>
>> >>--Ram
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>On 8/3/05, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> > >Huh! So, it now seems that inspite of ULFA NOT recognizing
>> Indian
>> >>> >rule, they are still interested in an election conducted and
>> >>> >participated by the Indians.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> **** I can't answer that. I was merely examining the logic of the
>> >>> original post, and the conclusions drawn.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> But one thing can be surmised: That the ULFA is attempting to
>> prevent
>> >>> interference of Indian political parties and injection of
>> regressive
>> >> > Indian attitudes and polarizing influences into Assam society.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> > >So, the more important question would be, how does it matter
>> who
>> >>> wins
>> >>> >the elections in Assam to ULFA?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> **** ULFA could very well be interested in that. Even I could be
>> :-).
>> >>> I certainly would not want to see communal polarizations grow in
>> >>> Assam, fanned on by Indian Hindu supremacist bigots.Would you ? It
>> >>> could also bee to discourage political corruption spurred on by
>> >>> Indian black-money and vote-banking
>> >>> and other nefarious activities. If you were to be an independent
>> >>> observer and well-wisher of Assam, would that seem unreasonable or
>> >>> bad for Assam ?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> At 9:00 AM -0500 8/3/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>> >>> > >Considering that ULFA does not recognize India's rule over
>> Assam,
>> >>> it
>> >>> >>makes all the sense in the world to them to not allow an
>> occupying
>> >>> >>power to interfere in the elections of its state.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Huh! So, it now seems that inspite of ULFA NOT recognizing Indian
>> >>> >rule, they are still interested in an election conducted and
>> >>> >participated by the Indians.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >So, the more important question would be, how does it matter who
>> wins
>> >>> >the elections in Assam to ULFA? Is the ULFA fielding some
>> candidates
>> >>> >too, and that too an election managed and mandated by the Chief
>> >>> >Election Commissioner of India.
>> >>> >In the end, the ULFA seems to want to behave like another
>> 'political
>> >>> >party' in India (albeit an extreme one).
> >> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >On 8/3/05, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> >> Considering that ULFA does not recognize India's rule over
> >> Assam,
>> >>> it
>> >>> >> makes all the sense in the world to them to not allow an
>> occupying
>> >>> >> power to interfere in the elections of its state. Would India
>> >>> allow
>> >>> >> Pakistanis or BDeshis or Americans to come canvass for
>> elections
>> >>> in
>> >>> >> it's territory?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> The question,at best, demonstrates an absence of ordinary
>> >>> inferential
>> >>> >> skills, no doubt resulting in absurd questions like:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> > >Or else, guess what will happen? I wonder what kind of
>> >>> >> >a democracy will be there in independent Assam.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> --- one having little or no connection with the other.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> At 10:14 PM -0700 8/1/05, Rajib Das wrote:
>> >>> >>
>>
>>>>http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story3%2Etxt&counter_img=3?headline=ULFA~diktat:~No~entry~for~'outside'~vote-seekers
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >Another tactic this time. Not allowing central leaders
>> >>> >> >of national parties to campaign in Assam.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >Or else, guess what will happen? I wonder what kind of
>> >>> >> >a democracy will be there in independent Assam.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >__________________________________
>> >>> >> >Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
>> >>> >> >Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
>> >>> >> >http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
>> >>> >> >_______________________________________________
>> >>> >> >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
>> >>>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>>
>
