[Assam] Any comment?

Wed May 5 12:35:49 PDT 2010

I just tried to put my two cents in.
KJD

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at gmail.com> wrote:
> One has the right to express one's opinion here.
> But it does not , auton matically, mean anything, unless one can
> EXPLAIN the basis for such opinions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 5, 2010, at 11:55 AM, kamal deka wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>