[Assam] NYT Editorial

Mon Dec 1 16:08:50 PST 2008

C'da,

>Just because a conflict is international, does not make the victims somehow
more important than those who do not sport that >label or wear a halo of
being international, wouldn't you agree?

Whether we like it or not, the reason for that line in the editorial is
precisely the reason that the Op ed did not mention Assam.

You are absolutely correct, and I agree. Unfortunately, the fact is, Assam
is NOT, and that is why there is no mention of Assam in the op ed.

So, C'da, unless someone makes the Assam issue "international", you are not
going to be reading any bylines on the subject.

>The loss of lives and the destruction and continuation of a violent
conflict in Assam  is no less important than those at Mumbai, or >Gujarat or
Delhi.  NYT may not be aware of it, or may not care. But what about you, or
I? And if you care, why would you wish to >subordinate the conflict in Assam
to anything else anywhere  in the world?

Of course, you are correct (you are putting words into my mouth here - hey,
I'm just the messenger :)).

Other things being equal, can you tell me why the ethinic conflict (killed
millions) in Rwanada took 6 years to get international attention? Even
during a Democartic Admin in the US?

Nations, states, and cities come in order of importance (regardless of how
much the destruction).  Somehow, and for whatever reason, the Kashmir issue
is more important in international eyes, than say Dafur or some other such
issue. And Tibet is more important than Rwanda.

That is mu 2 cents.

--Ram

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:

> The point Ram, is NOT whether these issues are 'elevated' or degraded to
> "international" issues.
>
> Just because a conflict is international, does not make the victims somehow
> more important than those who do not sport that label or wear a halo of
> being international, wouldn't you agree?
>
> The loss of lives and the destruction and continuation of a violent
> conflict in Assam  is no less important than those at Mumbai, or Gujarat or
> Delhi.  NYT may not be aware of it, or may not care. But what about you, or
> I? And if you care, why would you wish to subordinate the conflict in Assam
> to anything else anywhere  in the world?
>
> IMHO, the PRINCIPLE  espoused by the NYT Editorial  in its last paragraph
> applies eminently and equally to the conflict in Assam and the others
>  around it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 3:59 PM -0600 12/1/08, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>
>> C'da,
>>
>> This is the last para of the editorial
>>
>> *Washington's most important role will be to urge the Indians and
>> Pakistanis
>> to step back from the brink. The next administration *will then have to
>> move
>> quickly to encourage serious negotiations over the future of Kashmir and
>> genuine cooperation to defeat *extremists.
>>
>> and your view: >Look at the last paragraph of the editorial. Only thing
>> they
>> did not include was Assam.
>>
>> Right or wrong Kashmir has been elevated to an international level, wars
>> having been fought over etc. And the Kashmir issue has even been brought
>> up
>> at the UN, issue a bone of contention between two countries
>>
>> Assam is not Kashmir. No wars have been fought over it by countries, there
>> is no border dispute, it hasn't been mentioned in the UN etc.
>>
>> Having said that, it may come to pass, in years to come, that Bangladesh
>> demands that Assam be a part of it (as most of the poplulation at that
>> time
>> prefer to be in B'desh or think of themselves as B'deshis), but till such
>> time, Assam is firmly considered Indian.
>>
>> Of course, we all agree in getting the numerous problems that plague the
>> NE
>> be solved/resolved - and that will be good for all of Assam.
>>
>>
>> --Ram
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  The below from NY Times.
>>>
>>>  I am no writer, but picked up somewhere that in an essay, the main idea,
>>>  the thrust of the piece, is to be found either in the opening or the
>>>  concluding  paragraph.
>>>
>>>  Look at the last paragraph of the editorial. Only thing they did not
>>>  include was Assam.
>>>
>>>  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/opinion/01mon1.html?_r=1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ***************************************************************************************************************The
>>>  Horror in Mumbai
>>>
>>>  Published: November 30, 2008
>>>  We share the horror, the pain and the disbelief that Indians are feeling
>>> as
>>>  they absorb the appalling details of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai
>>> that
>>>  left nearly 200 dead. We also recognize and understand the questions
>>> Indians
>>>  are asking themselves, and the anger they are feeling, about what some
>>> are
>>>  calling their own 9/11.
>>>
>>>  How can their government have ignored the warning signs? A 2007 report
>>> to
>>>  Parliament warned that the country's shores were poorly protected - and
>>> some
>>>  or all of the attackers arrived by boat. Why weren't the police and the
>>> army
>>>  better prepared to respond? Sharpshooters outside the Taj Mahal Palace &
>>>  Tower Hotel did not have telescopic sights, so they could not get off a
>>> shot
>>>  for fear of killing hostages rather than the terrorists.
>>>  Most of all, who is to blame and who should pay the price for such
>>> cruelty?
>>>  Deccan Mujahedeen, the group that claimed responsibility - the term
>>> itself
>>>  is so chillingly flawed - is unknown. But Indian and American
>>> intelligence
>>>  officials saw signs pointing to Lashkar-e-Taiba, an Islamist group from
>>> the
>>>  disputed region of Kashmir that is increasingly collaborating with the
>>>  Taliban and Al Qaeda. What makes that especially frightening is that the
>>>  group received training and support from Pakistan's intelligence
>>> services,
>>>
>>  > before it was officially banned in 2002.
>>
>>>  We fear that whoever was behind it, the carnage will unleash dangerous
>>> new
>>>  furies between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. And we fear it will
>>> divert
>>>  even more of Pakistan's attention and troops away from fighting
>>> extremists
>>>  on its western border with Afghanistan.
>>>  India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, has so far shown extraordinary
>>>  forbearance. But there are already strong calls for him to retaliate -
>>> with
>>>  or without proof of who was behind the attack. We urge him to carefully
>>>  consider the consequences.
>>>  India's leaders must be very careful not to ignite a religious war
>>> inside
>>>  their own borders. Any military confrontation with Pakistan would be
>>> hugely
>>>  costly in human life. And even the threat of war would be hugely
>>> damaging to
>>>  India's extraordinary economic progress.
>>>  The Bush administration must use all of its influence to ensure that
>>>  India's leaders recognize these dangers. And it must assure the Indians
>>> that
>>>  it will bring all of the pressure it can on Pakistan to cooperate fully
>>> with
>>>  the investigation - no matter where it leads.
>>>  We were heartened when Pakistan's civilian government immediately agreed
>>> to
>>>  send the new chief of the country's powerful intelligence agency, the
>>> ISI,
>>>  to India. We hoped that meant the government was confident that the ISI
>>>  played no role in the attack. Or that it was finally prepared to purge
>>> its
>>>  ranks of all those who have aided and abetted extremists.
>>>  Unfortunately, the offer was quickly withdrawn after the Pakistani Army
>>> and
>>>  opposition parties objected. The government then announced that a
>>>  lower-level intelligence official would go at some point. By Saturday,
>>>  Pakistani officials were blustering as if they were the victims. Despite
>>> all
>>>  of the recent horrors Pakistan has suffered, its military and
>>> intelligence
>>>  services still do not understand that the terrorists pose a mortal
>>> threat to
>>>  their own country.
>>>  In coming days India will have to look inward to see where and how its
>>>  government failed to protect its citizens. The United States is still
>>>  learning the lessons of its own failures before 9/11, but it can help in
>>> the
>>>  process.
>>>  Washington's most important role will be to urge the Indians and
>>> Pakistanis
>>>  to step back from the brink. The next administration will then have to
>>> move
>>>  quickly to encourage serious negotiations over the future of Kashmir and
>>>  genuine cooperation to defeat extremists.
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  assam mailing list
>>>  assam at assamnet.org
>>>  http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> assam mailing list
>> assam at assamnet.org
>> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> assam mailing list
> assam at assamnet.org
> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>