[Assam] Fwd: Re: Who is the Sentinel of Freedom?

Tue Jul 24 20:51:36 PDT 2007

Dilip/Dil Deka <dilipdeka at yahoo.com> wrote:  Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dilip/Dil Deka <dilipdeka at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Assam] Who is the Sentinel of Freedom?
To: Tasiruddin Ahmed <tasiruddin at gmail.com>

  Tasiruddin,
  We have not connected yet on the issue. By asking "Who is the Sentinel of Freedom?", I meant this -- is ULFA the sentinel of Assam's freedom the way people of Assam want it or would you call the Sentinel and other popular newspapers like it the sentinels of the same kind of freedom?
  Sentinel in this context means  sentry or guard.
Freedom is as in freedom to speak, freedom to choose where to live, freedom to choose how to make a living, freedom as in religion and culture, freedom to vote etc. 
  What do you think?
  Dilip Deka
  ===========================================
Tasiruddin Ahmed <tasiruddin at gmail.com> wrote:
  Dear Sh. Deka,

Since the militant group was born before the Sentinel, there will be no news about the group's activities in the Sentinel archives to refer to.

Those who guard the borders are the one who should keep any infiltrators at bay, not those who have nothing to do with guarding the borders. Blaming one another cannot solve any problems. 

Tasiruddin 

  On 7/21/07, Dilip/Dil Deka <dilipdeka at yahoo.com> wrote:     Tasiruddin,
  I didn't quite get your cryptic sentence. Can you make it clearer please?
  Thanks,
  Dilip Deka   

Tasiruddin Ahmed < tasiruddin at gmail.com> wrote:

The Sentinel was launched on April 13, 1983.

  On 7/19/07, Dilip/Dil Deka < dilipdeka at yahoo.com > wrote:     From the Sentinel front page:

            We reproduce below what the ULFA's mouthpiece Freedom, in its July 15, 2007 issue, said about The Sentinel. We also present here our reply to Freedom. 
>From Freedom
Why such smear campaign?
The English daily The Sentinel in its editorial on 19 June, 2007 has accused ULFA for the increase in Muslim population in Asom. The Sentinel alleged that ULFA was oblivious of the issue of Bangladeshi infiltrators in Asom and held responsible for the demographic change of Asom. In the editorial two contradictory issues like birth of ULFA and increase in Muslim population are mixed-up. Since long, this paper has been continuously trying to defame ULFA in order to enjoy colonial blessings. However, alertness on the part of the masses prevented each attempt from being fruitful. Was the number of Bangladeshi infiltrators less before the birth of ULFA? Didn't they try to deny the relevancy of long 6 years of bloodshed in Asom for banishment of thousands of Bangladeshi intruders before the inception of ULFA? We again assert that we are against all kinds of infiltration in Asom - whether Bangladeshi or Indian. We don't entertain varied point of views for infiltrators and our
 stance regarding any illegal infiltrator is same. 
They accused us for keeping quiet over the issue of Bangladeshi infiltrators in Asom. In order to conceal truth of oppression and repression behind the birth of ULFA, The Sentinel fabricated the story saying ULFA's link with Bangladeshi communal rebel groups and Pakistani secret service ISI. If ULFA would have been a terrorist organization master-minded by alien powers then it would have been doomed long ago. These stories are circulated from time to time to hide the issue of restoration of sovereignty by intellectuals so as to reap political harvest. Both BJP and Congress blame each other for exploiting religious minority in Asom. And now they target ULFA and blame it for having relationship with communal powers, Bangladeshi infiltrators and also describe it to be a puppet in the hands of ISI. Motive is now crystal clear behind such campaign. That is to perpetuate Indian colonial rule in Asom. 
           Our Reply
The ULFA's mouthpiece Freedom, in its July 15, 2007 issue, has said that "the leading English daily The Sentinel in its editorial on 19 June, 2007 has accused ULFA for the increase in Muslim population in Asom". We fail to understand what editorial the ULFA is talking about. The Sentinel did not write any editorial on the ULFA in the June 19, 2007 issue. However, in the June 19, 2007 issue, what The Sentinel did carry was a front-page report on the increase in the number of Muslims in Asom due to illegal immigration from Bangladesh and after the ULFA was formed in 1979. We stand by what we reported that day. 
Secondly, the ULFA has said that The Sentinel "has been continuously trying to defame ULFA in order to enjoy colonial blessings". Let it be clear here that in the dictionary of The Sentinel there is nothing like "colonial blessings" for the simple reason that Asom is an Indian State, that the Asomiyas are Indian citizens, and that the Asomiyas were liberated from the colonial British power way back in 1947. If any, the so-called colonial blessings that the ULFA talks about is nothing but indeed the blessings that all Indian citizens get from their motherland  India. So do the Asomiyas who are Indian citizens, and so does The Sentinel which is an Indian newspaper. 
Thirdly, the ULFA has said that "in order to conceal truth of oppression and repression behind the birth of ULFA, The Sentinel fabricated the story saying ULFA's link with Bangladeshi communal rebel groups and Pakistani secret service ISI". The Sentinel would like to ask the ULFA as to what its top brass is doing in Bangladesh. If the ULFA wants to 'liberate' the Asomiyas from "colonial" India, what stops its top leaders from openly fighting the Indian Army in Asom itself? 
The fact is that the cause of a "sovereign Asom", as espoused by the ULFA, has no takers in today's Asomiya society except for some frontal organizations that work for the rebel group to further their own 'business' interests and, of course, except for a negligible section of the Asomiya populace who still feel that the 'sons of the soil' would one day return back to the State and do something for them by being in the mainstream  which means even in this case of a negligible section of the Asomiyas who seem to be sympathetic to the ULFA, the question of "sovereignty" does not arise because they know that it is just not possible, while at the same time they nurse the hope that the ULFA would join the Indian democratic mainstream one fine day and then work for the overall development of Asom. It is another matter that the ULFA does not want to confront this reality. 
Interestingly, in Freedom (July 15, 2007) the ULFA says: "We again assert that we are against all kinds of infiltration in Asom  whether Bangladeshi or Indian." Then what stops the ULFA from initiating action against illegal Bangladeshis in Asom? Why should the ULFA target only one kind of 'infiltrators' as it likes to call them  Hindi-speakers in Asom, who are Indian citizens? And, worse, why should the ULFA kill even the Asomiyas? The point is simple: if the ULFA is against illegal immigration from Bangladesh, it should prove that. Mere words will just not do. 

_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam at assamnet.org 
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.assamnet.org/pipermail/assam-assamnet.org/attachments/20070724/7bb60c5c/attachment.htm>