[Assam] What a response!!
Chan Mahanta
cmahanta at charter.net
Wed Oct 3 21:30:48 CDT 2007
When the unfortunate killing of Sanjoy Ghosh keeps appearing as the
sole argument against ULFA's struggles, it is legitimate and
appropriate to weigh it against those who willingly gave their lives
in pursuit of their cause. And to attempt to compare the cause of
FREEDOM with that of genocide by Nazis or 9/11 or what have you harks
of either an absence of ordinary reasoning ability or an intentional
abuse of it. That simple.
At 3:11 AM +0100 10/4/07, uttam borthakur wrote:
>Should the number of people laying down their lives be a bulwark of
>any argument? So, did Nazis, so did 9/11 hijackers, .............
>should I try to prolong the list where people might have laid down
>their lives for a retrgrade cause. I am not commenting on the
>legitimacy of the claim of ULFA here. I'm just saying, please do not
>bring number of death as index of the genuineness of any cause. Such
>arguments are placed in a political meeting.
>
>Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
>
>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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>assam mailing list
>assam at assamnet.org
>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>
>
>
>
>Uttam Kumar Borthakur
>
>
>
>Save all your chat conversations.
><http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_webmessenger_3/*http://in.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php>Find
>them online.
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/a3e782f7/attachment.html
More information about the assam
mailing list