[Assam] What a response!!
Chan Mahanta
cmahanta at charter.net
Wed Oct 3 15:57:13 CDT 2007
At 11:03 PM +0530 10/3/07, shantikam hazarika wrote:
>It does not require any intellectual prattle to find out what has
>been the AIM of those who have raised the queries. They want to know
>what is the purpose of all the mayhem, that has disturbed the peace,
>have projected Assam in unfavourable light to the whole world and
>does not seem to end.
**** That , if I might say so in so many words, is a no-brainer . I
don't recall ULFA has ever made a secret of their GOAL, that is to
make Assam a sovereign nation. Did some folks here miss that?
I hope I did not make it difficult to comprehend with intellectual prattle :-).
>If you have answers, provide them. If you do not have the answers, say so.
**** Well? Does the above help? Please don't hesitate to ask if I
need to translate it or anything :-).
cm
>Shantikam Hazarika
>
>
>Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:30:02 -0500
>To: assam at assamnet.org
>From: cmahanta at charter.net
>Subject: Re: [Assam] What a response!!
>
>.ExternalClass blockquote, .ExternalClass dl, .ExternalClass ul,
>.ExternalClass ol, .ExternalClass li
>{padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;}
>When a dialog was being sought, one would have hope it had an aim, a goal.
>
>In this instance, what was Utpal's aim?
>
>Would it be reasonable to assume that for the kind of people
>involved here it was to help find a solution for the impasse of a
>quarter century?
>
>And what did it turn out to be?
>
>Did the questions posed have a sincerity of purpose, of discussing
>the merits of each side's positions, hopefully to find common ground
>and a solution?
>
>Can an observer not reasonably conclude that it was in its
>entirety , without exceptions, an inquisition; of a dispatcher, by
>a band of obviously immature and self-righteous and self-impressed
>intellectual goons intent only on devaluing and insulting the
>hapless, messenger ill equipped to dish out in kind?
>
>The start of the response cycle obviously could very well have been
>an honorable one, to have a honest and sincere dialog, with some of
>Assam's most privileged and purportedly 'educated'. Some education
>that must have been! It could in no way, shape or form have been
>interpreted by the inquisitors or well meaning observers to have
>been a signal to submit to being insulted and to surrender the goals
>that thousands of their fellow men had given their lives for or to
>concede that they have all been wrong while their inquisitors alone
>are right.
>
>Was it?
>
>
> > Intelligentsia or not, every human being capable of communicating
>through the net is intelligent >enough to find what is good for him
>and what is not.
>
>*** If the aim was merely to assert one's own righteousness, it
>played out just as expected. But who needs it?
>
>
> >What is intelligentsia for one may not be so for another.
>
>*** That is profound.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 4:52 PM +0100 10/3/07, uttam borthakur wrote:
>
>When two parties talk, be it in catechism mode or a dialogue, it is
>inevitable that they would represent divers interests. Is there any
>pre-condition for proselytisation?
>
>
>
>Now, if the interests are so antgonistic that there is no point in
>beginning the discourse, then why should someone start a response
>cycle at all?
>
>
>
> Does Pakistan have to run a check on India while entering a
>dialogue or impose a pre-condition for conversion? Let everyone have
>his say. Each would find for himself, what is acceptable and what is
>not? I do not find any substance in the search for sincerity or any
>comment thereon.
>
>
>
> Intelligentsia or not, every human being capable of communicating
>through the net is intelligent enough to find what is good for him
>and what is not. What is saintly sermon for Mr. Laden may be
>blasphemy for Mr. Bush. Intelligentsia is not a defined monolith.
>What is intelligentsia for one may not be so for another.
>
>
>
>Is there any scope for normative preachings here?
>
>Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
>
>Before we pass judgement on the response, we also ought to be able
>to judge the QUESTION.
>
>
>
>What were the questions posed by Utpal designed to ?
>
>
>To help him and others decide, if what ULFA has been fighting for,
>Assam's sovereignty, is a sound and beneficial move for Assam?
>And if they are persuaded by ULFA's response that they are sound,
>Utpal and others would SUPPORT it?
>
>
>Or were they designed to extract an admission from ULFA, that their
>own notions and beliefs, that it is
>
>patently bad for Assam, never mind HOW or WHY they have concluded
>that their notions and beliefs are the truly wise and considered
>opinions?
>
>
>Is it therefore REASONABLE to evaluate INTENT for ULFA before
>submitting itself to the INQUISITION?
>
>
>Where is the ORDINARY integrity expected of the intelligentsia
>here, if one can misuse the English word under the circumstances?
>The sincerity of purpose?
>
>It is obvious that those who consider themselves the 'educated'
>and'wise', unlike ULFA, and who parade around wearing the garbs of
>pillars-of society do not think so and thus the eloquent outpourings
>of disappointment, not to mention the offenses to their genteel
>sensitivities . Not just that, the self-fulfilling prophecies too of
>the band of braves indulging in the "hola gosot baagi kuthar mora"
>enterprise, justification why their masters don't talk to them, or
>should not.
>
>
>What is missing from the exercises is a rudimentary element of AIM
>of GOALS. Never mind the need to explore the reasons WHY ten
>thousand plus Oxomiyas have given their lives. No doubt their lives
>were nearly not as valuable as one Sanjoy Ghosh's.
>
>
>Aimless exercises unfortunately lead to nowhere. With such pillars
>of society looking after its well-being, one hardly needs enemies to
>tear it down.
>
>
>cm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 11:19 AM +0530 10/3/07, shantikam hazarika wrote:
>
>It seems that some of us are being branded as part of an "unhappy
>gang with their so-called education". And they would be 'selective'
>in answering their questions; which means they would only reply to
>'sincere' questions, from 'real questioners' after their 'background
>check done'.
>
>Well, in case they have to do a background check in my case, let me
>tell you that my life has been an open book and if a background
>check is requird in my case, it simly shows how much these people
>are in touch with reality or the ground situations.
>
>Incidentally, let me also tell, that there has been enough
>background checks done about these people, their cohorts,
>sympathisers, beneficiaries, supporters, hangers one and what not.
>Lot of people already know who benefits from their actions, who are
>actually propping them up. For example when they killed Sanjay
>Ghosh, it did not require much background check to find out why they
>did so, what was the nexus behind that sordid deal and who would be
>the real losers if Majuli is genuinely saved in a very cost
>effective manner. Obviously, they are buying time to prepare some
>obfuscating response, what we may call "saale bere kobowa" reply in
>the name of background checks and what not.
>
>Also they have already said that they would ignore "halfwit
>questions and questioners". How more selective can your comfort zone
>be...
>
>Interestingly, I was reading something today and I came across the
>follwoing phrase: The truth is that many terrorists are doing very
>well out of violence. Extortion rackets give them a lifestyle they
>cannot aspire in times of peace. They have money, excitement and
>status: what more you seek in life?
>
>Mantabya nisproyojan.
>
>
>Shantikam Hazarika
>
>Director,
>
>Assam Institute of Management
>
>PO Box 30, GUWAHATI 781001, India
>
>HOME PAGE: <http://www.aimguwahati.edu.in/>www.aimguwahati.edu.in
>
>
>
>
>Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 17:17:14 +0100
>From: ulfa_1979april7 at yahoo.co.uk
>To: assam at assamnet.org
>Subject: Re: [Assam] assam Digest, Vol 26, Issue 66
>
>To: assamonline
>
>
>
> ULFA invites genuine sincere questions from persons(not gangs)
>not happy with their so-called education ,wanting to KNOW how to
>fight and win their great future in sovereign Assam .
>
>
>Firstly we will have background checks done on real (?)
>questioners. Please tolerate delays.
>
> ULFA will ignore halfwit questions and questioners who think they
>already know and are already bonded mentally or monetarily.
>
> With Best Regards to respectable Assamonliners,
>
> Rubi
>--------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Call friends with PC-to-PC calling -- FREE
><http://get.live.com/messenger/overview>Try it now!
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>
>
>
>Uttam Kumar Borthakur
>
>
>
>
>Get the freedom to save as many mails as you wish.
><http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_mail_5/*http://help.yahoo.com/l/in/yahoo/mail/yahoomail/tools/tools-08.html/>Click
>here to know how.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>assam mailing list
>assam at assamnet.org
>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>
>
>
>
>Get the new Windows Live Messenger!
><http://get.live.com/messenger/overview>Try it!
>
>_______________________________________________
>assam mailing list
>assam at assamnet.org
>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://assamnet.org/pipermail/assam_assamnet.org/attachments/20071003/5999eb1d/attachment.html
More information about the assam
mailing list