Canada allows that! Jugal
> >> >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? > > > > Catch 22 here, isn't it? > > No wonder then the only alternative is to defy the laws and even > resort to violent means. > > > But all this could have bee prevented, or at least diluted, when > India saw what was brewing . Even at this late date things could be > done, reforms undertaken to address the causes of the insurgencies. > But India is unable and unwilling 25 years ago and is no different > today. > > That is the difference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 1:46 PM -0500 8/4/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote: >>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 >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ > 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
