Your ASSUMPTION Based on "They would say No" is just that. Now 99.9% KNOW their only hope of living like proud hardworking Humans is" YES."
By the way ..."Ancient link with----" is also a childlike Assumption. There was no India any time. The was a 1000 year Turk,Pathan,Moghul Monarchy in Jigsaw puzzle-like patchwork based in Agra ,Delhi ??
Why don't you stretch your fertile love for Hinduland ,Hindiland,Indoland onto Bangladesh,Sri Lanka , Indo-China, Indonesia(In Bali Ramayana shows are Tourism staple), and Malaysia?
You are trained to be a Management type--right?
mm
From: Rajib Das <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mayur bora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Bartta Bistar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Assam] Assam's Ancient Links with Mainland India
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 10:53:48 -0800 (PST)
>C-da,
>
>The problem once again here is that you have not given
>one valid argument to say why it does not make sense
>when I use the same arguments you make to turn your
>points around.
>
>Obviously you make the points on specious grounds with
>very little thinking through. It is for that very
>reason that it can be turned around so easily.
>
>I appreciate your advice however. In these many years
>of working with start ups and some really brilliant
>people and having to constantly fend off big brother
>competition, one pattern that has come back again and
>again is that the big brother is never a ALL POWERFUL
>monstrosity. That creative solutions almost always lie
>in using the monstrous big brother's own weight to
>turn against itself. It works almost always. One
>example could be the Jehadistas you have mentioned -
>they are giving Bush a very hard time, don't you
>think?
>
>In all your arguments that I have seen in your posts
>with Utpalda and Mayur as well, you assume that they
>(and I) are making assumptions about the unwillingness
>of Bodos and Tiwas and Bengalis and others to support
>the ULFA or a sovereign state.
>
>Let me just go ahead one more time to use your
>specious argument - when you say all these groups
>would support a sovereign Assam, YOU are making an
>ASSUMPTION.
>
>The precise reason you have gone hoarse explaining why
>these groups want to break away is the fact that your
>reasoning holds little water and therefore precious
>few people of the opposite persuasion buy it.
>
>You have also not taken care to listen to others'
>arguments. You rarely do.
>
>This thing about living interdependently can be said
>about any region in the country or between regions
>such as Assam and Bengal. It is no different.
>Unfortunately we live in a different world than
>centuries back. There are limited resources and way
>more people and way more of their aspirations. The
>basic straightforward reason why these groups are
>disaffected with the sovereign Assam movement is
>precisely because the sovereignity thing is based on
>ethnic chauvinism. What it means is the primacy of the
>specific ethnic group in taking the share of the
>spoils. Clearly the sovereign Assam movement has
>failed, abjectly I would say, in creating a shared
>aspiration.
>
>Actually, I think (and you would say it is an
>assumption) that they have not even been successful in
>convincing ALL of the Assamese speaking people that it
>makes sense to be sovereign.
>
>And that, at least, should bring us to our second
>point - that the case for sovereign Assam itself holds
>little water overall. And that is why not just other
>ethnic groups but the Assamese themselves not believe
>in the cause.
>
>You talk about an alternate system of governance in a
>sovereign Assam taking care of assuring the spoils are
>shared right. And I have consistently said that the
>spoils would be shared right if our regional political
>leaders and the bureacracy had done things right
>earlier. That it is not the system but the leadership
>that is at fault. And that in a sovereign state would
>be a nightmarish problem.
>
>The problem is that there is no answer for the
>leadership issue. As is there no real answer for what
>better governance would come about in a sovereign
>state. Whatever little we have heard of (such as the
>initial dictatorship of the ULFA or the abolition of
>property rights or the mobilization of people to
>achieve state objectives) give us cause for great
>alarm.
>
>Finally, C-Da, accusing others of not having
>"inferential capabilities" and other such adjectives
>you routinely dish out, when faced with folks that
>don't buy your argument does not help your cause or
>show you in great light. It is akin to how the bullies
>in primary school react when their balloons are
>pricked :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--- Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Rajib:
> >
> > At 8:04 AM -0800 11/4/05, Rajib Das wrote:
> > >But C-Da, it is indeed an argument - following
> > exactly
> > >the lines you worked along :-)
> >
> > *** First, for a product of the 21st century
> > desi-knowledge brigade, you disappoint me every
> > time you parrot my line of arguments and even
> > words and phrases, particularly when you so
> > vehemently disagree with them. You ought to have
> > learnt by now that it is very unproductive to
> > fight the 'enemy' on its terms :-). It is a
> > sure-fire recipe for no getting anywhere, if not
> > for losing. A friendly suggestion, not merely for
> > these debates, but for life in general, is that
> > it is very important for one to seek out creative
> > answers, seek new paths to solving problems. Your
> > generation, with the backgrounds like some you
> > have had, ought to be able to deliver far more
> > than echoing those that you obviously do not
> > agree with. It is like the Hinduttwa brigades'
> > tack of trying to be bad clones of Jehadistas or
> > Talibans, without their zeal. A patently lost
> > cause!
> >
> >
> >
> > >Let us say Assam becomes sovereign. And the Bodos
> > of
> > >Kokrajhar say no. The Bengali ghettos in Guwahati
> > say
> > >no. The Tiwas say no. The Cacharis say no. Will the
> > >sovereign government of Assam hand over their lands
> > to
> > >those guys?
> >
> >
> > *** Here are too many assumptions for the
> > question which forms your answer, to hold any
> > water. Allow me to explain:
> >
> > First, you have assumed that the smaller
> > indigenous groups of Assam, including the Bengali
> > speaking ones who have lived in geographical
> > Assam for generations will or most likely refuse
> > to be a part of a sovereign Assam. But that
> > assumption could be legitimate ONLY if you have
> > explored WHY this situation has developed in
> > recent decades--of each indigenous group seeking
> > to carve out its own sovereign state, and
> > concluded credibly that it could NOT resolved
> > except, may only be kept under check by brutal
> > Indian military might like Saddam Hussein or the
> > erstwhile USSR or the PRofChina.
> >
> > But that is a false assumption. For someone like
> > yourself with an IIM-MBA, I would have expected
> > an analysis of the reasons why this condition has
> > developed
> > in the NE, and exploration of solutions there for.
> >
> > Not that the subject was never broached in this
> > forum. I have gotten hoarse explaining some of
> > the reasons. But those of you who do not accept
> > them, and are endowed with analytical skills and
> > outlooks, should be able to articulate your OWN
> > assessments and lay out the reasons for it as
> > you see them.
> >
> > Once you have done that, you could look into how to
> > resolve the problem. I know
> > the answers conceptually and am convinced that a
> > sovereign Assam, and even a truly autonomous
> > Assam with REAL powers to re-orient its
> > governance can resolve these issues quite easily,
> > because there is a historical precedent for it.
> > These people lived side by side, in relative
> > peace, interdependently, in for centuries.
> >
> > The above two combined, therefore, makes the
> > analogy of Assam's disaffections as a part of
> > India very different from the disaffections of
> > the many indigenous people of the NE , which is a
> > PRODUCT of the reigning Indian system of
> > unaccountable, dysfunctional governance steeped
> > in the politics of (not) sharing the spoils.
> >
> >
> > I understand your and other ethnic Bengalis' fears
> > and mistrusts of the Oxomiya
> > chauvinists. But that has changed dramatically
> > over the decades, even if not dead. But it will
> > be the easiest thing to overcome, when the
> > intelligentsia of the communities could join
> > forces, backed by a functioning and trustworthy
> > system of law-enforcement and justice of a
> > reformed Assam government, considering the fact
> > that the Assamese are the closest to the Bengalis
> > in every describable ethnic/cultural traits among
> > all the people of the South Asian sub-continent
> > (with the exception of our indigenous Bodos,
> > Karbis, Misings, Tiwas etc. who are historically
> > more closely related kin.)
> >
> > So, put your thinking cap on and go at it. Don't
> > try to throw my arguments at me, when you don't
> > agree. That does not go anywhere :-).
> >
> > c-da
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > And especially in our parts of the
> > >country, if indeed you do handover Kokrajhar to
> > >Bodoland, what about the Assamese there who want to
> > be
> > >a part of sovereign India? Or sovereign Assam for
> > that
> > >matter?
> > >
> > >As to why Assam should be a part of sovereign
> > India, I
> > >will address it in a separate e-mail!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> > *** That is no argument. Assam is Assam and
> > it's
> > >> > wishes are not subject to
> > >> > somebody else's choices, wishes or demands.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > But let me ask you, one of the most avid
> > >> > advocates of India, WHY it is good for India
> > to
> > >> > hold onto Assam, or how it is good for Assam
> > to
> > >> > continue to submit to Indian rule?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > At 8:01 AM -0800 11/3/05, Rajib Das wrote:
> > >> > >There was never one India ruler that had ALL
> > of
> > >> > India
> > >> > >under his belt. The Cholas were never ruled
> > from
> > >> > >Pataliputra as well. And Assam as it is known
> > >> today
> > >> > >was not ruled for ever from Pragjyotishpur.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >The basis of modern Indian nationhood from
> > most
> > >> > claims
> > >> > >is the common cultural links across all the
> > >> regions
> > >> > of
> > >> > >the country. Actually that is how most modern
> > >> > nations
> > >> > >(including those of Europe) came about.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Going by this logic of who ruled whom, the
> > Nagas
> > >> > >should not have a country (or for that matter
> > a
> > >> > state
> > >> > >even) - their territories were, for the most
> > >> part,
> > >> > >variously ruled by the Meitis and the
> > Burmese.
> > >> And
> > >> > I
> > >> > >am sure more than half the tribes of the
> > north
> > >> east
> > >> > >did not have a king in their name.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >--- Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> >In an antithesis to the rebelsÂ’ claim
> > that
> > >> > Assam
> > >> > >> >had never shared a common culture and
> > history
> > >> > >> >with India before the Yandaboo >Treaty,
> > >> Mamoni
> > >> > >> >pointed out that the Ramayana had always
> > >> > >> >influenced Assamese culture and society.
> > An
> >
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
>http://farechase.yahoo.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>assam mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
