[Assam] Any comment?

kamal deka kjit.deka at gmail.com
Wed May 5 09:55:13 PDT 2010 

I see.Yes,there is absolutely no point in discussing on an issue which
is beyond the realm of realisation.This is an issue that can never be
viewed as a tempest in a tea-pot ( or is it tea-cup?).And that is the
bottom line.
KJD

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at gmail.com> wrote:
>>.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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> assam mailing list
> assam at assamnet.org
> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>

More information about the Assam mailing list