Central leaders come to the state to campaign because people want to listen to them and then form opinions. The ULFA is not stopping elections to the state and federal level (at least not yet) - they are preventing leaders that PEOPLE IN ASSAM want them to vist from visiting during elections. After all, Narasimha Rao was never invited and Sonia Gandhi always is. The elections will happen, the state structure will remain the same. No change there. The only thing perhaps that will happen will be that the elections will be COERCED into having an outcome they want.
If indeed the ULFA has such appeal amongst the masses - why issue a threat against political parties or civilians. Why not just appeal (not coerce, appeal) to the public to refrain from attending meetings that have central leaders in the interests of Assam. Without any threat whatsoever. Guess what would be the outcome amongst the people of such an appeal? --- Ram Sarangapani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Catch 22 here, isn't it? > > > It sure is. > > > No wonder then the only alternative is to defy the > laws and even > > resort to violent means. > > Many countries will allow you to at least challenge > the validity of > the Constitution in such cases. Even India does. So, > violence and > breaking laws is not the ONLY way out. > > But IF they see that IT IS the only way out, then, > of course, those > who defy such laws oughtn't to cry foul when they > are hunted down. > They know the rules of the game. The freedom they > thus seek, if it > does come, comes at a high price, and they should be > prepared for the > worst and hope for the best. > > > But all this could have bee prevented, or at least > diluted, when > > India saw what was brewing > > Wonder what the US would do in such a situation? The > US for all its > might and glory and democratic institution, puts > down such insurgent > tendencies with swift and summary justice. They have > no patience or do > not as a policy go soft on such groups. > > > But India is unable and unwilling 25 years ago and > is no different > > today. > > C'da, its a two-way traffic. IMHO, the ULFA has to > put down arms and > stop violence before the GOI will give it any > serious hearing. > > The GOI for all its faults can keep this festering > for another 50 > years without flinching, can the ULFA? In the end > the people lose. > > --Ram > > > > On 8/4/05, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > >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 > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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
