[Assam] Any comment?

Chan Mahanta cmahanta at gmail.com
Wed May 5 09:36:46 PDT 2010 

 >.What is your stand
> now?



**** The pre-condition of NOT discussing the issue of contention is an  
absurd one.


****  I did not wish to get into it late last night when I saw DD's  
query and posted the reply.


> IF they do not represent the broad section of Assamese people

**** I was alluding to KJD's views as expressed in Assamnet, as not  
representing a broad
cross section of the people of Assam who want to see a negotiated end  
to the conflict.

But that cannot happen IF the point of contention is a taboo subject  
at such TALKS.

Those who support such a position either do not want the TALKS to take  
place
or see a political settlement of the conflict. There can be no other  
explanation of such a
position or stance.






On May 5, 2010, at 11:20 AM, kamal deka 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:<<<
>
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> assam mailing list
> assam at assamnet.org
> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org

More information about the Assam mailing list