[Assam] poem and news : The true story about encounters with Maoist in West Bengal

[Ram Sarangapani]

Uttam,

>Could anyone use/ incite Rameswars if they were otherwise comfortable?
>Could you hatch chicken from stones?

The argument could have been valid, IF Rameshwar's life was improved. Not if
if the actions of these 'saviours' (Naxals or for that matter ULFA) makes
the situation worse, and in many cases causing death/injury to the very
people they purport to be saving. With friends like these Naxals or ULFA
(for the Rameshwars of the world), who needs enemies?

>Second, why do you have to think that Naxals and Maoists would be like
Indira, the dictator?

Right!. IG was elected, and then became a dictator (at least during the
emergency), and these groups, use violence as a means to achieving their
Communist agenda.

But, I was wrong, actually the Communists would be worse than Indira. IG
gave up her PM seat after she lost the election. There was at least a hint
of democracy in her. She could have just stated she wasn't giving up the
throne, and most people who matter in India would have been singing praises
and writing poems.

And you think, once the Naxals get a hold of power, they are going to give
up that easily. They get their power thru violence, and what makes you think
they would NOT use violence again to hold on to it? This is the same
argument that goes against the likes of ULFA.

>The Chinese Communists have become good capitalists, even lending the US
money albeit to make the bubble burst?

Don't know where this fits in? BUT Lending money to the US - yes, through
USD holdings. The US has been giving the Chinese MFN (Most Favored Nation)
status to export goods/services for a long time. The US market is flooded
with Chinese made goods. The MFN is one of the most coveted awards the US
dishes out. That alone, it can be argued, can catapult a country like China
into prominence and an economic power - and today, they are EVEN in a
position to help the US.

>The Maoist Prachanda (who raged a armed rebellion) has given up on arms
even to let others rule
>even when his is the single largest party, in conformity with democratic
norms, not usually followed by our BJPs/ Congresses.

I don't know this person. But what on earth is a Maoist doing following
Democratic norms? So, from this example, we ought to just let let violence
these groups perpetrate go unabated - hoping (against hope) that they all
give up arms, let others rule, and even follow democracy?

C'mon Uttam... does this really make sense? :-)

>Pray, why this prejudice, the knee-jerk reaction? The days of iron/bamboo
curtains are quite over.

Not really. Look at some history. Through numerous trials and errors, the
world has generally accepted democracy as a true and tested form of
governance. There are a few different forms of democracy (the British and US
systems differ, and so does Japan), but in general, most countries follow a
system close as possible to democracy.
Yes, there are problems, specially in a country like India, and it takes
time, and a nation and her people often needs to mature. India's experience
with democracy is only 60 odd years - compared to the Brits and the US.

As far as those other systems go - those have been successful, only if one
thinks that the people in China, Vietnam and Cuba are a free people with
independent thought and action? Otherwise, they are total failures.
As for these ultra groups, their goals, methods, and promises, the less
said, the better.

If any of the other isms you cite were that good, the world over people
would have been embracing them. Those systems can be enforced only by force.
Do we want that?

>The Naxals/ Maoists may turn out to be good democrats, who knows? Else they
will lose the fight,
>due to lack of people's support; if they are wrong PC does not even have to
raise a finger. They will
>crumble due to their own foibles that you so clearly find in them.

I don't where we are headed?

Naxals/Maoists are perpetrating all this violence, so that they can
establish a good Democracy? You are kidding, right?

Why don't they just become 'democrats' to start with :-)

--Ram da




On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:49 AM, UTTAM BORTHAKUR <uttamborthakur at yahoo.co.in
> wrote:

> Ram Da,
>
> Could anyone use/ incite Rameswars if they were otherwise comfortable?
> Could you hatch chicken from stones?
>
> Second, why do you have to think that Naxals and Maoists would be like
> Indira, the dictator?
> The Chinese Communists have become good capitalists, even lending the US
> money albeit to
> make the bubble burst?
> The Euro communists are not demonic the way you paint the communists.
> Our CPM is quite docile; even supports the UPA.
> The Maoist Prachanda (who raged a armed rebellion) has given up on arms
> even
> to let others rule
> even when his is the single largest party, in conformity with democratic
> norms,
> not usually followed by our BJPs/ Congresses.
> Pray, why this prejudice, the knee-jerk reaction? The days of iron/bamboo
> curtains are quite over.
> The Naxals/ Maoists may turn out to be good democrats, who knows? Else they
> will lose the fight,
> due to lack of people's support; if they are wrong PC does not even have to
> raise a finger. They will
> crumble due to their own foibles that you so clearly find in them.
> _______________________________________________
> assam mailing list
> assam at assamnet.org
> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>