[Assam] Sentinel Letter-3

[Chan Mahanta]

Ram:

>But I do remember, (several weeks ago), you were going ga-ga over 
>something >published in the Sentinel and you posted that in the 
>Assamnet. And  there have >been other times when (obviously those 
>were times when the Sentinel was a 'good >'ole boy') when you have 
>posted stuff from the Sentinel.


*** You may not have noticed, but I do not automatically assume that 
I have to disagree with EVERYTHING a newspaper publishes, because I 
may not agree with some of its opinions.

Similarly for an individual.

But Sentinel publishing ANYTHING that supports ULFA? That would be 
something to behold :-).


c-da








At 10:00 AM -0500 9/4/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>Good Morning C'da,
>
>Just opened up the mails - wow so many salvos. I will get to them one by one.
>
>  >**** The Sentinel printing letters/opinions supporting ULFA?  That 
>would be a collector's item Ram. Will you >please tell me when. I 
>have got see that.
>
>Maybe not from your 'Worldview'. But they do print letters than at 
>least border on it.
>
>  >And *I* posted them too? Wow! I know my family claims I get absent 
>minded. But this is sleep-walking on >my part or worse ! Hope 
>Alzheimers has not claimed me already :-).
>
>Same problem here too:-).
>But I do remember, (several weeks ago), you were going ga-ga over 
>something published in the Sentinel and you posted that in the 
>Assamnet. And  there have been other times when (obviously those 
>were times when the Sentinel was a 'good 'ole boy') when you have 
>posted stuff from the Sentinel.
>
>--Ram
>
>On 9/4/06, Chan Mahanta 
><<mailto:cmahanta at charter.net>cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
>
>  > You, yourself have posted several letters/editorial that 
>support views that somewhat >support Ulfa's position  (from the 
>Sentinel).
>
>
>
>
>**** The Sentinel printing letters/opinions supporting ULFA?  That 
>would be a collector's item Ram. Will you please tell me when. I 
>have got see that.
>
>
>And *I* posted them too? Wow! I know my family claims I get absent 
>minded. But this is sleep-walking on my part or worse ! Hope 
>Alzheimers has not claimed me already :-).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 12:31 PM -0500 9/3/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>
>>I don't C'da,
>>
>
>
>I look at the letter from a different point of view.
>
>
>
>The writer obviously has no trust in Ulfa's promises.
>
>Look at what he writes:
>
>
>
>What has happened that the ULFA is desperately pressurizing the 
>Centre for the release of its five comrades? It cannot be for 
>reasons of peace, because till today extortions in upper Asom are in 
>full swing. If the outfit is actually so keen to set the stage for 
>peace talks, let it sit for the first round of talks without the 
>jailed leaders participating in the talks. This will clearly show 
>that their emphasis is on peace rather than the release of jailed 
>terrorists.
>
>So, how can you categorically say he is NOT for peace but his agenda 
>is to disrupt the process. Whats that going to do for him. Regarding 
>the release for its leaders, ULFA doesn't seem to have a good track 
>record. The last time Chetia was released, then he took off - so why 
>would the GOI buy into this again?
>
>
>
>  >Now why would a mature, responsible, supposedly 'respected' 
>newspaper >publish a piece like that? For the public good? For 
>bringing about peace to >Assam?
>
>
>
>Would you want the Sentinel only publish letters/editorials that 
>only support the ULFA? Are you advocating some kind of censorship? 
>You, yourself have posted several letters/editorial that 
>support views that somewhat support Ulfa's position  (from the 
>Sentinel). I think they are balanced in their approach. Your 
>frustration should be with the author of the letter as opposed to 
>the newspaper itself. And the author of the letter is not important, 
>but he does make some good points.
>
>
>
>Everyone wants peace in Assam. The thing that many doubt is whether 
>the ULFA is serious about it and are willing to get to the 
>negotiating table directly with the GOI.
>
>The question you and others should answer is whether the release of 
>some ULFA is more important than peace in Assam? I think once the 
>ULFA and GOI sit face to face, the 5 jailed ULFA will be released. 
>It is ultimately in GOI's interest to solve the Assam insurgency 
>problem, once and for all - it costs men and treasure, and stalls 
>economic development for a state which was in need for one yesterday.
>
>
>
>--Ram
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 9/2/06, Chan Mahanta 
><<mailto:cmahanta at charter.net>cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
>
>Ram:
>
>
>
>
>Let us examine the 'essence' of this gem of a 'letter' :
>
>
>
>
>To that we need to determine what the PURPOSE of the letter is.
>
>Without a doubt it is to PREVENT from GoI giving in to ULFA demands 
>for release of their senior cadres. And since ULFA has made it a 
>cornerstone of their conditions for entering negotiations, the 
>motive of the letter could be clearly established as to torpedo any 
>such  peace negotiation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The  piece questions the "need" for ULFA's demands for release of 
>their top cadres. And the writer no doubt knows best, what ULFA's 
>needs are. Why should anyone NEED their comrades' release from 
>prison? They can go to 'o peace-talks' anytime they want to? What 
>prevents them from surrendering?
>
>
>
>
>Powerful logic no doubt!  No wonder it touched a chord :-).
>
>
>
>
>The piece is full of taunts. Why does one resort to taunting? Could it be to
>
>ENCOURAGE ULFA to come to the negotiating table? Or could be because 
>the writer
>
>is frustrated by ULFA, and not having a clue to doing anything about 
>it constructively, resorts to taunting?Is it the sign of a mature, 
>thinking man, looking out for Assam's welfare, or is it the ranting 
>of someone whose real interests is in asserting his own 
>righteousness, his own ability to read the tea-leaves better than 
>all those 'fools' who are attempting to have a negotiated settlement 
>of the conflict and a return to peace in Assam?
>
>
>
>
>You tell us.
>
>
>
>
>Now why would a mature, responsible, supposedly 'respected' 
>newspaper publish a piece like that? For the public good? For 
>bringing about peace to Assam?
>
>
>
>
>If ULFA/GOI peace negotiations are good for Assam, and if I remember 
>correctly the Sentinel professed that is is indeed good, then should 
>it be participating in  promoting the agenda of those, such as this 
>letter writer, who obviously do not want that to happen, for 
>whatever reason he harbors?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Or could it be that the newspaper's own journalistic credentials or 
>its maturity are questionable ?
>
>
>
>
>You tell us.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>c-da
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 3:14 PM -0500 9/1/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>
>>
>>
>Last updated : SATUR DAY 2 SEPTEMBER 2006
>
>Of Five Jailed ULFA Leaders
>Why is the ULFA showing such desperation for the release of its five 
>jailed comrades? Is it to enable it to have full-house discussion on 
>the peace process? In other words, do they want us to believe that 
>having terrorized the masses for 27 long years, they are suddenly in 
>such a tearing hurry to give it up? Or have they suddenly developed 
>love for their homeland Asom and hatred for Bangladesh? Has the ULFA 
>suddenly become tired of raising millions of rupees by extortions 
>and kidnappings, or has it suddenly realized the futility of money? 
>Have Paresh Baruah and Arabinda Rajkhowa become saints overnight, 
>realizing that all their guns and gold will be of no use in their 
>last morbid journey on four shoulders and a yard of white cloth?
>What has happened that the ULFA is desperately pressurizing the 
>Centre for the release of its five comrades? It cannot be for 
>reasons of peace, because till today extortions in upper Asom are in 
>full swing. If the outfit is actually so keen to set the stage for 
>peace talks, let it sit for the first round of talks without the 
>jailed leaders participating in the talks. This will clearly show 
>that their emphasis is on peace rather than the release of jailed 
>terrorists.
>Secondly, in this age of hi-tech gadgets, Paresh Baruah and Arabinda 
>Rajkhowa can talk, see and discuss with all their jailed comrades 
>through video-conferencing. For such discussions, it is not at all 
>necessary to escort their friends from jails to Bangladesh in a 
>chartered flight.
>Thirdly, the ULFA team can land at New Delhi for peace talks and the 
>jailed comrades can be flown there to join their leaders. After the 
>talks, the jailed comrades can be flown back to Guwahati.
>
>But the ULFA will never agree to any of the above modalities. It 
>will insist on the jailed leaders' flight to Bangladesh. But why? 
>This is so because their release is more important than peace in 
>Asom. To understand this simple logic, one does not have to be a 
>security analyst or a counterinsurgency expert.
>
>Today, the ULFA is a dying organization without any leadership. They 
>desperately need to have their top leaders back. Their demoralized 
>cadres can achieve nothing except throwing a few grenades here and 
>there, or deliver extortion notes to innocent, unarmed civilians. 
>Moreover, the lower-rung cadres are now much wiser, refusing to risk 
>their lives for nothing except ensuring luxurious lifestyle for 
>their top leaders. They can see through the false revolutionary 
>ideology as the ULFA's, and the theory of ''xonar Asom" holds no 
>attraction or conviction.
>The ULFA desperately needs its top leaders not only to motivate 
>their grassroots-level cadres, but also to check their fading mutiny 
>- the lower-rung cadres are impatient and ready to revolt against 
>their top leaders. Naturally then, it is only the release of those 
>five jailed ULFA leaders that can control the mutiny and revive the 
>sagging morale of the lower-rung cadres.
>What answer do the peace committees have to the jailed ULFA leaders 
>jumping out of parole if released? Are the peace committee members 
>ready to undergo imprisonment and serve the remaining jail term on 
>behalf of the released leaders?
>One must never forget that there is also an ISI angle to the whole 
>picture. Both Paresh Baruah and Arabinda Rajkhowa are fully under 
>the grip of ISI bosses in Bangladesh. The entire business empire of 
>luxury hotels owned by them in Bangladesh are under the control of 
>the ISI. Even their families and their children residing in 
>Bangladesh are under constant ISI vigil. Do the ULFA leaders have 
>the permission of the ISI to sit for direct peace talks with India? 
>Or do the peace committees - whether the PCPI or the PCG or whatever 
>- want us to believe that they have a bigger hold on Paresh Baruah 
>and Arabinda Rajkhowa than the ISI of Pakistan? Will Paresh Baruah 
>and Arabinda Rajkhowa follow the diktats of Rebati Phukan & Co at 
>the risk of losing their own lives, properties and families?
>
>The unconditional release of those five jailed terrorists at this 
>time will conclusively prove that either some top Indian bureaucrats 
>are lured by the ULFA's money power, or that some top Indian 
>politicians deliberately want to keep the ULFA issue alive for ever.
>MP Talukdar,
>Khaliamari Road,
>Dibrugarh.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>assam mailing list
><mailto:assam at assamnet.org>assam at assamnet.org
><http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>
>
>
>
>A taunt is a sarcastic remark, challenge, or insult intended to 
>provoke a response of some kind from the one it is directed at. It 
>can be compared to fighting words and trash-talk.
>
>  The act of taunting can be learned by observation and 
>improvisation. It usually follows linear thought, correlating or 
>building in some manner to the target of taunting. Things such as 
>the victim's appearance, intelligence, mannerisms, education, 
>background, past offenses, etc. can otherwise be insulted. When used 
>in this manner, the effectiveness of a taunt at provoking a response 
>varies depending on how the specific insult relates to its victim 
>(or their sense of self), to what level of offense they regard the 
>taunt, and how well the victim can control their emotions when 
>responding.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/assam_assamnet.org/attachments/20060904/6a949007/attachment.htm