[Assam] Utpal's Questions
Dear Utpal: Sorry for the long delay in responding to your questions of October 13. I have been on the road lately and just got back home. BTEW, I hunt-and-pecked the response, sitting under a wedding pandal at Guwahati. I only had a printout of your questions/comments here, and couldn't cut and paste them with my responses for reference. I failed to download the messages on to my laptop at that time and had only some e-mails to refer to. Hope you will be able to put two and two together. But before I get into it, allow me to offer my hearty congratulations on your inclusion as a judge of the upcoming international film festival in Mumbai ( or is it in Dilli?). That is definitely an honor, and you do us proud. I was however left a little confused by Manoj Das' interpretation of the honor as a journalistic achievement. Is it considered a journalistic pursuit? Perhaps it is. Forgive my ignorance if it is so. Back to the subject: Your opening paragraph showed you were confounded by my conclusion that you did have an honorable intent, or AIM or OBJECTIVE behind your interrogations of Rubi Bhuyan, even though you did not think of it that way, and wanted to know how I arrived at that conclusion, asserting that I READ INTO PEOPLE'S MINDS, obviously not as a compliment. But first may I ask if I was wrong? If I was not wrong, does it matter how I arrived at that conclusion? And if I was wrong,where or how? Not that I have a secret. I just read between the lines, like most of us who are capable of doing that. Or infer them from the written words elsewhere in the exchanges, but with context in mind. It may seem to some that just because you or I don't say something in so many words, people cannot or do not understand what lurks beneath the unspoken words. That is an unrealistic expectation. It is both the spoken and the unspoken, with which we assess the sum total of a proposal or an argument, not just in this forum, but in all of life's most critical evaluation processes. It is not like we are in a court of law where the unspoken words could not be presented as evidence. My personal motto is that what is considered 'legal' is the lowest threshold of acceptable behavior. We, in civil society, ought to and do, behave on a far higher level, everyday. In this case it was quite simple. You wrote yourself that you were asking the questions of Rubi Bhuyan as a Common Assamese who wants to have a peaceful Assam. Oh I know why you opened your response this way. It was with the desire to paint my responses, comments and observations as highly speculative and thus amounting to mind reading; unsupportable by easily verified facts; while failing to deny it categorically. But no harm done; I am used to these tactics; sometimes used by the inexperienced, stung by critical responses and at other times by the disingenuous. It is just that these tactics do not produce any useful result. I am making a point of it here to illustrate the fact that a sincere and productive dialogue cannot take place, if the parties indulge in such games; just like the exchanges with Rubi Bhuyan that you all engaged in earlier, leading to this conversation between you and I. I hope the above will explain your second frustration: That I was trying to paint your honorable AIM in a negative light. And you wanted me to prove that it was deserving of such. I don't need to prove or disprove anything in this context for the simple reason that I did not MANUFACTURE it. I merely pointed out what your comments and arguments meant. Since you take issue with my observations ,analyses or interpretation, you can just tell us that I was wrong, giving a credible reason why, like you have gone on to assert in the paragraphs 3 thru 5. Question would be whose presentation would be more persuasive to the audience? The issue, again, was about the OBJECTIVE of the discourse; not about asserting our own personal righteousness. You go to great lengths to tell us how you abhor violence (perhaps unlike the rest of us who don't or may not), or how you have been a victim of the conflict ( unlike perhaps the rest of Assam who may have not). But that was not at all necessary. No one in this discourse questioned WHY the AIM ought to be a search for an end to the conflict, even though some did at other times and perhaps still do. Most here would agree that it is a desirable AIM or GOAL. The QUESTION here is what you or I or all those others are going to do about it? I surmised you want to see an end to it, just as I (and I like to think others) do. But HOW? In paragraph 6, you take issue with my suggestion that you would be one who would seek a political solution to the conflict, instead of a military victory by either GoI or ULFA and then go on to admit that it is what you wish. Isn't it quarrelling for the sake of quarreling? It appears that you are more
[Assam] Utpal's Questions
HI U: I haven't forgotten you. But since yours is a long litany of questions and complaints, it will take some time to deal with, something am having a hard time finding at the moment. Besides, as you must have noticed, I am just one AGAINST a world of netters :-) c-da ___ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
Re: [Assam] Utpal's Questions
My apologies for responding late on this. In as much as SH or UB have strong points of view, so do spokespeople of ULFA - at this point I guess the only voice for debate from the ULFA's side seems to be RB. Precisely why it really does not matter how low or high he/she is in the pecking order! If this logic were to be extended, there is no reason for SH or UB to have a conversation with RB (or for that matter you) since your mind is made up in any case. I don't see how this argument can be tenable! Whether SH's questions are an an inquisition or it has dishonorable aims, it is an opportunity to clarify one's position and to find new converts. It is ridiculous to be letting that opportunity go. Imagine a sales guy doing that in an organization! Unless maybe, there is no longer that energy and belief in that position! --- Chan Mahanta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know whether it is clear or not - Utpal and others seem to have attempted to make it clear - that the real interest is in a response from ULFA. Yes , that was very clear Rajib. But since they did not get it to their satisfaction, I asked the question of SH who first brought it to us if he thinks or Utpal and others do, that therefore the question/s have no satisfactory answer? It was a leading question . I asked that very deliberately, with the aim of eliciting a specific answer. But I can see why SH wouldn't respond :-). We will see how Utpal fields it, if he does. But how does it matter, whether the esteemed org. responded to it? It would be nice if it were to have been addressed by ULFA, but they don't do a lot of things many Assamnetters will like for them to. SURRENDERing for example. Couldn't they tell that Rubi Bhuyan was not someone with the expertise of an able Press Secretary? Knowing that they still went after RB like a pack of stray dogs after a bicycle rider at Kukurmuta, didn't they? And imagine--there were those who call themselves JOURNALISTS among them! How does that fit with what Utpal's AIM, his objective, was in RB's inquisition? That is what I would like to hear from Utpal about. If it was as sincere and honorable as SH vouched for, there should be no problem sharing it with us. We will then be able to weigh the effectiveness or appropriateness of the questions for achieving Utpal's objectives. Wouldn't you want to as well, as a mature, honorable person, even though you don't have any sympathy for ULFA's cause ? At 10:12 AM -0700 10/8/07, Rajib Das wrote: I don't know whether it is clear or not - Utpal and others seem to have attempted to make it clear - that the real interest is in a response from ULFA. Even though C-da has articulated A LOT in this forum (I am sure everyone agrees with the that), his articulations do not amount to a response from the esteemed organization. --- Chan Mahanta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Utpal: I have found what I was looking for. You wrote that you were reading my responses to SH with a lot of interest. I feel honored, considering that many tell me they never read what I write or give a damn. I will attempt to answer your questions, but NOT as in an inquisition or interrogation, where you ask the questions and I am required to give the answers, while ---dont wish to join you in a debate. SH also refuses to debate me. I understand he has no time for such. I like to think that you have at least a little more time than SH, considering you put together that exhaustive list of questions for Rubi Bhuyan. And I have no reason to think that you all prefer to pick on easy targets only. SH declared on your behalf that your --- purpose was a DIALOGUE, and that too of the sincere variety and the best way we could have started was by seeking answers to questions that are plaguing the minds of most educated, middle class Assamese people. Taking his word for it, before I give any answers, would you kindly share with us what the primary objective of your ( and others' too, if you share theirs) question/s was/were? I ask, because it was not clear. I am no journalist, just an ol' homespun observer. But I know from observation, that dedicated and effective journalists ask questions with an objective in mind and keep asking, seeking until they arrive at the objective or find the answers that help them achieve their objective/s. What was your objective, your AIM? After that I propose to engage in a give and take, ask/answer/follow-up and so forth, as in a civil dialogue between two mature persons. I promise not to ask anything personal or call you names or question your intelligence or integrity, comment on your language skills and indulge in other such confrontational or
Re: [Assam] Utpal's Questions
Whether SH's questions are an an inquisition or it has dishonorable aims, it is an opportunity to clarify one's position and to find new converts. The AIM thingie is for people who understand that. Not everybody does. For those who do not understand it , it is gorur aagot twkari bai, xing jwkari ghaanh khai. In this forum, I like to think, people don't follow others like sheep. At least they should not. Would be very unbecoming. It would be tragic not just for the Oxomiya identity, but also their humanity. It is for that reason, those who are unwilling or unable to gear their activities to an honorable objective, but are yet at ready to oppose others who do, do not do their societies any favors. They remain part of the problem, with nothing to contribute to a solution. In this instance the objective ought to be quite clear. But we will see. It is ridiculous to be letting that opportunity go. *** I agree. What an opportunity it was, to enter into a dialog, to inquire and learn why ULFA took up arms, under what conditions, and what have changed to those conditions, that the inquisitors bank on to devalue their sacrifices in the pursuit of freedom; while recommending solutions to problems they know nothing about. Imagine a sales guy doing that in an organization! Life is a whole lot more than a sales job. Eugene O'Neil told that story in heartrending details. At 6:48 PM -0700 10/11/07, Rajib Das wrote: My apologies for responding late on this. In as much as SH or UB have strong points of view, so do spokespeople of ULFA - at this point I guess the only voice for debate from the ULFA's side seems to be RB. Precisely why it really does not matter how low or high he/she is in the pecking order! If this logic were to be extended, there is no reason for SH or UB to have a conversation with RB (or for that matter you) since your mind is made up in any case. I don't see how this argument can be tenable! Whether SH's questions are an an inquisition or it has dishonorable aims, it is an opportunity to clarify one's position and to find new converts. It is ridiculous to be letting that opportunity go. Imagine a sales guy doing that in an organization! Unless maybe, there is no longer that energy and belief in that position! --- Chan Mahanta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know whether it is clear or not - Utpal and others seem to have attempted to make it clear - that the real interest is in a response from ULFA. Yes , that was very clear Rajib. But since they did not get it to their satisfaction, I asked the question of SH who first brought it to us if he thinks or Utpal and others do, that therefore the question/s have no satisfactory answer? It was a leading question . I asked that very deliberately, with the aim of eliciting a specific answer. But I can see why SH wouldn't respond :-). We will see how Utpal fields it, if he does. But how does it matter, whether the esteemed org. responded to it? It would be nice if it were to have been addressed by ULFA, but they don't do a lot of things many Assamnetters will like for them to. SURRENDERing for example. Couldn't they tell that Rubi Bhuyan was not someone with the expertise of an able Press Secretary? Knowing that they still went after RB like a pack of stray dogs after a bicycle rider at Kukurmuta, didn't they? And imagine--there were those who call themselves JOURNALISTS among them! How does that fit with what Utpal's AIM, his objective, was in RB's inquisition? That is what I would like to hear from Utpal about. If it was as sincere and honorable as SH vouched for, there should be no problem sharing it with us. We will then be able to weigh the effectiveness or appropriateness of the questions for achieving Utpal's objectives. Wouldn't you want to as well, as a mature, honorable person, even though you don't have any sympathy for ULFA's cause ? At 10:12 AM -0700 10/8/07, Rajib Das wrote: I don't know whether it is clear or not - Utpal and others seem to have attempted to make it clear - that the real interest is in a response from ULFA. Even though C-da has articulated A LOT in this forum (I am sure everyone agrees with the that), his articulations do not amount to a response from the esteemed organization. --- Chan Mahanta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Utpal: I have found what I was looking for. You wrote that you were reading my responses to SH with a lot of interest. I feel honored, considering that many tell me they never read what I write or give a damn. I will attempt to answer your questions, but NOT as in an inquisition or interrogation, where you ask the questions and I am required to give the answers, while ---dont wish to join you in a debate. SH also
[Assam] Utpal's Questions
Hi Utpal: I have found what I was looking for. You wrote that you were reading my responses to SH with a lot of interest. I feel honored, considering that many tell me they never read what I write or give a damn. I will attempt to answer your questions, but NOT as in an inquisition or interrogation, where you ask the questions and I am required to give the answers, while ---dont wish to join you in a debate. SH also refuses to debate me. I understand he has no time for such. I like to think that you have at least a little more time than SH, considering you put together that exhaustive list of questions for Rubi Bhuyan. And I have no reason to think that you all prefer to pick on easy targets only. SH declared on your behalf that your --- purpose was a DIALOGUE, and that too of the sincere variety and the best way we could have started was by seeking answers to questions that are plaguing the minds of most educated, middle class Assamese people. Taking his word for it, before I give any answers, would you kindly share with us what the primary objective of your ( and others' too, if you share theirs) question/s was/were? I ask, because it was not clear. I am no journalist, just an ol' homespun observer. But I know from observation, that dedicated and effective journalists ask questions with an objective in mind and keep asking, seeking until they arrive at the objective or find the answers that help them achieve their objective/s. What was your objective, your AIM? After that I propose to engage in a give and take, ask/answer/follow-up and so forth, as in a civil dialogue between two mature persons. I promise not to ask anything personal or call you names or question your intelligence or integrity, comment on your language skills and indulge in other such confrontational or condescending tactics. If you wish you can appoint one or more ombudsmen/referees of your choice monitor the dialogue, but only for form/tenor of the discussions--not on the subject matter/s. Is that a fair deal? You are also welcome to have others in your team, perhaps no more than say two more persons. I don't want to get into what I termed the other day a feeding frenzy of scavengers. I am hoping that you will not decline on account of your sixth question below: 6. Since you say you do not speak for ULFA and am NOT PRIVY to its policy-making, would not it be better if ULFA talks directly to all of us? with regards, The answer to that is this: Let us assume that ULFA is incapable of answering your questions, as was concluded by many of the inquisitors. But that does not mean these are unanswerable. I can field those questions. We will let you and the netters judge how well or how poorly. You are interested , after all, in seeing if these resolvable issues. If I can answer them satisfactorily, and if ULFA does not have anyone in its policy-making body capable of dealing with them, they can always HIRE me. I will be pleased to help them, having proven in this forum that I am up to it. That is the kind of work I do for a living, as a consultant, solving other people's problems. And in this era of globalization, where boundaries of state is an obsolete concept as you all declared, the fact of my being an ex-pat ought not to be an issue. Shall we ? c-da Chandan-da, I have been reading with great curiosity your mails arising out of Shantikam Hazarikas comments on my questions posted to ULFA on another online group of Assamese people. I dont wish to join you in a debate on the exchanges you have been having with Hazarika or others, but I would be grateful if you let me know: 1. How you deduced that my questions to ULFA were constructive (as you put it, So, even though you have been evading the points I raised, you can correct yourself, and tell us, that Utpal's ploy was not a constructive one). 2. I had asked ULFA some stratightforward questions, and HAD given the reasons why I was asking them. I am not sure if you saw / have seen the questions while questioning the motive behind them, because I have posted them on another group and on this group it just took off on the basis of Hazarikas comments. (I am also not sure if you are a member of the other group, since you have not participated in the debate on the other group, though you have said in this forum As I wrote earlier, Utpal's questions were virtually the same as those posed to this writer by Chittaranjan in May of this year.) 3. How did you arrive at the conclusion that the questions were an inquisition and an interrogator's talking points, and that it was not designed to have a SINCERE DIALOGUE? 4. If the ULFA dispatcher might have been farther handicapped by not being in on ULFA's policy making or communicating team (I would like to know how you arrived at that conclusion, or
Re: [Assam] Utpal's Questions
I don't know whether it is clear or not - Utpal and others seem to have attempted to make it clear - that the real interest is in a response from ULFA. Even though C-da has articulated A LOT in this forum (I am sure everyone agrees with the that), his articulations do not amount to a response from the esteemed organization. --- Chan Mahanta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Utpal: I have found what I was looking for. You wrote that you were reading my responses to SH with a lot of interest. I feel honored, considering that many tell me they never read what I write or give a damn. I will attempt to answer your questions, but NOT as in an inquisition or interrogation, where you ask the questions and I am required to give the answers, while ---dont wish to join you in a debate. SH also refuses to debate me. I understand he has no time for such. I like to think that you have at least a little more time than SH, considering you put together that exhaustive list of questions for Rubi Bhuyan. And I have no reason to think that you all prefer to pick on easy targets only. SH declared on your behalf that your --- purpose was a DIALOGUE, and that too of the sincere variety and the best way we could have started was by seeking answers to questions that are plaguing the minds of most educated, middle class Assamese people. Taking his word for it, before I give any answers, would you kindly share with us what the primary objective of your ( and others' too, if you share theirs) question/s was/were? I ask, because it was not clear. I am no journalist, just an ol' homespun observer. But I know from observation, that dedicated and effective journalists ask questions with an objective in mind and keep asking, seeking until they arrive at the objective or find the answers that help them achieve their objective/s. What was your objective, your AIM? After that I propose to engage in a give and take, ask/answer/follow-up and so forth, as in a civil dialogue between two mature persons. I promise not to ask anything personal or call you names or question your intelligence or integrity, comment on your language skills and indulge in other such confrontational or condescending tactics. If you wish you can appoint one or more ombudsmen/referees of your choice monitor the dialogue, but only for form/tenor of the discussions--not on the subject matter/s. Is that a fair deal? You are also welcome to have others in your team, perhaps no more than say two more persons. I don't want to get into what I termed the other day a feeding frenzy of scavengers. I am hoping that you will not decline on account of your sixth question below: 6. Since you say you do not speak for ULFA and am NOT PRIVY to its policy-making, would not it be better if ULFA talks directly to all of us? with regards, The answer to that is this: Let us assume that ULFA is incapable of answering your questions, as was concluded by many of the inquisitors. But that does not mean these are unanswerable. I can field those questions. We will let you and the netters judge how well or how poorly. You are interested , after all, in seeing if these resolvable issues. If I can answer them satisfactorily, and if ULFA does not have anyone in its policy-making body capable of dealing with them, they can always HIRE me. I will be pleased to help them, having proven in this forum that I am up to it. That is the kind of work I do for a living, as a consultant, solving other people's problems. And in this era of globalization, where boundaries of state is an obsolete concept as you all declared, the fact of my being an ex-pat ought not to be an issue. Shall we ? c-da Chandan-da, I have been reading with great curiosity your mails arising out of Shantikam Hazarikas comments on my questions posted to ULFA on another online group of Assamese people. I dont wish to join you in a debate on the exchanges you have been having with Hazarika or others, but I would be grateful if you let me know: 1. How you deduced that my questions to ULFA were constructive (as you put it, So, even though you have been evading the points I raised, you can correct yourself, and tell us, that Utpal's ploy was not a constructive one). 2. I had asked ULFA some stratightforward questions, and HAD given the reasons why I was asking them. I am not sure if you saw / have seen the questions while questioning the motive behind them, because I have posted them on another group and on this group it just took off on the basis of Hazarikas comments. (I am also not sure if you are a member of the other group, since you have not participated in the debate on the other group, though you
Re: [Assam] Utpal's Questions
And in this era of globalization, where boundaries of state is an obsolete concept as you all declared, the fact of my being an ex-pat ought not to be an issue. If we all agree on this, where is the question of adding a new 'state' in the map with 'boundaries' and 'colours'? Will this 'state' also not 'wither' away?:-) Chan Mahanta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Hi Utpal: I have found what I was looking for. You wrote that you were reading my responses to SH with a lot of interest. I feel honored, considering that many tell me they never read what I write or give a damn. I will attempt to answer your questions, but NOT as in an inquisition or interrogation, where you ask the questions and I am required to give the answers, while ---dont wish to join you in a debate. SH also refuses to debate me. I understand he has no time for such. I like to think that you have at least a little more time than SH, considering you put together that exhaustive list of questions for Rubi Bhuyan. And I have no reason to think that you all prefer to pick on easy targets only. SH declared on your behalf that your --- purpose was a DIALOGUE, and that too of the sincere variety and the best way we could have started was by seeking answers to questions that are plaguing the minds of most educated, middle class Assamese people. Taking his word for it, before I give any answers, would you kindly share with us what the primary objective of your ( and others' too, if you share theirs) question/s was/were? I ask, because it was not clear. I am no journalist, just an ol' homespun observer. But I know from observation, that dedicated and effective journalists ask questions with an objective in mind and keep asking, seeking until they arrive at the objective or find the answers that help them achieve their objective/s. What was your objective, your AIM? After that I propose to engage in a give and take, ask/answer/follow-up and so forth, as in a civil dialogue between two mature persons. I promise not to ask anything personal or call you names or question your intelligence or integrity, comment on your language skills and indulge in other such confrontational or condescending tactics. If you wish you can appoint one or more ombudsmen/referees of your choice monitor the dialogue, but only for form/tenor of the discussions--not on the subject matter/s. Is that a fair deal? You are also welcome to have others in your team, perhaps no more than say two more persons. I don't want to get into what I termed the other day a feeding frenzy of scavengers. I am hoping that you will not decline on account of your sixth question below: 6. Since you say you do not speak for ULFA and am NOT PRIVY to its policy-making, would not it be better if ULFA talks directly to all of us? with regards, The answer to that is this: Let us assume that ULFA is incapable of answering your questions, as was concluded by many of the inquisitors. But that does not mean these are unanswerable. I can field those questions. We will let you and the netters judge how well or how poorly. You are interested , after all, in seeing if these resolvable issues. If I can answer them satisfactorily, and if ULFA does not have anyone in its policy-making body capable of dealing with them, they can always HIRE me. I will be pleased to help them, having proven in this forum that I am up to it. That is the kind of work I do for a living, as a consultant, solving other people's problems. And in this era of globalization, where boundaries of state is an obsolete concept as you all declared, the fact of my being an ex-pat ought not to be an issue. Shall we ? c-da Chandan-da, I have been reading with great curiosity your mails arising out of Shantikam Hazarikas comments on my questions posted to ULFA on another online group of Assamese people. I dont wish to join you in a debate on the exchanges you have been having with Hazarika or others, but I would be grateful if you let me know: 1. How you deduced that my questions to ULFA were constructive (as you put it, So, even though you have been evading the points I raised, you can correct yourself, and tell us, that Utpal's ploy was not a constructive one). 2. I had asked ULFA some stratightforward questions, and HAD given the reasons why I was asking them. I am not sure if you saw / have seen the questions while questioning the motive behind them, because I have posted them on another group and on this group it just took off on the basis of Hazarikas comments. (I am also not sure if you are a member of the other group, since you have not
Re: [Assam] Utpal's Questions
*** First off, I was only being facetious :-). It was an absurd proposition to begin with . I can't believe how a segment of Assam intelligentsia, particularly the internet set, that continue to make that argument. Having said that, just because I am not ULFA, my explanation, if sound could not be accepted by ULFA as their own? After all it is not like dealing with intellectual property issues, where they qwill have to pay me if they use it. In fact thinking people ought to promote the notion of incorporating the best practices, wherever available from. One of a functioning democracy's main benefits is to be able to make the best use of the collective wisdoms of the people and something that Indian democracy has proven to be eminently incapable of. At 6:24 PM +0100 10/8/07, uttam borthakur wrote: And in this era of globalization, where boundaries of state is an obsolete concept as you all declared, the fact of my being an ex-pat ought not to be an issue. If we all agree on this, where is the question of adding a new 'state' in the map with 'boundaries' and 'colours'? Will this 'state' also not 'wither' away?:-) Chan Mahanta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Utpal: I have found what I was looking for. You wrote that you were reading my responses to SH with a lot of interest. I feel honored, considering that many tell me they never read what I write or give a damn. I will attempt to answer your questions, but NOT as in an inquisition or interrogation, where you ask the questions and I am required to give the answers, while ---dont wish to join you in a debate. SH also refuses to debate me. I understand he has no time for such. I like to think that you have at least a little more time than SH, considering you put together that exhaustive list of questions for Rubi Bhuyan. And I have no reason to think that you all prefer to pick on easy targets only. SH declared on your behalf that your --- purpose was a DIALOGUE, and that too of the sincere variety and the best way we could have started was by seeking answers to questions that are plaguing the minds of most educated, middle class Assamese people. Taking his word for it, before I give any answers, would you kindly share with us what the primary objective of your ( and others' too, if you share theirs) question/s was/were? I ask, because it was not clear. I am no journalist, just an ol' homespun observer. But I know from observation, that dedicated and effective journalists ask questions with an objective in mind and keep asking, seeking until they arrive at the objective or find the answers that help them achieve their objective/s. What was your objective, your AIM? After that I propose to engage in a give and take, ask/answer/follow-up and so forth, as in a civil dialogue between two mature persons. I promise not to ask anything personal or call you names or question your intelligence or integrity, comment on your language skills and indulge in other such confrontational or condescending tactics. If you wish you can appoint one or more ombudsmen/referees of your choice monitor the dialogue, but only for form/tenor of the discussions--not on the subject matter/s. Is that a fair deal? You are also welcome to have others in your team, perhaps no more than say two more persons. I don't want to get into what I termed the other day a feeding frenzy of scavengers. I am hoping that you will not decline on account of your sixth question below: 6. Since you say you do not speak for ULFA and am NOT PRIVY to its policy-making, would not it be better if ULFA talks directly to all of us? with regards, The answer to that is this: Let us assume that ULFA is incapable of answering your questions, as was concluded by many of the inquisitors. But that does not mean these are unanswerable. I can field those questions. We will let you and the netters judge how well or how poorly. You are interested , after all, in seeing if these resolvable issues. If I can answer them satisfactorily, and if ULFA does not have anyone in its policy-making body capable of dealing with them, they can always HIRE me. I will be pleased to help them, having proven in this forum that I am up to it. That is the kind of work I do for a living, as a consultant, solving other people's problems. And in this era of globalization, where boundaries of state is an obsolete concept as you all declared, the fact of my being an ex-pat ought not to be an issue. Shall we ? c-da Chandan-da, I have been reading with great curiosity your mails arising out of Shantikam Hazarikas comments on my questions posted to ULFA on another online group of Assamese people. I dont wish to join you in a debate on the exchanges you have been having with Hazarika or others, but I would be grateful if you let me know: 1. How
Re: [Assam] Utpal's Questions
I don't know whether it is clear or not - Utpal and others seem to have attempted to make it clear - that the real interest is in a response from ULFA. Yes , that was very clear Rajib. But since they did not get it to their satisfaction, I asked the question of SH who first brought it to us if he thinks or Utpal and others do, that therefore the question/s have no satisfactory answer? It was a leading question . I asked that very deliberately, with the aim of eliciting a specific answer. But I can see why SH wouldn't respond :-). We will see how Utpal fields it, if he does. But how does it matter, whether the esteemed org. responded to it? It would be nice if it were to have been addressed by ULFA, but they don't do a lot of things many Assamnetters will like for them to. SURRENDERing for example. Couldn't they tell that Rubi Bhuyan was not someone with the expertise of an able Press Secretary? Knowing that they still went after RB like a pack of stray dogs after a bicycle rider at Kukurmuta, didn't they? And imagine--there were those who call themselves JOURNALISTS among them! How does that fit with what Utpal's AIM, his objective, was in RB's inquisition? That is what I would like to hear from Utpal about. If it was as sincere and honorable as SH vouched for, there should be no problem sharing it with us. We will then be able to weigh the effectiveness or appropriateness of the questions for achieving Utpal's objectives. Wouldn't you want to as well, as a mature, honorable person, even though you don't have any sympathy for ULFA's cause ? At 10:12 AM -0700 10/8/07, Rajib Das wrote: I don't know whether it is clear or not - Utpal and others seem to have attempted to make it clear - that the real interest is in a response from ULFA. Even though C-da has articulated A LOT in this forum (I am sure everyone agrees with the that), his articulations do not amount to a response from the esteemed organization. --- Chan Mahanta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Utpal: I have found what I was looking for. You wrote that you were reading my responses to SH with a lot of interest. I feel honored, considering that many tell me they never read what I write or give a damn. I will attempt to answer your questions, but NOT as in an inquisition or interrogation, where you ask the questions and I am required to give the answers, while ---dont wish to join you in a debate. SH also refuses to debate me. I understand he has no time for such. I like to think that you have at least a little more time than SH, considering you put together that exhaustive list of questions for Rubi Bhuyan. And I have no reason to think that you all prefer to pick on easy targets only. SH declared on your behalf that your --- purpose was a DIALOGUE, and that too of the sincere variety and the best way we could have started was by seeking answers to questions that are plaguing the minds of most educated, middle class Assamese people. Taking his word for it, before I give any answers, would you kindly share with us what the primary objective of your ( and others' too, if you share theirs) question/s was/were? I ask, because it was not clear. I am no journalist, just an ol' homespun observer. But I know from observation, that dedicated and effective journalists ask questions with an objective in mind and keep asking, seeking until they arrive at the objective or find the answers that help them achieve their objective/s. What was your objective, your AIM? After that I propose to engage in a give and take, ask/answer/follow-up and so forth, as in a civil dialogue between two mature persons. I promise not to ask anything personal or call you names or question your intelligence or integrity, comment on your language skills and indulge in other such confrontational or condescending tactics. If you wish you can appoint one or more ombudsmen/referees of your choice monitor the dialogue, but only for form/tenor of the discussions--not on the subject matter/s. Is that a fair deal? You are also welcome to have others in your team, perhaps no more than say two more persons. I don't want to get into what I termed the other day a feeding frenzy of scavengers. I am hoping that you will not decline on account of your sixth question below: 6. Since you say you do not speak for ULFA and am NOT PRIVY to its policy-making, would not it be better if ULFA talks directly to all of us? with regards, The answer to that is this: Let us assume that ULFA is incapable of answering your questions, as was concluded by many of the inquisitors. But that does not mean these are unanswerable. I can field those questions. We will let you and the netters judge how well or how poorly. You are interested , after all, in seeing if these resolvable issues.
