C'da,
>*** It is a legal issue, of citizenship. Why are the Assamese >RESPONSIBLE for >defining it ? Doesn't India have a DEFINITION >of who a citizen is?
India does have a concrete definition for who is or is not an Indian citizenship.
Obviously, India (GOI) is not going to define who and Assamese Citizen is? Because in India individual states do not offer citizenship rights (as some assume).
The question of defining who an Assamese is, is more to do with how Assamese residents of Assam would like to define themselves than to do with Indian citizenship matters.
For example: If say a group of people demand 100% job reservations for locals, who is included in this 100%?.
The Shiv Sena says 100% for people who are born Maharati.
BTW: If GOI did take it upon itself to define who an Assamese is, will you accept that definition? and how well?
*** Question is WHO or HOW? Besides, there is a HUMAN issue too. It is a POLITICAL problem in addition to one of legalities, just like the millions of undocumented aliens in the USA
...
Of course there is the human issue. I can understand the problem of 'identification', but there should not be a problem to set the parameters.
As for the human issue, what do we do? Throw open the borders? In fact why have a border?
You seem to have more of a soft corner for the B'deshi illegals than for the Bihari thelawala -:) What gives C'da?
--Ram
On 2/17/06, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 12:11 PM -0600 2/17/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:C'da,>But perhaps I ought to write a letter to some Editor. Who knows
>people may see the light? What do YOU think?I think you should. You might have some luck in getting it published -:)
>*** I don't know. Sometimes people are unable to see the obvious.
>Sometimes it is a problem of attempting to awake who is NOT >asleep.
I think I know why the Sahitya Sabha is trying to avoid the issue. They don't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole because the issue IS controversial.
*** May be. But I don't see the controversy here.
First pin down WHAT KIND of Assamese ( Oxomiya) they are trying to define:The Assamese National ( Oxomiya naagorik), the Assamese Language ( Oxomiya bhaxa) or the Assamese Ethnic ( Oxomiya jaati).
It is as simple as that, don't you think?
>That definition for them would mean weeding out illegal B'deshis.
*** Question is WHO or HOW? Besides, there is a HUMAN issue too. It is a POLITICAL problem in addition to one of legalities, just like the millions of undocumented aliens in the USA. Why do you think California won't deport all the undocumented Mexicans or Central Americans? Or why did Giuliani resisted his Republican party patriots who were attempting to oust the undocumented aliens that virtually RUN New York city today? Just like Califiornia, NY City will collapse overnight if all the undocumented are gone. US Agriculture will collapse across the continent if the undocumented Latino are thrown out, as would huge segments of the construction industry.
Ultimately reality sinks in. The pursuit of preserving ethnic/language/religious/culture purity unfortunately has consequences. But those who cry hoarse over it are a small minority who are not effected by those consequences.
>I assume your definition of Assamese would encompass all ethinic people >including Bodos, Miris, Biharis, Marwaris etc also, who have been living in >Assam for ever? -:)
*** It is a legal issue, of citizenship. Why are the Assamese RESPONSIBLE for defining it ? Doesn't India have a DEFINITION of who a citizen is?
But past the citizenship issue, there indeed is a distinction between those ( of different ethnic identities) who are indigenous peoples, and those who are in Assam as carpetbaggers--to exploit it, but have never accepted it as a home, regardless of how many generations they might have lived in its geographical boundaries.
That IS a nuance that could not and should not be either glossed over, or buried under the legal definition ( current one) of citizenship.
There are those like you, who see no need for a defintion, and then there are those who think its important to have a definition.That definition for them would mean weeding out illegal B'deshis. It may be a first step (1947, 1971, 1991 or whatever) but at least they would know who the ethinic people are and who are not.I assume your definition of Assamese would encompass all ethinic people including Bodos, Miris, Biharis, Marwaris etc also, who have been living in Assam for ever? -:)--Ram
On 2/17/06, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I think, at the very least they were hesitant to even broach the
>subject. Why couldn't they, like you say:
>
>"All citizens of Assam are Assamese, like all citizens of India are Indians."
*** I don't know. Sometimes people are unable to see the obvious.
Sometimes it is a problem of attempting to awake who is NOT asleep.
But perhaps I ought to write a letter to some Editor. Who knows
people may see the light? What do YOU think?
At 11:39 AM -0600 2/17/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>C'da,
>
>I don't know all the intricacies of the issue. But if, as you say
>its an issue manufactured by Dilli and is willingly accepted by some
>Assamese 'agents', why doesn't the Sahithya Sabha say its a fake>issue and let the people in general know where they stand on the
>issue.
>
>I think, at the very least they were hesitant to even broach the
>subject. Why couldn't they, like you say:
>
>"All citizens of Assam are Assamese, like all citizens of India are Indians."
>
>I will hold back my take on this for a while -:)
>
>--Ram
>
>
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
