[Assam] NYT Editorial
Ram Sarangapani
assamrs at gmail.com
Mon Dec 1 16:34:17 PST 2008
Of course, C'da, we all do - we all, I am pretty sure, want peace in
Assam. And if that peace were to come thru some dialog, why shouldn't that
be welcome.
BTW - just because the Kasmir issue is internationally bandied about,
doesn't mean a darn thing. I seriously doubt if that will be solved, nor
will the Middle East.
Now a days it seems that international bodies are only interested in
"containing" the issue as opposed to solving.
My prediction is that the Kashmir issue will be just that. I suspect, that
will also be the case in the Assam situation - maybe at the Center and State
level or in Indian parlance - kick the ball to the end of the street (and
worry about it later).
--Ram
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
> You are missing the point Ram.
>
> IF finding a sustainable peace in Kashmir is thru a negotiated settlement,
> why should it not be in Assam as well?
>
> Americans may not care about Assam. Indians surely don't. But what about
> you or I or Assam Netters ? Should THEY not raise their voices in support of
> the same principle?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 6:08 PM -0600 12/1/08, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
More information about the Assam
mailing list