>By the way, I don't think you understand the difference between a facilitator, a negotiator, a >mediator and an arbitrator.
Then please do explain the differences. You claim she is a facilitator, while she is generally referred to as the mediator.
>Things will become clearer once this is untangled
Well! maybe you will help in untangling this tangled web :)
>For the time being, I am tired of writing any more about this.
ditto
On 1/18/06, Roy, Santanu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am quite amazed.
You think that her statement:
*Be that as it may, the demand note to the ONGC will not hamper the
peace process since extortion by militants is not unusual."*
IMPLIES: at least one of the following
1) she thinks Extortion is OK
2) they existed before, why bring it now
3) Its not a big deal - let the negotiations begin
4) she is making excuses for the ULFA in a bad situation
5) The GOI should keep the negotiation process on, inspite of what the ULFA does.
You are entirely wrong.
Its none of the above.
If you read the statement carefully, she is making a "positive" statement about what she thinks is going to happen (not about what "should" have or Ought to have happened, not a moral judgement). She is analysing the poltical prognosis. She is answering the question"do you think talks are going to break down because of this?'. She is saying NO, its not likely to hamper the peace process. Then she explains why she thinks so. Because even if ULFA is indulging in extortion one must not forget that, as a matter of realpolitik, militant organizations often indulge in extortion and at the same time peace negotiations with the government go on. Again, this is a positive analysis, not a normative statement about what ought to be.
Let me elaborate further. Throughout the negotiations with the NSCN or the MNF , not a single truck passed through Nagaland or Mizoram without paying taxes to the parallel government, not a single business remained open without paying pots of money to the miltants. Did not negotiations with the GOI proceed even then? Why? Not because extortion is moral or was condoned by the authorities. Negotiations went on simply because it was in the interest of both parties to continue.
Thus, the bottomline of her statement is that she feels negotiations will go on despite the extortion.
By the way, I don't think you understand the difference between a facilitator, a negotiator, a mediator and an arbitrator. Things will become clearer once this is untangled.
For the time being, I am tired of writing any more about this.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ram Sarangapani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thu 1/19/2006 9:01 AM
To: Roy, Santanu
Cc: Rajen Barua; ASSAMNET; Chan Mahanta
Subject: Re: [Assam] Demand note is ULFA's: IGP (SB) Sentinel
OK,
Let me try and explain (btw - the portion you took out was actually besides
the whole point, but nevertheless).
The question of ULFA/GOI meeting for peace talks is a highly charged
atmosphere. Here you have everybody from the Home Ministry, to the Governor,
the CM, the PM, Ulfa making comments to suit their own situations.
Contary to your assumption, I do recognize MRG as a prolific writer, but as
a 'negotiator'
she has (by virtue of being one) put her credibility on the line. Not her
credibility as a writer, but as a negotiator.
>Making a comment like
>"Since the ULFA has neither admitted nor denied the issuance of the demand
note to the ONGC,
>it is too early to draw a conclusion on the authenticity of the letter"
This statement is fine and it would have been construed as someone telling
us 'not to jump to conclusions' No one should have a problem with that - I
certainly don't.
But you seemed to deftly leave out statement we were discussing:
ie: *Be that as it may, the demand note to the ONGC will not hamper the
peace process since extortion by militants is not unusual."*
**
So, what on earth does this statement mean? Extortion is OK? Or they existed
before, why bring it now? Its not a big deal - let the negotiations begin?
Is she making excuses for the ULFA in a bad situation? The GOI should keep
the negotiation process on, inspite of what the ULFA does? What?
>If I am wrong, show me why
The above is where you went wrong. The above statement by her is the
problem, not the one you quoted.
>She is not an arbitrator. She does not have to be neutral
If thats the case, we should not be calling her a 'negotiator' or a
facilitator. What would you call her?
She obviously is not facilitating any chats, if she is in the habit of
making politically charged comments.
>She is simply trying to ennsure that there are talks
Good, but is she doing that? What is the difference between her comments and
the Governor's (who also is in the habit of making irresponsible comments).
>It is not her role to soft pedal and maintain a delicate balance
Then let her declare as such - that she is speaking on behalf of ULFA's
interests. Then she needn't soft pedal at all. But she can't have it both
ways - on the one hand a negotiator of sorts and on the someone with a
biased mindset in this regard.
>I think you don't have a justification. I think you guys are simply using
an opportunity to bad->.
Is it bad-mouthing if you tell the truth. I did not put those words into her
mouth - she said it. But if you want us to give her a pass, sure we can.
>someone who you otherwise dislike - probably because you feel she is close
to the ULFA
Heh! heh! is that all you could come up? Dislike her? What on earth for?
There are many, many people I know who are either close to ULFA or are big
supporters. In fact, they are some whom I consider as good friends. Their
proximity to ULFA has nothing to do with like or dislike.
If she is close to ULFA, then thats fine, but even she has to draw a line
when making excuses for them. If she doesn't she would lose credibility as a
facilitator, its as simple as that.
>She is not the American president at Camp David
I wouldn't have known.
On 1/18/06, Roy, Santanu <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>
> A littany of sarcasm does not add up to an explanation.
> You have not provided ANY information on why your allegation that she is
> in indulging in "POLITICS of bla-bla-blah" is justified. I think you don't
> have a justification. I think you guys are simply using an opportunity to
> bad-mouth someone who you otherwise dislike - probably because you feel she
> is close to the ULFA.
> Making a comment like
> "Since the ULFA has neither admitted nor denied the issuance of the demand
> note to the ONGC,
> it is too early to draw a conclusion on the authenticity of the letter"
> is not equivalent to indulging in politics. As far as I am concerned, it
> is a statement of fact as she perceived it at the time she made a comment to
> the media.
> If I am wrong, show me why.
> She is not an arbitrator. She does not have to be neutral. She is NOT a
> part of the negotiations, she is simply a public facilitator that the GOI or
> the ULFA can use if they mutually wish to chat or find out if the other side
> wishes to chat. She is not trying to create a meeting of minds and an
> agreement. She is simply trying to ennsure that there are talks. It is not
> her role to soft pedal and maintain a delicate balance. She is not the
> American president at Camp David.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ram Sarangapani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thu 1/19/2006 7:40 AM
> To: Roy, Santanu
> Cc: Rajen Barua; ASSAMNET; Chan Mahanta
> Subject: Re: [Assam] Demand note is ULFA's: IGP (SB) Sentinel
>
> >What is this politics of "ONGC-GOI-ULFA" that she is indulging in? Can
> you
> explain?
>
> Well the ONGC is that 'oil-sucking' company that you referred to.
> Obviously,
> they are after their own interests and little else. The GOI is the inept
> govt. entity which is after everything in Assam. And the ULFA obviously is
> looking after the interests of Assam and the Assamese by extorting huge
> sums
> from the petty trader to giant blood-sucking entities like the ONGC.
>
> So, I was wondering why a nice lady like Dr. G would even bother to make
> it
> her business to make comments where none were warranted (at least from
> her,
> and her position).
>
>
> On 1/18/06, Roy, Santanu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > What is this politics of "ONGC-GOI-ULFA" that she is indulging in? Can
> you
> > explain?
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ram Sarangapani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thu 1/19/2006 6:46 AM
> > To: Roy, Santanu
> > Cc: Rajen Barua; ASSAMNET; Chan Mahanta
> > Subject: Re: [Assam] Demand note is ULFA's: IGP (SB) Sentinel
> >
> > >I don't see the point of hitting out at Mamoni-baideu just because she
> > did
> > not condemn the ULFA >for the note received by some bloody oil sucking
> > organization She is not the ULFA, nor their point->man. She is not a
> cop.
> > It
> > is not her job to make balanced political statements,
> >
> > Is it her job to make unbalanced political statements, for which you
> claim
> > she has no expertise?
> > This job as a 'negotiator' is a tough job and personal biases have to be
> > kept at bay. If as you say she is NOT the front man or the point person,
> > then why would she indulge in the politics of ONGC-GOI-ULFA if she has
> NO
> > understanding, and show her bias (toward ULFA).
> >
> > >By doing that she performs a far greater service to the people of
> Assam,
> > then all of the great living >writers of Assam (I guess this is what
> > irritates quite a few people - the attention she has received
> >
> > In THIS particular case, she is making it more difficult for the job she
> > or
> > others have entrusted upon her as a 'negotiator'. Thats a disservice to
> > the
> > people of Assam by putting hurdles on the way for peace talks.
> >
> > As for writers - I am sure there are some who are jealous of her
> > 'limelight'. Fortunately, you won't find them in these shores.
> >
> > >And yes, it would be a great boon to Assam (despite the "jobs lost") if
> > the
> > oil suckers left and >allowed the state to conserve its deposit of an
> > exhaustible natural resource instead of feeding it at >sub-market prices
> > to
> > the ever hungry Indian economy.
> >
> > And of course the stupid people at the GOI will also leave all the
> > infrastructure and whatever technical know-how just as easily. No, they
> > would just STILL keep drilling, and ONLY make sure it is located in
> Bihar
> > or
> > West Bengal.
> > No, the bottom-line is, if that were to happen, Assam & the Assamese
> would
> > still lose.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/18/06, Roy, Santanu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't see the point of hitting out at Mamoni-baideu just because she
> > did
> > > not condemn the ULFA for the note received by some bloody oil sucking
> > > organization. Who do you think she is? She is not the ULFA, nor their
> > > point-man. She is not a cop. It is not her job to make balanced
> > political
> > > statements, investigate truths and morally chastise errant parties.
> She
> > has
> > > been trying to get the negotiations going and that's exactly her role.
> > By
> > > doing that she performs a far greater service to the people of Assam,
> > then
> > > all of the great living writers of Assam (I guess this is what
> irritates
> > > quite a few people - the attention she has received). This, despite my
> > > belief, that these negotiations are not going to work.
> > >
> > > And yes, it would be a great boon to Assam (despite the "jobs lost")
> if
> > > the oil suckers left and allowed the state to conserve its deposit of
> an
> > > exhaustible natural resource instead of feeding it at sub-market
> prices
> > to
> > > the ever hungry Indian economy.
> > >
> > > Santanu.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Rajen Barua
> > > Sent: Thu 1/19/2006 6:11 AM
> > > To: Ram Sarangapani; ASSAMNET; Chan Mahanta
> > > Subject: Re: [Assam] Demand note is ULFA's: IGP (SB) Sentinel
> > >
> > > Re: [Assam] Demand note is ULFA's: IGP (SB) Sentinel>"Since the ULFA
> has
> > > neither admitted nor denied the issuance of the demand note to the
> ONGC,
> > it
> > > is too early to draw a conclusion on the >authenticity of the letter.
> > >
> > > It may be because MMG is a writer, who by nature of her tribe normally
> > > likes to think rather on the right hand side of the brain, but she
> > > definitely has problems with basic logic which is controlled as we
> know
> > by
> > > the left hand side of the brain.
> > >
> > > Normally, an unbiased logical mind (just normal garden variety type)
> > would
> > > like to draw the following conclusion instead,
> > > "Since the ULFA has neither admitted nor denied the issuance of the
> > demand
> > > note to the ONGC, it is too early to say that the letter was not from
> > ULFA."
> > >
> > > "Be that as it may, the demand note to the ONGC will not hamper the
> > peace
> > > process since extortion by militants is not unusual."
> > >
> > > It is like saying,
> > > "thik ase, hobo diok baru, tewlwok baru bea manuh, apwna lwke ki
> korise.
> > > Apwna lwke negotiate nai kora karonehe tewlwke bhoi dekhuaise."
> > >
> > > No MMG, it HAMPERS the PEACE PROCESS BIG TIME.
> > >
> > > And Chandan already said, GOI will not be THE looser.
> > >
> > > Upai Nai!!
> > >
> > > RB
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Chan Mahanta
> > > To: Ram Sarangapani ; ASSAMNET
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:25 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Assam] Demand note is ULFA's: IGP (SB) Sentinel
> > >
> > >
> > > Heh-heh-heh!
> > >
> > >
> > > So MRG too is one of the bad-guys now?
> > >
> > >
> > > GoI can mouth off peace mantras, frothing in the mouth about how there
> > is
> > > no problem that could not be resolved with 'democracy', while hunting
> > down
> > > ULFA, without nary a whimper from the now-outraged.
> > >
> > >
> > > What is surreal here is for the same FAIR and NEUTRAL folks to be
> > outraged
> > > when ULFA plays its cards.
> > >
> > >
> > > Come on Ram. Give us a break! Who are you kidding?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At 2:11 PM -0600 1/18/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
> > > Noted writer Mamoni Raisom Goswami, talking to The Sentinel today,
> > > said: "Since the ULFA has neither admitted nor denied the issuance of
> > the
> > > demand note to the ONGC, it is too early to draw a conclusion on the
> > > authenticity of the letter.
> > >
> > > Be that as it may, the demand note to the ONGC will not hamper the
> > > peace process since extortion by militants is not unusual."
> > >
> > > Highlights are mine.
> > >
> > > I can't believe this. "Be that as it may .......". So, is it Kay
> > Sara,
> > > Sara,.... Dr. Goswami? or is hope against hope that the ULFA can do
> what
> > it
> > > pleases, but the GOI must hold parleys under any circumstances.
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > assam mailing list
> > > assam@assamnet.org
> > > http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > assam mailing list
> > > assam@assamnet.org
> > > http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
