[Assam] Any comment?

kamal deka kjit.deka at gmail.com
Wed May 5 09:20:12 PDT 2010 

>>>That is Kamal Deka's view. Unfortunately, he is not a party to the conflict.
And as far as I can imagine, his musings, however wise, are unlikely
to sway ULFA. For that matter a broad section of the people
of Assam. So, the question remains:<<<

IF they do not represent the broad section of Assamese people,who do
they represent?some Martian creatures? And which fraction of ULFA? The
one,who are languishing in jail and have mellowed down or the one,who
has been roaming in jungles?
You said in one of your earlier post that you don't wish to comment on
the preamble to the proposition, but it is a wise and thoughtful
view.As I understand,the proposal goes like this- “There should be
talks between the ULFA and the Centre without any preconditions so as
to reach a political solution to the ULFA problem".What is your stand
now?
KJD




On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at gmail.com> wrote:
> That is Kamal Deka's view. Unfortunately, he is not a party to the conflict.
> And as far as I can imagine, his musings, however wise, are unlikely
> to sway ULFA. For that matter a broad section of the people
> of Assam. So, the question remains:
>
> WHY talks?
>
> IF it is to resolve the conflict , then would it not defy common sense
> to NOT  discuss the primary cause of the conflict?
>
> However, if the claims of GoI and its servants at Dispur always declaring
> to TALK (instead of continuing to wage an armed conflict with no end
> in sight) are merely a charade to deceive the population  what an end
> to the conflict, then, YES, it makes eminent sense to put an absurd
> pre-condition ( that it won't discuss the issue of the conflict) on the fake
> 'sanctity of the constitution' - that every regime at Delhi has amended
> since independence, merely on the basis  of a simple majority of
> votes at the Lok Sabha, would make sense.
>
> But people with any degree of sincerity and an ordinary ability to reason
> ought to see the fakery involved and point it out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 5, 2010, at 10:36 AM, kamal deka wrote:
>
>> The ULFA has been battling for a loosing proposition by sticking to
>> the old gun of Assam's independence.It is as good as asking for the
>> moon.Common sense, again, dictates that the proposition must be
>> grounded in solid reason. There must be justifiable cause to advocate
>> separation. Does ULFA aspirations qualify for legitimate independence?
>> Even a half-wit will understand that the thrust of the discussion
>> should be how to make Assam economically viable.Independence is a pipe
>> dream.
>> KJD
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> It is quite immaterial about Hiren Gohain or anybody else's
>>> understandings
>>> about effectiveness or futility of the pursuit of sovereignty. He or
>>> others
>>> in his shoes are
>>> not the parties to the conflict. They, as affected members of the
>>> population
>>> are seeking and end to the conflict thru a process of "TALKS", a
>>> reasonable
>>> and thoughtful move.
>>>
>>> But the talks would be meaningless if they don't discuss the  problem.
>>>
>>> Would they?
>>>
>>> What is so difficult to understand in this proposition ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 5, 2010, at 10:13 AM, kamal deka wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's why Hiren Gohain understands the futility of sovereignty
>>>> hype.Please read the following.
>>>> KJD
>>>>
>>>> Gohain clarifies stand on sovereignty
>>>>
>>>> GUWAHATI, May 4: Chief convenor of the Sanmilita Jatiya Abhivartan
>>>> (SJA), Dr Hiren Gohain, today said: “I don’t support the demand for
>>>> sovereignty of Assam personally. The ULFA should reconsider the way of
>>>> solution to the problems for which the demand for sovereignty has been
>>>> raised.” Dr Gohain said this close on the heels of Chief Minister
>>>> Tarun Gogoi asking the intellectuals to clear their stand on the
>>>> ULFA’s demand for sovereignty of Assam.
>>>>
>>>> Addressing a press conference here today, Dr Gohain said that after
>>>> independence the people of Assam felt that they were a deprived lot,
>>>> and when they failed to get their demands met through democratic
>>>> agitation, a section of them rebelled and raised the demand for
>>>> sovereignty for the State. “If the main loopholes in the system
>>>> responsible for such a situation are not identified and plugged
>>>> through discussion between the Centre and the rebel groups, the
>>>> situation in Assam may worsen. It is for this reason that the
>>>> Sanmilita Jatiya Abhivartan was held in Guwahati,” he said.
>>>>
>>>> Dr Gohain also released the resolutions that were taken at the
>>>> conclave today. The draft resolutions were published by the media
>>>> earlier.
>>>>
>>>> Some of the important resolutions are: “There should be talks between
>>>> the ULFA and the Centre without any preconditions so as to reach a
>>>> political solution to the ULFA problem, top jailed leaders of the ULFA
>>>> should be given free movement so that the outfit can reach a consensus
>>>> on talks with the government, all cases against the ULFA leaders
>>>> should be put on hold till talks with the rebel group is over etc.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be uncommon sense. Common sense dictates that a problem
>>>>> cannot
>>>>> be
>>>>> resolved thru negotiations, if THE problem is not discussed at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 5, 2010, at 10:04 AM, kamal deka wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Common sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The core issue itself is a known
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> disqualifier .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *** According to whom, would be the question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 5, 2010, at 9:53 AM, kamal deka wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are back to the square one.The core issue itself is a known
>>>>>>>> disqualifier .Any amounts of talks,therefore.will take them nowhere
>>>>>>>> but reach a stalemate.Is there a point?
>>>>>>>> KJD
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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