[Assam] European Union and South Asian Federation
kamal deka
kjit.deka at gmail.com
Sun Jun 13 07:38:06 PDT 2010
>>> The ol', when ordinary-reasoning-fails, turn-to- pseudo-philosophy-routine<<<
I,too,dismiss off your reasoning as mambo-jumbo:-)
>>>language is playing tricks again in desi-minds, making a federation seem
like a re-union.<<<
Federation,in one way,can be defined as a group of states with a
central government but independence in internal affairs.The catch
phrase is " central government". India,for example, is a federal
constitutional republic consisting of 28 states and seven union
territories with a parliamentary system of democracy.The rest is
self-explanatory.
>>>WHY it is good for India to hold on to Assam OR WHY it is bad for Assam to be free?<<<
Power of a fist vs power of a finger. United we stand,divided we
fall.As simple as that.That's why we have The United States ,The
United Kingdom or UAE et al.
KJD
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at gmail.com> wrote:
>>Once you stop believing in shooting first and asking questions
>>
>> later,every obscurity will be clear and comprehensible.
>
> ######
>
>>I don't believe in building castles in the mirage.
>
>
>
> **** The ol', when ordinary-reasoning-fails, turn-to-
> pseudo-philosophy-routine
> here eh :-)?
>
>
>
>
>> And what does India lose? Assam? B'deshi cheap labor? Or the
>> lungi menace?
>> I am stumped ! Any help in sorting it out :-)?<<<
>>
>> I am equally stumped not by the brilliance of the argument but rather
>> lack of it.
>
>
>
> **** It was a QUESTION, looking for an answer, NOT an argument for or
> against the proposition that brings so much consternation.
> I can imagine why the answer is so elusive however. It is another of those
> confounding questions that many of our friends won't touch with a forty feet
> pole, while flailing around it to no end, very similar to the question of
> WHY it is good for India to hold on to Assam OR WHY it is bad for Assam to
> be
> free? I have been unable to entice even the most informed, articulate and
> passionately anti-Assam-sovereignty friends of ours here to take that bait
> in
> all these years. Must be a scary-as-all-hell question, that :-)!
>
> But I leave both these sets of questions open--in case a daredevil
> appears amongst the opponents and flexes her/his intellectual muscles
> to take them on, instead of just-saying-no :-).
>
>
>
>
>>>>> Should Assam become independent, it will be natural for Assam
>>
>> to be
>> a part of such a federation too.<<<
>>
>> Why break away in the first place --only to join later? I just don't
>> get this sort of hogwash:-)
>
>
>
> **** Um, let' s see now: Join later? Where did that come from? I don't
> recall
> that DD proposed any such thing or yours truly seconded or defended
> or attempted to propagate the notion, UNLESS, this damned English
> language is playing tricks again in desi-minds, making a federation seem
> like a re-union. How I wished we could write in a language we all understand
> equally well, in which a ' suktiboddho raastro xomuh' will not appear to be
> the same
> as a 'punor-xongjwjit-raastro' :-).
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 12, 2010, at 6:55 PM, kamal deka wrote:
>
>>>>> There is no contradiction here. Not even by a long shot, obscure
>>>>> American idioms or not.<<<
>>
>> Once you stop believing in shooting first and asking questions
>> later,every obscurity will be clear and comprehensible.
>>
>>>>> But will it be a bad idea to TRY and make it happen?<<<
>>
>> I don't believe in building castles in the mirage.
>>
>>
>>>>> to gain from it, that its B'deshi migration problem might get
>>>>> alleviated.
>>
>> And what does India lose? Assam? B'deshi cheap labor? Or the
>> lungi menace?
>> I am stumped ! Any help in sorting it out :-)?<<<
>>
>> I am equally stumped not by the brilliance of the argument but rather
>> lack of it.When Assam's very existence will be on the verge of
>> extinction,the question of illegal migration will remain out of the
>> equation.
>>
>>
>>>>> Should Assam become independent, it will be natural for Assam
>>
>> to be
>> a part of such a federation too.<<<
>>
>> Why break away in the first place --only to join later? I just don't
>> get this sort of hogwash:-)
>>
>> KJD
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> but I
>>>>
>>>> can say with certainty that this particular idiom is apt in connection
>>>> with the discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>> **** OK, since it is not about semantics, I accept your verdict.
>>> Having done that, let us now examine the two competing sides,
>>> the conflict from which some of us might have something to gain.
>>>
>>> Should India, Pakistan, B'desh, SriLanka, Bhutan and Nepal
>>> get together in some sort of a federation, as I might be screaming
>>> for them to do, what do *I* gain from that? Oh, yes Assam does have
>>> something
>>> to gain from it, that its B'deshi migration problem might get
>>> alleviated.
>>> And what does India lose? Assam? B'deshi cheap labor? Or the
>>> lungi menace?
>>>
>>> I am stumped ! Any help in sorting it out :-)?
>>>
>>>
>>>> I explained before the difference between ideal
>>>>
>>>> world and a real world.
>>>
>>> **** Surely I can appreciate that. The real world of India Pakistan
>>> and B'desh reels from the centuries old Hindu-Muslim conflicts.
>>> Thus for the three to set aside their blood feuds may take a lot of
>>> doing.
>>> And it may NOT happen.
>>>
>>>
>>> But will it be a bad idea to TRY and make it happen?
>>>
>>>
>>> By getting together I don't mean or imply that they merge or attempt to
>>> merge
>>> into one country, re-unify. They should NOT. It will be a bad idea.
>>> They
>>> can remain separate
>>> countries , but yet work together in many areas for mutual benefit, while
>>> bringing
>>> the ancient conflicts to an end.
>>>
>>> Ram alluded to the ancient hatreds that will prevent it from happening,
>>> as
>>> you do.
>>> My point is that these hatreds are not something imprinted on the genes,
>>> like perhaps
>>> a caste might be :-). And thus they can be reduced, if not eradicated.
>>> Surely it
>>> will take leadership and farsightedness to affect it. It is a man made
>>> condition and
>>> thus man can rise to undo it, should they wish to.
>>>
>>> **** Now about the purported dichotomy of my position espousing Assam
>>> sovereignty:
>>> There is none! Should Assam become independent, it will be natural for
>>> Assam
>>> to be
>>> a part of such a federation too.
>>>
>>> **** It is not like I am advocating a secession of Assam on the one hand,
>>> and on the other
>>> advocating a re-union of India, B'desh Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal.
>>> Just
>>> like it is a good
>>> idea for Pakistan, B'Desh, Nepal etc. to remain the masters of their own
>>> destiny, so it is
>>> for Assam.
>>>
>>> There is no contradiction here. Not even by a long shot, obscure American
>>> idioms or not.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 12, 2010, at 1:38 PM, kamal deka wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously it is a case of a misapplied idiom<<<
>>>>
>>>> Yes,I may not have a good command over English idiom as you do, but I
>>>> can say with certainty that this particular idiom is apt in connection
>>>> with the discussion.I will never stand corrected.
>>>> On one end of the spectrum,you are screaming on the idea that these
>>>> countries should join together to form a federation while on the
>>>> opposite end,you support the ULFA's cause of India's disintegration.
>>>> This is what I call,once again,work both sides of the street.What is
>>>> good or bad in this? I explained before the difference between ideal
>>>> world and a real world.Why should anyone pursue a fool's errand?
>>>> KJD
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 11, 2010, at 5:36 PM, kamal deka wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again,it reminds me of a proverbial saying that goes---playing both
>>>>>> sides from the middle
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *** You mean "playing both sides, AGAINST ( not from) the middle, right
>>>>> :-)?
>>>>>
>>>>> But HOW does that apply in this situation? The idiom means: "---to try
>>>>> to
>>>>> make two
>>>>> people or groups compete with each other in order to get an advantage
>>>>> for
>>>>> oneself"
>>>>>
>>>>> *** Who are the two competing sides here, whom this bad person, the
>>>>> messenger,
>>>>> is attempting to play against each other, to reap the benefits for
>>>>> himself
>>>>> therefrom?
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously it is a case of a misapplied idiom. But so be it. I won't
>>>>> dwell
>>>>> on
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> But returning to the subject at hand, let us analyze what is involved.
>>>>> It
>>>>> has two
>>>>> parts:
>>>>>
>>>>> A: Is the proposition GOOD, or beneficial, or has the potential
>>>>> to
>>>>> ameliorate,
>>>>> if not eradicate the problem, namely uncontrolled migration?
>>>>>
>>>>> B: If it is good, then we will look into how to achieve it. If,
>>>>> on
>>>>> the other hand,
>>>>> it is not a good idea, then we must examine WHY it is not a good
>>>>> idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can't just demonize the proposition, because we do not trust the
>>>>> messenger or have
>>>>> doubts about his motives. It is OK to doubt the motives, but since it
>>>>> is
>>>>> NOT
>>>>> about him,
>>>>> we, as thinking people have to revert back to the fundamentals of the
>>>>> proposition, its
>>>>> possible benefits or its absence.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *** IF you think the proposition is an undesirable one, pray tell us
>>>>> why.
>>>>> It could be bad.
>>>>> But you will have to tell us why it is bad or undesirable. The least
>>>>> you
>>>>> could do.
>>>>>
>>>>> *** IF it is NOT bad, then we go on to examine how to achieve it.
>>>>> Nobody
>>>>> is
>>>>> suggesting it
>>>>> is a piece of cake. Obviously it will be an uphill battle. But there
>>>>> would
>>>>> be ways if there is the will.
>>>>> That is the critical point.
>>>>>
>>>>> *** To denounce or demonize the proposition, just because one does not
>>>>> like
>>>>> the proposer
>>>>> or has doubts about his motives, is not the reaction of a thoughtful
>>>>> person.
>>>>> It makes the critic look
>>>>> like someone who does not really want to see a solution. Doesn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, let us see if we can DE-Mystify this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Allow me to agree that the mystifier here is a bad person, an
>>>>>>> ULFA-Pal
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the image of say, a terrorist
>>>>>>> pal like Obama as the great American intellectual Sarah Palin might
>>>>>>> say.
>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>> he is just a messenger. Is the
>>>>>>> message he is carrying, sullied by his personal failings?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or is the message a bad one? An undesirable one?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IF, the message is bad, why so? Is it because it will harm India?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if it is NOT a bad message, that it would not only be in (India's
>>>>>>> interest, but also its neighbors, then
>>>>>>> why tar-and-feather the message, pooh-pooh it, because of the
>>>>>>> messenger's
>>>>>>> personal failures?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would a thinking person, able or willing to reason, do that? Cut
>>>>>>> his/her
>>>>>>> own nose to spite the face?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That IS the question here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will we be blessed with an explanation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 10, 2010, at 8:04 PM, kamal deka wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's exactly how an ULFA's pal engages himself in an exercise
>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>> MYSTIFICATION!!
>>>>>>>> Somebody,please let me know if there is a superior double talker
>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>> KJD
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Alpana B. Sarangapani
>>>>>>>> <absarangapani at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Isn't that something? Some are visioning of one big united world
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> are trying to divide one little (or big) country that they live
>>>>>>>>> in.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: Sushanta Kar <pragyan.tsc50 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:56:30
>>>>>>>>> To: <assam at assamnet.org>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Assam] European Union and South Asian Federation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the Dream, most of the people is visioning these days.
>>>>>>>>> People
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> this region will sure go for it!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I support your proposal Dilipda!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sushanta
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>>>> From: Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> Date: 10 June 2010 23:22
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Assam] European Union and South Asian Federation
>>>>>>>>> To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the
>>>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>> assam at assamnet.org>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Precisely!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 10, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Dilip and Dil Deka wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am sure most netters have read european history and know how
>>>>>>>>> viciously
>>>>>>>>> > the european tribes (and subsequently nations) fought for
>>>>>>>>> centuries.
>>>>>>>>> World
>>>>>>>>> > wars I and II were fought in Europe. If those people can form an
>>>>>>>>> economic
>>>>>>>>> > and political union for the sake of survival, what is wrong in
>>>>>>>>> expecting
>>>>>>>>> > India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (also Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan
>>>>>>>>> possibly)
>>>>>>>>> > to form a federation?
>>>>>>>>> > There are 27 members in the EU and it is growing.
>>>>>>>>> > Dilip
>>>>>>>>> > ===========================================================
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Member states
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > The continental territories of the member states of the European
>>>>>>>>> Union
>>>>>>>>> > (European Communities pre-1993), animated in order of accession.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Albania
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Austria
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Belarus
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Belgium
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Bos.
>>>>>>>>> > & Herz.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Bulgaria
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Croatia
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Cyprus
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Czech
>>>>>>>>> > Rep.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Denmark
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Estonia
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Finland
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > France
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Germany
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Greece
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Hungary
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Iceland
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Ireland
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Italy
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Latvia
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Lithuania
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Luxembourg
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Mac.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Malta?
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Moldova
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Mont.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Netherlands
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Norway
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Poland
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Portugal
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Romania
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Russia
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Serbia
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Slovakia
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Slovenia
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Spain
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Sweden
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Switz-
>>>>>>>>> > erland
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Turkey
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Ukraine
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > United
>>>>>>>>> > Kingdom
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > European Union is composed of 27 sovereign Member States:
>>>>>>>>> Austria,
>>>>>>>>> Belgium,
>>>>>>>>> > Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
>>>>>>>>> France,
>>>>>>>>> > Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
>>>>>>>>> Luxembourg,
>>>>>>>>> > Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak
>>>>>>>>> Republic,
>>>>>>>>> > Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[30]
>>>>>>>>> > The Union's membership has grown from the original six founding
>>>>>>>>> > states-Belgium, France, (then-West) Germany, Italy, Luxembourg
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> > Netherlands-to the present day 27 by successive enlargements as
>>>>>>>>> countries
>>>>>>>>> > acceded to the treaties and by doing so, pooled their
>>>>>>>>> sovereignty
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> > exchange for representation in the institutions.[31]
>>>>>>>>> > To join the EU a country must meet the Copenhagen criteria,
>>>>>>>>> defined
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> > 1993 Copenhagen European Council. These require a stable
>>>>>>>>> democracy
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> > respects human rights and the rule of law; a functioning market
>>>>>>>>> economy
>>>>>>>>> > capable of competition within the EU; and the acceptance of the
>>>>>>>>> obligations
>>>>>>>>> > of membership, including EU law. Evaluation of a country's
>>>>>>>>> fulfilment
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> > criteria is the responsibility of the European Council.[32]
>>>>>>>>> > No member state has ever left the Union, although Greenland (an
>>>>>>>>> autonomous
>>>>>>>>> > province of Denmark) withdrew in 1985. The Lisbon Treaty now
>>>>>>>>> provides
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> > clause dealing with how a member leaves the EU.
>>>>>>>>> > There are three official candidate countries, Croatia, Macedonia
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> > Turkey. Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and
>>>>>>>>> Iceland are
>>>>>>>>> > officially recognised as potential candidates.[33] Kosovo is
>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>> listed as
>>>>>>>>> > a potential candidate but the European Commission does not list
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> > independent country because not all member states recognise it
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> > independent country separate from Serbia.[34]
>>>>>>>>> > Four Western European countries that have chosen not to join the
>>>>>>>>> EU
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> > partly committed to the EU's economy and regulations: Iceland,
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> has now
>>>>>>>>> > applied for membership, Liechtenstein and Norway, which are a
>>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> > single market through the European Economic Area, and
>>>>>>>>> Switzerland,
>>>>>>>>> which has
>>>>>>>>> > similar ties through bilateral treaties.[35][36] The
>>>>>>>>> relationships
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> > European microstates, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and the
>>>>>>>>> Vatican
>>>>>>>>> include
>>>>>>>>> > the use of the euro and other areas of co-operation.[37]
>>>>>>>>> >_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> > 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Sushnta Kar
>>>>>>>>> ??????? ??
>>>>>>>>> ??????????, ????
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ???? ????????:
>>>>>>>>> http://sushantakar40.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>> http://ishankonerkahini.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>> http://ishankonerkotha.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>> ???? ???????? '????????'
>>>>>>>>> http://pragyan06now.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>>> http://sites.google.com/site/pragyan06now
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "??????????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ???????, ????? ????? ??????
>>>>>>>>> ??????"
>>>>>>>>> ???????????
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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