[Assam] European Union and South Asian Federation
Ram Sarangapani
assamrs at gmail.com
Sun Jun 13 19:36:06 PDT 2010
KJD,
You have to look past all this about Pakistan. India needs to extend the
hand of friendship, throw open the borders, lower any defenses (lest the
Pakistanis feel bad). The same need to be done for B'desh. :-)
Like I said sometime ago - India needs to have a big open tent. Let them
all come in.
:-) :-)
--Ram
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 9:01 PM, kamal deka <kjit.deka at gmail.com> wrote:
> RS,
> Please read the following.The namby-pamby peace talks will take India
> nowhere.
>
>
>
> Report: Pakistani spy agency arms, trains Taliban
> Published - Jun 13 2010 08:01PM EST
>
> By SEBASTIAN ABBOT - Associated Press Writer
> .
> ISLAMABAD— Pakistan's main spy agency continues to arm and train the
> Taliban and is even represented on the group's leadership council
> despite U.S. pressure to sever ties and billions in aid to combat the
> militants, a research report concluded.
>
> The findings could heighten tension between the neighboring countries
> and raise further questions about U.S. success in Afghanistan since
> Pakistani cooperation is seen as key to defeating the Taliban, which
> seized power in Kabul in the 1990s with Islamabad's support.
>
> U.S. officials have suggested in the past that current or former
> members of Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or
> ISI, have maintained links to the Taliban despite the government's
> decision to denounce the group in 2001 under U.S. pressure.
>
> But the report issued Sunday by the London School of Economics offered
> one of the strongest cases that assistance to the group is official
> ISI policy, and even extends to the highest levels of the Pakistani
> government.
>
> "Pakistan's apparent involvement in a double-game of this scale could
> have major geopolitical implications and could even provoke U.S.
> countermeasures," said the report, which was based on interviews with
> Taliban commanders, former Taliban officials, Western diplomats and
> many others.
>
> "Without a change in Pakistani behavior it will be difficult, if not
> impossible, for international forces and the Afghan government to make
> progress against the insurgency," said the report, written by Matt
> Waldman, a fellow at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of
> Government.
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Ram Sarangapani <assamrs at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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