[Assam] Any comment?

[Chan Mahanta]

 >It is of little use calling the GOI/GOA puppets or fools just  
because they
> won't include sovereignty.


*** Anyone with a minimum ability to reason ought to be able to see it  
and say it like it is, when their government
is trying to deceive them. It is a bald faced attempt to deceive the  
people by GoI and its servants at Dispur
when they claim they are ready to talk, except not talk about the  
problem.

Can there be a more glaring attempt at deception?






On May 5, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Ram Sarangapani wrote:

> The core issue according to the ULFA may be sovereignty on the table.
>
> The core issue for the GOI/GOA is sovereignty OFF the table - as  
> they cannot
> include such a thing legally or constitutionally.
>
> So, if neither gives in, there can be no talks - it really that  
> simple.
>
> It is of little use calling the GOI/GOA puppets or fools just  
> because they
> won't include sovereignty.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> In my view,talks must be held without any pre-conditions
>>
>>> in order to end the impasse that exists between ULFA and the
>>> government.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *** What are the talks about?
>>
>> One might think it is to bring the conflict to an end.
>>
>> Now, what is the conflict about?
>>
>> Unless we are developmentally challenged, we know that it is about  
>> the
>> demand of 'sovereignty'.
>>
>> Now then, if a party to the conflict , namely GoI and its puppets/ 
>> servants
>> at Dispur refuses to acknowledge and discuss the main issue of the
>> conflict, is this not a
>> profoundly absurd proposition? Is GoI's stance not entirely a  
>> gimmick to
>> fool the
>> people into thinking that they are the reasonable people, willing  
>> to sit
>> down
>> for a political solution, while refusing to acknowledge or deal  
>> with the
>> MAIN
>> issue?
>>
>> Who are fooling?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 5, 2010, at 9:25 AM, kamal deka wrote:
>>
>> Of what measure will a parley be ,when the core issue itself is a
>>> basket case? In my view,talks must be held without any pre- 
>>> conditions
>>> in order to end the impasse that exists between ULFA and the
>>> government.
>>> KJD
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at gmail.com>  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't wish to comment on the preamble to the proposition, but  
>>>> it is a
>>>> wise
>>>> and thoughtful view.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 4, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Dilip and Dil Deka wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Netters,
>>>>> Any comment on the letter to the editor (in the AT) by the  
>>>>> title, "Clear
>>>>> Stand"?
>>>>> I wrote the letter and it was published in its entirety. The  
>>>>> editors
>>>>> added
>>>>> the title.
>>>>> May 4 issue of the Assam Tribune piublished it though the letter  
>>>>> was
>>>>> written and sent before the so called "Intellectuals Convention".
>>>>> Dilip Deka
>>>>> Houston
>>>>> <Page06.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>>> 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