[Assam] European Union and South Asian Federation

kamal deka kjit.deka at gmail.com
Sun Jun 13 15:19:47 PDT 2010 

>>>gather from all this is this: India ca do no right. If its
not this, it will be that. This 'federation' concept is  yet another twist.<<<

RS,

Consider India's trade ties with Pakistan where India gave a valuable
concession years ago by granting it the Most Favoured Nation clause
benefit under which she agreed that duties on its imports from
Pakistan will not be different from the rate applied to other nations
--- in short no discrimination against Pakistan imports. Pakistan has
not reciprocated despite such a request several times. In the process,
it’s the Pakistan Army which has gained more muscle because, as
R.Vaidyanathan, Professor of Finance and Control, Indian Institute of
Management, Bangalore, tells us, more than 75% of Pak’s economy is
owned/ controlled by its Army through institutions like Fauji
Foundation and a significant portion of its GDP is due to
army-controlled entities. Actually, as the Professor says, “Pakistan
Army is the only Army in the world owning a country.”

It follows, therefore, that any continuation of so-called economic
cooperation with Pakistan will only benefit its Army which controls
the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency that has nourished
terrorism against India because the Pakistan Army along with all its
Generals, without exception, has long had a pathological hatred for
India.
KJD

gather from all this is this: India ca do no right. If its
not this, it will be that. This 'federation' concept is  yet another twist.

The SAARC Charter (if you take the time & effort to read it) is very much a
Union.

It has  had 16 summits so far, and the SAARC deals many aspects, economics,
political, disputers, resource sharing, human rights, etc, etc,etc


It has  had 16 summits so far, and the SAARC deals many aspects, economics,
political, disputers, resource sharing, human rights, etc, etc,etcOn
Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Ram Sarangapani <assamrs at gmail.com>
wrote:
>  C'da,
>
>>>Hehehe .... Maybe this could start closer to home. With good leadership &
> farsightedness (to borrow from you), some of these die-hard >>separatists,
> insurgents, hate-India folks could undo the condition, and start loving
>>>India (well lets not get carried away), but reduce it, if not eradicate
> it... :-)
>
>
>>**** for a very simple reason: The conditions are entirely different. Assam
> is an occupied
>>land, a colonial outpost, seeking to be free. Very different from Pakistan,
> or B'desh, or Sri Lanka
>>or Nepal. They are free.  To attempt to equate the two is obviously a
> rather tenuous, if not childish
>>exercise. Who will ever buy that :-)?
>
> Lets start with basics here. You had suggested that India/Pak/B'desh get
> past their hatred & form a 'federation of sorts'.
> So, it the abovem are you NOW suggesting that Assam's case being special -
> the hatred does need to continue?
>
>>**** Oh, that damned Inglis language again, heh-heh in which a regional
>>trade or other such alliance appears to be a federation sealed with
> treaties.
>>Or is it yet another attempt at a low key spin :-)
>
> Here is the original suggestion:
>
> *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*
>
>
> Now, here is the SAARC Charter (pasted below),
> http://www.saarc-sec.org/SAARC-Charter/5/
>
> The original suggestion (a Economic & Political Union) is now morphed, and
> re-morphed (from one posting to the next), and at will.
>
> Well, all I can gather from all this is this: India ca do no right. If its
> not this, it will be that. This 'federation' concept is  yet another twist.
>
> The SAARC Charter (if you take the time & effort to read it) is very much a
> Union.
>
> It has  had 16 summits so far, and the SAARC deals many aspects, economics,
> political, disputers, resource sharing, human rights, etc, etc,etc. The
> website is all there.
>
> Can't really help if you STILL don't like it.
>
> --Ram
>
> SAARC Charter
>
> <http://www.saarc-sec.org/SAARC-Charter/5/#>
>
> We, the Heads of State or Government of BANGLADESH, BHUTAN, INDIA, MALDIVES,
> NEPAL, PAKISTAN and SRI LANKA;
>
> 1. Desirous of promoting peace, stability, amity and progress in the region
> through strict adherence to the principles of the UNITED NATIONS CHARTER and
> NON-ALIGNMENT, particularly respect for the principles of sovereign
> equality, territorial integrity, national independence, non-use of force and
> non-interference in the internal affairs of other States and peaceful
> settlement of all disputes;
>
> 2. Conscious that in an increasingly interdependent world, the objectives of
> peace, freedom, social justice and economic prosperity are best achieved in
> the SOUTH ASIAN region by fostering mutual understanding, good neighbourly
> relations and meaningful cooperation among the Member States which are bound
> by ties of history and culture;
>
> 3. Aware of the common problems, interests and aspirations of the peoples of
> SOUTH ASIA and the need for joint action and enhanced cooperation within
> their respective political and economic systems and cultural traditions;
>
> 4. Convinced that regional cooperation among the countries of SOUTH ASIA is
> mutually beneficial, desirable and necessary for promoting the welfare and
> improving the quality of life of the peoples of the region;
>
> 5. Convinced further that economic, social and technical cooperation among
> the countries of SOUTH ASIA would contribute significantly to national and
> collective self-reliance;
>
> 6. Recognising that increased cooperation, contacts and exchanges among the
> countries of the region will contribute to the promotion of friendship and
> understanding among their peoples;
>
> 7. Recalling the DECLARATION signed by their Foreign Ministers in NEW DELHI
> on August 2, 1983 and noting the progress achieved in regional cooperation;
>
> 8. Reaffirming their determination to promote such cooperation within an
> institutional framework;
>
> *DO HEREBY AGREE *to establish an organisation to be known as SOUTH ASIAN
> ASSOCIATION FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION hereinafter referred to as the
> ASSOCIATION, with the following objectives, principles, institutional and
> financial arrangements:
>
> *OBJECTIVES*
>
> The objectives of the ASSOCIATION shall be:
>
> *Article I*
>
> a) to promote the welfare of the peoples of SOUTH ASIA and to improve their
> quality of life;
>
> b) to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development
> in the region and to provide all individuals the opportunity to live in
> dignity and to realise their full potentials;
>
> c) to promote and strengthen collective self-reliance among the countries of
> SOUTH ASIA; d) to contribute to mutual trust, understanding and appreciation
> of one another's problems;
>
> e) to promote active collaboration and mutual assistance in the economic,
> social, cultural, technical and scientific fields;
>
> f) to strengthen cooperation with other developing countries;
>
> g) to strengthen cooperation among themselves in international forums on
> matters of common interests; and
>
> h) to cooperate with international and regional organisations with similar
> aims and purposes.*Article II*
>
> *PRINCIPLES*
>
> 1.Cooperation within the framework of the ASSOCIATION shall be based on
> respect for the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity,
> political independence, non-interference in the internal affairs of other
> States and mutual benefit.
>
> 2. Such cooperation shall not be a substitute for bilateral and multilateral
> cooperation but shall complement them.
>
> 3. Such cooperation shall not be inconsistent with bilateral and
> multilateral obligations.
>
> *Article III MEETINGS OF THE HEADS OF STATE OR GOVERNMENT*
>
> The Heads of State or Government shall meet once a year or more often as and
> when considered necessary by the Member States.
>
> *Article IV*
>
> *COUNCIL OF MINISTERS*
>
> 1.A Council of Ministers consisting of the Foreign Ministers of the Member
> States shall be established with the following functions:
>
> a) formulation of the policies of the ASSOCIATION; b) review of the progress
> of cooperation under the ASSOCIATION; c) decision on new areas of
> cooperation; d) establishment of additional mechanism under the ASSOCIATION
> as deemed necessary; e) decision on other matters of general interest to the
> ASSOCIATION.
>
> 2. The Council of Ministers shall meet twice a year. Extraordinary session
> of the Council may be held by agreement among the Member States.
>
> *Article V*
>
> *STANDING COMMITTEE*
>
> 1.The Standing Committee comprising the Foreign Secretaries shall have the
> following functions:
>
> a) overall monitoring and coordination of programme of cooperation; b)
> approval of projects and programmes, and the modalities of their financing;
> c) determination of inter-sectoral priorities; d) mobilisation of regional
> and external resources; e) identification of new areas of cooperation based
> on appropriate studies.
>
> 2. The Standing Committee shall meet as often as deemed necessary.
>
> 3. The Standing Committee shall submit periodic reports to the Council of
> Ministers and make reference to it as and when necessary for decisions on
> policy matters.
>
> *Article VI*
>
> *TECHNICAL COMMITTEES*
>
> 1.Technical Committees comprising representatives of Member States shall be
> responsible for the implementation, coordination and monitoring of the
> programmes in their respective areas of cooperation.
>
> 2. They shall have the following terms of reference:
>
> a) determination of the potential and the scope of regional cooperation in
> agreed areas; b) formulation of programmes and preparation of projects; c)
> determination of financial implications of sectoral programmes; d)
> formulation of recommendations regarding apportionment of costs;
>
> e) implementation and coordination of sectoral programmes; f) monitoring of
> progress in implementation.
>
> 3. The Technical Committees shall submit periodic reports to the Standing
> Committee.
>
> 4. The Chairmanship of the Technical Committees shall normally rotate among
> Member States in alphabetical order every two years.
>
> 5. The Technical Committees may, inter-alia, use the following mechanisms
> and modalities, if and when considered necessary:
>
> a) meetings of heads of national technical agencies; b) meetings of experts
> in specific fields; c) contact amongst recognised centres of excellence in
> the region.
>
> *Article VII*
>
> *ACTION COMMITTEES*
>
> The Standing Committee may set up Action Committees comprising Member States
> concerned with implementation of projects involving more than two but not
> all Member States.
>
> *Article VIII*
>
> *SECRETARIAT*
>
> There shall be a Secretariat of the ASSOCIATION.
>
> *Article IX*
>
> *FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS*
>
> 1.The contribution of each Member State towards financing of the activities
> of the ASSOCIATION shall be voluntary. 2. Each Technical Committee shall
> make recommendations for the apportionment of costs of implementing the
> programmes proposed by it. 3. In case sufficient financial resources cannot
> be mobilised within the region for funding activities of the ASSOCIATION,
> external financing from appropriate sources may be mobilised with the
> approval of or by the Standing Committee.
>
> *Article X*
>
> *GENERAL PROVISIONS*
>
> 1.Decisions at all levels shall be taken on the basis of unanimity.
>
> 2. Bilateral and contentious issues shall be excluded from the
> deliberations.
>
> *IN FAITH WHEREOF *We Have Set Our Hands And Seals Hereunto. *DONE *In *DHAKA,
> BANGLADESH, *On This The Eighth Day Of December Of The Year One Thousand
> Nine Hundred Eighty Five.
>
> Hussain Muhammad Ershad
>
> *PRESIDENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH*
>
> Jigme Singye Wangchuk
>
> *KING OF BHUTAN*
>
> Rajiv Gandhi
>
> *PRIME MINISTER OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA*
>
> Maumoon Abdul Gayoom
>
> *PRESIDENT OF THE REBUPLIC OF MALDIVES*
>
> Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev
>
> *KING OF NEPAL*
>
> Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq
>
> *PRESIDENT OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN*
>
> Junius Richard Jayewardene
>
> *PRESIDENT OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 12, 2010, at 7:46 PM, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>>
>>  If I may butt in.....
>>>
>>>  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?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pakistan, B'desh, India & Srilank etc ALREADY have 'some sort of
>>> federation'. In fact there a numebr of them - both economic & political.
>>> The most famous one is SAARC, and then there are many more - for example
>>> India & Pakistan have one exclusively for water sharing, and a few other
>>> areas.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **** Oh, that damned Inglis language again, heh-heh in which a regional
>> trade or other such alliance appears to be a federation sealed with
>> treaties.
>> Or is it yet another attempt at a low key spin :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  So, they do have multitudes of federations, Co Ops, treaties and what not.
>>> What else do you want is the question?  Or do you think there are no such
>>> Federations, and somehow, GOI & Pakistanis would have to tune into
>>> Assamnet
>>> to get some ideas of forming this spanking, new idea? :-).
>>>
>>
>>
>> **** It is NOT something that is the brainchild of an assamnet genius.
>> Actually the idea
>> came, originally from some thoughtful Indian, from India. It has been
>> around for a numbver of
>> years, in different avatars.
>>
>> BUt why don't we just examine why it is so bad instead of going on and on
>> about
>> how it has already been in place, or how it is playing both sides or some
>> other
>> excuse?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>  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.
>>>
>>> Hehehe .... Maybe this could start closer to home. With good leadership &
>>> farsightedness (to borrow from you), some of these die-hard separatists,
>>> insurgents, hate-India folks could undo the condition, and start loving
>>> India (well lets not get carried away), but reduce it, if not eradicate
>>> it... :-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> **** for a very simple reason: The conditions are entirely different. Assam
>> is an occupied
>> land, a colonial outpost, seeking to be free. Very different from Pakistan,
>> or B'desh, or Sri Lanka
>> or Nepal. They are free.  To attempt to equate the two is obviously a
>> rather tenuous, if not childish
>> exercise. Who will ever buy that :-)?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> --Ram
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> assam mailing list
> assam at assamnet.org
> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>

More information about the Assam mailing list