[Assam] Sentinel Letter

Tue Sep 5 11:35:33 EDT 2006

C'da,

This is a round-robin fest :-)

>The letter writer ( and GoI apologists :-)) hold GoI as the epitome of
virtue, the mai-baap of Assam,
>the good guys and the ULFA as the Devil incarnate

The same thing could be said of Ulfa apologists. All one has to do is to
interchange the words
GOI and ULFA.

 >The ULFA, being the bad guys, will obviously NOT take any advice from
anyone.
>They do what they want to do. They don't care about Assam or peace. You
cannot
>expect good things from the bad guys, can you?

And you think that incompetent, 'so-full-of themselves' GOI is keen on
listening to anyone?  :-)

--Ram

On 9/5/06, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
>
>  Ram:
>
>
>
>
>
> >IMHO, the writer's 'essence' is obvious. He wants 'peace' , but does see
> great problems with the
>
> >GOI letting those incarcirated go free.
>
>
>
>
>  *** That is about the same thing as WISHING for peace by WISHING ULFA
> away. Like many of these people have been doing for decades on end.
>
>
> It is also a display of  an abject disconnect of people like this letter
> writer, with reality.
>
>
> Thus there was NOTHING in the letter in question to hold up as anything of
> substance. I was, at best, a thrashing around of a bitter man, intent on
> punishing ULFA, even if that means trashing the prospect of peace
> negotiations. A classic " apwnar naak kaati xotinir jatra bhongo kora" (
> cutting off one's nose to spite one's face).
>
>
>
>
> >Hehehe! If one were to turn this analogy around, would that make you an*ULFA >apologist
> *? But as a* well wisher of Assam*, you have a right and a >responsibility
> to say what you believe would be the right thing for* ULFA* to do >under
> the circumstances,instead of playing apologist for it on why it may no be
> >able to do the right thing by Assam. (thanks, C'da - I had to borrow that
> from >you).
>
>
>
>
>  *** One could, had it not been for the fact of:
>
>
> The letter writer ( and GoI apologists :-)) hold GoI as the epitome of
> virtue, the mai-baap of Assam, the good guys and the ULFA as the Devil
> incarnate. If so
> one would have to ask, WHY is it that it is more important for the 'good
> guys', to hold on to the ULFA leaders,risking a deadlock, than move the
> peace process along, to do the right things by Assam?
>
>
> The ULFA, being the bad guys, will obviously NOT take any advice from
> anyone. They do what they want to do. They don't care about Assam or peace.
> You cannot expect good things from the bad guys, can you?
>
>
> *That Ram, is the difference :-)!*
>
>
> c-da
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 12:46 AM -0500 9/5/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>
> C'da
>
>
>
> >*** That's cool. But what was the best' part ?
>
>
>
> The 'best' was your response. Very good, but biased :-)
>
>
> >Well? Will you tell us or not :-)?
>
>
>
> IMHO, the writer's 'essence' is obvious. He wants 'peace' , but does see
> great problems with the
>
> GOI letting those incarcirated go free. That kind of thought is obviously
> not rare.
>
> The GOI is probably thinking along the same lines.  They would like to
> negotiate, but without the release of those arrested.
>
>
> >*** Would it? I don't speak for ULFA. I can only tell you what I
> read--the same stuff you do.
>
> >And what I read is that for the negotiations to >proceed ULFA must have
> its cadres released.
>
> >It is a pre-condition, which the process hinges on.
>
> >Do you know something differently?
>
>
>
> If you say so, then I take is as the Gospel. What do I know?  I was only
> thinking (aloud - could be wrong).
>
>
>
> As the ULFA thinks that the GOI does not have Assam's interest at heart
> (and only the ULFA does), then doesn't it stand to reason that 'peace' in
> Assam ought to be paramount for the ULFA, and the GOI really doesn't care
> for Assam - at least in ULFA's worldview.
>
> In that scenario, why should the GOI ever release the cadres (since
> peace/negotiations are not in its interest). And if that is so important to
> the ULFA, why not just ignore the release of the cadres and call the GOI's
> bluff?
>
>
>
> >But what does that have to do with what ULFA considers to be a
> pre-requisite for it to participate in negotiations with GoI?
>
>
>
> See above, it would more important for the ULFA to get things moving as
> opposed to the GOI.
>
>
>
> *>*** I understand Ram. We call it  'playing apologist' for GoI. Not a
> very noble pursuit if you asked me. A far more noble >position would be to
> state what YOU believe in. You do not control GoI. But as a well wisher of
> Assam, you have a right and >a responsibility to say what you believe would
> be the right thing for GoI to do under the circumstances,instead of playing
> >apologist for it on why it may no be able to do the right thing by Assam.
> *
>
>
>
> Hehehe! If one were to turn this analogy around, would that make you an*ULFA apologist
> *? But as a* well wisher of Assam*, you have a right and a responsibility
> to say what you believe would be the right thing for* ULFA* to do under
> the circumstances,instead of playing apologist for it on why it may no be
> able to do the right thing by Assam. (thanks, C'da - I had to borrow that
> from you).
>
>
>
> But seriously, I don't think I an apologist either for the GOI or the
> ULFA. I try to call things as I see them.
>
>
>
> *>Because, as you agree, it is more important to have the peace process
> proceed,*
>
> *>than for it to hold on to its prized prisoners.*
>
>
>
> For those who detest the GOI and its defunct governance - why would they
>
> even expect a modicum of fairness from them? - beats me. :-)
>
>
>
> And, don't you feel, that both the GOI and the ULFA should want the peace
> process to proceed, 'prisoners aside'?
>
> Yes, the prisoners are with the GOI, but the ULFA can always threaten
> violence - both have aces up their sleeve.
>
>
>
> --Ram
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9/4/06,* Chan Mahanta* <cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
>
> Ram:
>
> >I kept the best for last.
>
>
>
>
> *** That's cool. But what was the best' part ?
>
>
>
> >What 'agenda' the writer has, we have no idea.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *** I am not asking you to read the writer's mind. But I am sure you
> discerned something from the litany of his complaints, his suspicions, his
> outrages, and his prescience and his ability to decide what is good for
> ULFA,  which you consider the letter's "essence". You don't agree with what
> I read it to be. And I am perfectly willing to admit I don't get it. So I
> asked you tell me and others who might be similarly befuddled about that
> essence.
>
>
>
>
> But you didn't share it. I hope you are not keeping us in a suspense
> intentionally, are you Ram? Not a nice thing to do for us partisan types you
> know? Could push us over to the deep end.
>
>
>
>
> Well? Will you tell us or not :-)?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >If the ULFA were to 'ignore' the release of its leaders, and sit down
> face to >face with the GOI, wouldn't the process continue?
>
>
>
>
> *** Would it? I don't speak for ULFA. I can only tell you what I read--the
> same stuff you do. And what I read is that for the negotiations to proceed
> ULFA must have its cadres released. It is a pre-condition, which the process
> hinges on.
>
>
>
>
> Do you know something differently?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Is the release more important for the GOI or for the ULFA? I read
> somewhere (I >think the Sentinel or AT), that in this day and age, it is
> very easy for those >incarcerated to still be a part of the process thru
> teleconferencing or even >have them attend and taken back to prison or
> release them depending on the >outcome of the negotiations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *** I am glad you learn these high-tech stuff from the Sentinel. You are
> blessed.  But what does that have to do with what ULFA considers to be a
> pre-requisite for it to participate in negotiations with GoI?
>
>
>
>
> Oh, I see now! Since the ULFA are a bunch of ignorant 'terrorists', they
> are being coached by Talukdar and the Sentinel on how they can have their
> imprisoned  cadres participate thru 21st century desi-technology!
>
>
>
>
> Was it that essence Ram?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >What are the reasons you see that they ought to be released now.
>
>
>
>
> *** For the simple reason that it is MORE IMPORTANT for the people of
> Assam to have negotiations to proceed to peacefully settle the conflict.
> GoI's and its apologists'  need for incarcerating the ULFA leaders does not
> do anything for the vast majority of the people of Assam.
>
>
>
>
> Would that be too partisan, too unfair an argument?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>As I read the letter and your responses, it appears to me that you all
> do indeed believe it IS more important >to incarcerate them. Because who
> knows, they may never return, like Anup Chetia?  Just look at the >awesome
> arguments above!
>
>
>
> >Actually, you are wrong. No, ofcourse, it is NOT more important than the
> peace >process.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *** I am sure glad to see you agree with me.* Then how do you reconcile
> that with Talukdar's ( and the Sentinel's) view that GoI ought NOT to
> release the ULFA leaders,* that ULFA ought to surrender instead ( I know
> they don't say so in so many words, just imply it), particularly in view of
> ULFA's stated position of 'no-release, no negotiations'?
>
>
>
>
> Are you trying to have it both ways Ram? I hope not.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >But then, I am not the GOI or speak for them. I am just giving you
> possible >reasons why the Center is hesitant.
>
>
>
>
> **** I understand Ram. We call it  'playing apologist' for GoI. Not a very
> noble pursuit if you asked me. A far more noble position would be to state
> what YOU believe in. You do not control GoI. But as a well wisher of Assam,
> you have a right and a responsibility to say what you believe would be the
> right thing for GoI to do under the circumstances,instead of playing
> apologist for it on why it may no be able to do the right thing by Assam.*
>
> *
> *
>
> *Am I making an unreasonable proposition?*
>
> *
> *
>
> *
> *
>
> *>*Further, true revolutionaries, would bravely ask the Center to do what
> it needs to under its laws with regard to to the jailed leaders. If the ULFA
> were to sit across the table, thrash out a negotiation, and if everthing
> went OK, why would NOT those jailed be realeased.
>
>
>
>
>
> *** Ram. it is not for you or I to lecture ULFA on what 'true'
> revolutionaries do. My humble guess would be that you or I lack the
> credentials. Under the circumstances all we can hope for is that GoI, with
> or without the coaching from its apologists, will do the right thing by
> Assam, even if it means to have to release the imprisoned ULFA leaders.*Because, as you agree, it is more important to have the peace process
> proceed, than for it to hold on to its prized prisoners.* Never mind
> Talkukdar, never mind the Sentinel.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Will that happen? I doubt it.
>
>
>
>
> *** It is one thing to have doubts, another to  help torpedo the prospect
> for the peace process.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Whatever will it do, if there suddenly, was peace?
>
>
>
>
> *** Does it therefore mean that GoI ought not to give into ULFA demands?
> You  keep going back and forth, trying to have it both ways Ram. Is it that
> hard to take a principled stand :-)? You can do it. Take a deep breath and
> imagine what Assam needs, and how it could  be achieved.
>
>
>
>
> c-da
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 3:56 PM -0500 9/4/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>
> C'da,
>
>
>
> I kept the best for last.
>
>
>
> >So, how can you categorically say he is NOT for peace but his agenda is
> to disrupt the process.
>
>
>
> What 'agenda' the writer has, we have no idea. But assuming, as you say,
> that he is wanting to disrupt the peace process, where, can you point out
> exactly has he given himself away? And even if does have one, do we also
> thrash his points? He did seem to make a ggod case (a) on the release of the
> leaders and (b) on the ULFA's dependence on the ISI and the B'deshis. Now,
> before you jump at the 'lungi menace' thing, it is very simple - the Pakis
> and the B'deshis don't have the best interests for India, and groups like
> the ULFA have in my mind aligned themselves with the wrong crowd.
>
>
> If the ULFA were to 'ignore' the release of its leaders, and sit down face
> to face with the GOI, wouldn't the process continue?
>
>
>
> *>IF it is MORE important for GoI, with help from the letter writer and
> his fellow doubters, including >the Sentinel, to continue to INCARCERATE the
> ULFA leaders, and thus RISK torpedoing the peace->negotiation prospects?*
>
> Is the release more important for the GOI or for the ULFA? I read
> somewhere (I think the Sentinel or AT), that in this day and age, it is very
> easy for those incarcerated to still be a part of the process thru
> teleconferencing or even have them attend and taken back to prison or
> release them depending on the outcome of the negotiations.
>
>
>
> BTW: The GOI, when it caught these leaders had no inkling of a possible
> peace process. What are the reasons you see that they ought to be released
> now. I am sure the GOI must have lost some soldiers when they captured them.
> In the eyes of the GOI these incarcerated individuals are anti-national
> elements involved in a variety of crimes. They were not caught just because
> they were jay walking, but because they were waging a war against the Union.
>
> So, in their eyes, they are not only criminals wanted by the state, but
> once released they may go about their usual business of fighting the union
> and killing a few more Indian soldiers. Further they also could be a
> bargaining chip in negotiations, but the Center would really look stupid if
> they were to flee once again. The Center will definitely try and get the
> best bargain. Don't you think so - if you were in the Center's shoes?
>
>
>
> >As I read the letter and your responses, it appears to me that you all do
> indeed believe it IS more important >to incarcerate them. Because who knows,
> they may never return, like Anup Chetia?  Just look at the >awesome
> arguments above!
>
>
>
> Actually, you are wrong. No, ofcourse, it is NOT more important than the
> peace process. But then, I am not the GOI or speak for them. I am just
> giving you possible reasons why the Center is hesitant. A possible scenario
> may be that the Center releases them, they flee, the ULFA breaks
> negotiations, take a breather, and everything is back to square one - Kay
> Sara, Sara. Why would the Center set itself up?
>
>
>
>
> Further, true revolutionaries, would bravely ask the Center to do what it
> needs to under its laws with regard to to the jailed leaders. If the ULFA
> were to sit across the table, thrash out a negotiation, and if everthing
> went OK, why would NOT those jailed be realeased.
>
>
>
> Will that happen? I doubt it. This negotiation side show is just that. I
> seriously doubt, either the ULFA or the Center is gung-ho about  'peace'.
> With the GOI, its military advisors seem against any peace moves. On the
> ULFA side, it seems illogical for it to give up something that its been at
> it for 25 + years?
>
>
>
> Whatever will it do, if there suddenly, was peace?
>
>
>
> Peace is only good for the comman man - but then who cares about them? :-)
>
>
>
> --Ram
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9/4/06,* Chan Mahanta* <cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
>
> Ram:
>
>
>
>
> I am sure your being neutral to a fault and being unbiased in these
> matters have been responsible for  being able to read the REAL meaning of
> the letter in question, namely the writer's purported desire for a
> negotiated solution for bringing back peace to Assam.
>
>
>
>
> But, being as language challenged as I am and being the biased person I
> am, I failed to read it as such.
>
>
>
>
> So let us look at it once more. Perhaps you will be able to help us see
> the light here and read into the "essence of the letter", so that it could
> not be diluted by spinning of the partisans here. And to give you a hand,
> allow me to ask about what stumps me, and you can then 'splain:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *** WHAT, did you read as the MAIN POINT/s, the OBJECTIVE of the letter,
> the ESSENCE that is?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >The writer obviously has no trust in Ulfa's promises.
>
>
>
>
> *** Is that the ESSENCE?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >So, how can you categorically say he is NOT for peace but his agenda is
> to disrupt the process.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *** I know, it is hard to see. I will explain that once again. But after
> you cleared things up for me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >The question you and others should answer is whether the release of some
> ULFA is more >important than peace in Assam?
>
>
>
>
> *** Forget about me Ram. You know I am biased. But I have to ask you and
> other unbiased, neutral people yearning for peace,* IF it is MORE
> important for GoI, with help from the letter writer and his fellow doubters,
> including the Sentinel, to continue to INCARCERATE the ULFA leaders, and
> thus RISK torpedoing the peace-negotiation prospects?*
>
>
>
>
> >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?
>
>
>
>
> As I read the letter and your responses, it appears to me that you all do
> indeed believe it IS more important to incarcerate them. Because who knows,
> they may never return, like Anup Chetia?  Just look at the awesome arguments
> above!
>
>
>
>
> I will also have a follow up after I get your explanation here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *** Again I read: GoI MUST NOT RELEASE the ULFA leaders! What do you read
> Ram?
>
>
>
>
> And if you read as I do, what does it REALLY mean?
>
>
>
>
> You WILL explain, wouldn't you?.
>
>
>
>
> c-da :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> PS: BTW, Ram, if you didn't know, spinning out of control has its
> down-sides. It destroys credibility.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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* <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
> assam at 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/20060905/cdbb0a39/attachment.htm 