Hi A:
Glad to see you are exercising your imaginations, figmented ( you
heard it here first) as they might be :-).
A few points to note:
temple I knew of was
in the office of a local Marwari rice-mill
c-da :-)
At 2:02 AM -0600 2/18/06, Alpana B. Sarangapani wrote:
Hi C'da:
>Guwahati :-). You might find it interesting to learn that fully one third of the couples ( at least) >of my small village co-habit without EVER getting married. They just live together. And even >highly developed counties
Hori Bishtu, Hori Bishtu, C'da. Ki bhejal kotha eta kole` baaru, taate` akou ei xobha-ghorot?
Just because you weren't invited to the weddings does not mean that they were never married! All they did was that they went to the nearest Shiva-temple and offered tamul-paan to the priest to get the blessings to live like Horo-Gouri, probably, just didn't have enough to treat the whole village (including you) just for that occasion. :)
From: Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ram Sarangapani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: ASSAMNET <assam@assamnet.org>
Subject: Re: [Assam] Do Assamese have an inferiority complex?
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:25:35 -0600
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li {padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;}At 5:23 PM -0600 2/17/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
C'da,
>*** Very slippery one this Ram--you are trying to rescue GoI again >aren't you?
No, not really - but if Assamese demand that of the GOI, wouldn't they have to know which group of people they are talking about, which group needs "protection" from the GOI so as not to become a minority in Assam.
*** They ought to. But WHO do you hear from? Is it the people? Or is it the rags feeding out of MHA hands and spewing RAW sewage, and the politicians?The other day you observed that Rs. 1,000 is no big deal -- if it were to be levied as a fee for registering marriages. Shows how uninformed you are about Assam's realities. I don't blame you. You grew up at Guwahati :-). You might find it interesting to learn that fully one third of the couples ( at least) of my small village co-habit without EVER getting married. They just live together. And even highly developed counties with the best of civil institutions still recognize such unions -- as common-law couples. Because there are so many of them.
>(A case for protecting Assam from the unscrupulous Indians?)
*** Are you suggesting that it is NOT an issue? If it is not, will you care to explain WHY? I explained WHY it is so. You did not explain why you take issue with my explanation. If you are serious about understanding the issues you would have at least explained why you do not agree. But you chose merely to re-iterate your own politically motivated and pre-conceived notions Ram.
>(Building a case why illegal immigration is important to Assam's economy - nay its survival?)
*** Ditto the above again. You do not take a position on HOW you propose to resolve te problem, You do not fail to pay lip-service to the fact that it is a human problem too, as a perfunctory ritual, But you do not attempt to explain how it should be dealt with, and by WHOM. Instead you try to devalue it by equating my explanations about the Cown belt /Bollywood invasion of the NE with my concerns about the human aspects of the B'deshi migration.That is your choice. But it demonstrates that all you are interested in isprotecting the Indian carpet-baggers' interests in Assam, while being oblivious of the poor migrants from B'desh, a far less powerful or influential group than the former.c-da
>*** Again, who an Assamese is is a FAKE question.
Yes, that could be a fake question. Maybe the question is who else is trying to get into the Assamese bandwagon for ulterior motives, and who is trying to include others into this group?
>>You seem to have more of a soft corner for the B'deshi illegals than for the Bihari >>thelawala -:) What gives C'da?
>*** What is the reason for your making this conclusion Ram? Can you explain?
I was trying to deduce - maybe I am wrong, but you could clarify your statements below:
>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.
(A case for protecting Assam from the unscrupulous Indians?)
and
>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.
(Building a case why illegal immigration is important to Assam's economy - nay its survival?)
--Ram
On 2/17/06, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 4:01 PM -0600 2/17/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
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).
*** Very slippery one this Ram--you are trying to rescue GoI again aren't you?
I was NOT talking of WHO an Assamese is, I was referring to YOUIR concerns about them B'deshis.
And my question stands: >*** 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?
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.
*** Again, who an Assamese is is a FAKE question. There cannot be any confusion about it, for reasons I explained quite clearly. Is it hard for you to understand Ram :-)? And would you explain WHY , if you still don't get it?
For example: If say a group of people demand 100% job reservations for locals, who is included in this 100%?.
*** That could very well be implied to be the INDIGENOUS population of geographical Assam. I cannot see where the confusion is in this instance either.
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?
*** You tell us. I am not the one who is pressing the point. You are. Obviously you know how to resolve it. So do tell :-).
In fact why have a border?
*** How about 'To make believe'--as GoI, the party constitutionally responsible, with the legal authority and the control on resources, has been f doing all these decades?
You seem to have more of a soft corner for the B'deshi illegals than for the Bihari thelawala -:) What gives C'da?
*** What is the reason for your making this conclusion Ram? Can you explain?
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
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
