[Assam] Any comment?

[UTTAM BORTHAKUR]

Dilip Da,

Like in our assamnet, any organisation would have different view points
among its constituents. So, within the ULFA too there has to be different
view points. Whether it admits or not, the predominant view in its armed arm
appears to be that "Sovereignty" has to be discussed and such "sovereignty"
should be understood as 'total' at least at the beginning of the talks. Only
then, there would be any meaning in the continued existence of the ULFA.

On the other hand, the pro-talk group, led by Mrinal Hazarika (this guy
looks very amiable and the journalists have told me that he has the art of
winning the heart of his detractors) has already laid before assamnet what
kind of de-centralisation they want. He candidly admitted on TV that till
recent time he had not been aware of various concepts or categories of the
word 'sovereignty' other than the 'total' one and he appeared open to all
kinds of ideas.

Now, had it not been for the pre-dominant view in the armed and powerful arm
of the ULFA, the talks would have started by now. This is patent from the
eagerness as pointed out by you. But what is the point of talking if the
part that matters would not budge? So, there is this attempt in the form of
Jatiyo Abhibartan to generate public opinion for 'talks' at any cost so that
those sticking to 'sovereignty' are side-lined. This is is also evident from
the cracks on the skin: leader of the MASS like Lachit Bordoloi, that of PCG
like Sri Dilip Patgiri are with Jatiyo Abhibartan but a leader of the PCG
like Hiranya Saikia are not with it. This clearly represents two opposite
pre-dominant views in the ULFA.

So, it would be an illusion to think that the entire outfit would take an
uniform clear stand very easily unless some tactical moves are made to make
that happen. The hard liner's stand taken by Ram Da, in my opinion, is not
politically astute, though it may be laudable on the grounds of loyalty to
the view of a non-amendable Indian Constitution.