[Assam] Why do we need a plebiscite in Tamil Nadu?

[UTTAM BORTHAKUR]

********I am one who does not believe even in international borders, let
alone borders for Tamilnadu or Assam.

XXXX Absolutely. I agree wholeheartedly. This would be 'the' apposite view
for a modern man.

The problem is, 'nationalistic' 'ethnic' feelings, and the socio-
political-economic reasons for continued existence of those, have been
lingering in the psyche of majority of the people world-wide. This has
necessitated  pragmatic views to solve some teething problems, especially
apparent impasses. It is like this: Buddha had said that there are problems,
those can be solved, the solutions lie in acquiring wisdom, and wisdom lies
in correct practice. After more than 2000 years of Buddha, we still need
shrinks:-)

So, welfare and well-being of a given people at a particular time is of
paramount importance. That is where we have to improvise. Edgar Snow,
reporting from China, compared the village life under the Kuo min tang and
under Maoist control in the days of civil war in China in the early part of
the last century. He found that the Communist Party looked after the
economic well-being of the people in much better way than the Kuo Min Tang.
That was perhaps the reason why Mao succeeded, where Chiang Kai shek failed.
It is basic humanism that requires that well-being of the people should be
the prime consideration. At micro-level, its basis lies in the fact that a
man has but one life.

This calls for compromises and flexibility. For tactical purposes, I may a
hold a given view ; but that does not ipso facto indicate that I find it the
real solution. It would be like trying to din 'cold fusion' into heart
of the spokesman of the 'oil lobby'. He'll call me looney.







On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:56 AM, UTTAM BORTHAKUR <uttamborthakur at yahoo.co.in
> wrote:

> Dilip Da : Thanks for the retrieval of this important piece of information.
> Srijut Kamal Deka: Thanks for pointing out that the clause regarding '
> upholding sovereignty and integrity of India' had been inserted from 1963 by
> amending the third schedule.
>
> The above underscores the changing nature of the rules and regulations
> guiding a people. It also shows that there is no absolutes here. Laws,
> constitutive documents, demands of a group of people may all undergo change
> with times. So the bottomline is: maturity demands flexible opinions!
>
> BTW: I am amused that Nehru did not have to take that oath that he would
> uphold sovereignty and integrity of India; and so his heart went out for the
> people of Assam in 1962.:-)
>