[Assam] European Union and South Asian Federation

Sun Jun 13 16:00:04 PDT 2010

KJD,

I remember this quite well. Most of the treaties, pacts, including SAARC is
tilted toward Pakistan.

--Ram

On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 5:19 PM, kamal deka <kjit.deka at gmail.com> wrote:

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