Rajib:
At 10:53 AM -0800 11/5/05, Rajib Das wrote:
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.
**** You wrote the following:
And you asserted that it follows my line of argument. I just
picked up on that part without evaluating whether it really
does. Turns out it does not.But even if it somehow did, my argument on
the matter that even though there were/are many links - cultural,
religious, trade and languages, with the surrounding regions, Assam
NEVER was a subject of a pan-Indian state and that a restoration of
the same should not be such a bad thing; is in no way, shape or form,
rebutted or refuted by what you proffered.
So your point is quite irrelevant. But I stand by my observation
a that to echo my words and phrases and merely saying no to what I
might be putting forth displays a lack of creative thinking
abilities.Not that it bothers me. I could even be flattered, if one
had to go by the proverb that 'imitation is the sincerest form of
flattery :-)'. Luckily I don't have that need. It is just that I would
like to see my fellow men to be creative in their outlooks.
>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.
*** That certainly is an amazing revelation for someone like
myself. In my profession however we have to be able to build a better
mousetrap, design a better, more creative solution to be able to get
ahead. An ability merely for dissing or tearing down ( figuratively
that is) somebody else's creation ( or proposition) does not do it. I
would like to think that it is not unique to my profession, but an
universal need.
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.
*** Aha! So how exactly did you turn my proposition around
:-)?
> 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.
*** That is NOT what I said; not recently, not ever. My
argument is that just because Utpal or Mayur or yourself make the
assertions you do, they do not make make them universal truths about
the disposition of these various groups. The only way we could
ascertain it would be thru a referendum, after a period of free and
unfettered public debate. Failing which one has no other recourse but
to go by circumstantial evidence. One such is that ULFA could not
possibly have survived all these years of fighting a far more powerful
and resourceful adversary as the Indian military, its civilian
propaganda machinery, its bribing abilities and the clandestine
operations without a wide support base among the population.
>- when you say all these groups
would support a sovereign Assam, YOU are making an
ASSUMPTION.
*** That is a preposterous suggestion. I never said or even
implied that ALL in these groups support the idea of a sovereign
Assam. Even during India's independence movement large segments of the
intelligentsia opposed the idea tooth and nail, citing exactly some of
the same reasons as you folks do in opposing Assam's sovereignty. My
argument is that the reasons for which this opposition is present are
possible to be reduced dramatically, if not entirely eradicable. And I
gave my reasons earlier.
You instead argue they are not addressable because of a lack of
'leaders', a patently ridiculous proposition. In fact I am appalled
that you would even make the argument. It is an argument of the most
politically and socially illiterate.
>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.
*** Heh-heh! So we have to accept YOUR assessment that these
folks will not to go along with the idea of a sovereign Assam because
it is born of cultural, hostility and the fears born out of it, and
because you represent majority opinion of these groups.
Now if you go make such an assertion in one of your high powered
business
meetings, what kind of a reception do you think you will get
Rajib :-)?
But let me humor you for a moment. Let me accept your
assessment as the unimpeachable truth. So can you tell us WHAT causes
the fears? And how do you see those fears reduced or removed under the
desi-demokracy model that operates and has been instrumental to
generating these polarizations and fears?
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.
*** I would agree there is some truth to the proposition. But HOW
could such a movement generate and build unimpeded to what transformed
into a secession movement? Where was Indian governance, which you hold
up as the ONLY acceptable alternative, then, and why do you believe it
is any different a quarter century later, now, or will be any
different in the foreseeable future?
The point I argue is that a sovereign, Assam will be eminently
capable of addressing these divisive issues, under a dramatically
reformed independent, democratic Assam government, made up
of able people, elected thru a reformed electoral
system. And the FEARS of the ethnic minorities will be addressed
by a similarly reformed system of law enforcement and justice, A safe
social environment in which the reign of the 'para-dada's will become
a thing of o a buried past.
>Clearly the sovereign Assam movement has
>failed, abjectly I would say, in creating a shared
aspiration.
*** This is the 'xaap hoiw khwta aru bez hoiw jara' proposition
that a few of you resort to so very often in these debates.
Unfortunately it does little more than destroy your credibility and
sincerity. You demand a developed political arm of the ULFA to address
these, while the Indian armed forces have an open season on, not
merely to the armed wing of the movement, but anyone even SUSPECTED of
being ULFA, with the media completely under the control the MHA and
RAW, feeding out of their hands.
Talk about making disingenuous arguments!
>And that, at least, should bring us to our second
point - that the case for sovereign Assam itself holds
>little water overall.
*** I see. That is indeed a very persuasive argument :-).
>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.
*** Why didn't they Rajib? What seems to have the problem? And
why did not they do anything since? And on the basis of WHAT do you
expect anyone to believe they will do the right things tomorrow or
anytime in the future?
Only those who have willingly donned blinders cannot see what
is abundantly clear: 'desi-demokrasy is dysfunctional, it is broken
beyond rescue. The only way it could be turned around is with a
complete make-over, something that is not conceivable as things
stand.
>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.
*** A reformed democratic Assam government could not possibly be
put into place without a reformed electoral system, an overhauled
system of administration, of returning governance to local people, of
law enforcement and justice and so forth without an interim APPOINTED
government, a Government of Transition. It could easily last for a
couple of years. Fortunately the skeleton of many of the institutions
of state could be re-used with appropriate modifications. It would not
be like Iraq for example.
But this alarm thingie over Mukul Mahanta's comments here,
whether presented as fire-starters :-) or as trial balloons, leaden as
they may be,is another disingenuous one. Because those of you who
oppose the entire notion of a sovereign Assam, from day one, have
never been willing to give the notion a hearing. Why should anyone
believe you that your opposition is based on a fear of Mukul Mahanta's
comments?
I will however give you a benefit of the doubt. You could
always give the idea a CONDITIONAL SUPPORT to move on to the next
level of examinations, debates and deliberations.
That will be constructive, that will demonstrate sincerity.
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 :-)
*** I am glad you got it out of your system. It is not good to
let these things do a slow burn :-).
But that is about ME. Forget me, I am a born bully, a bad dude,
anyway . However why should anyone be bullied by me? I don't get
bullied or intimidated by anyone. In my defense here I would say that
my intemperate choice of words and phrases are responses to
outrageous, disingenuous, duplicitous arguments and
propositions, quite unexpected of members of a group as educated
and
intelligent ( there will always be exceptions) it could be
expected to be.
Take care
cm
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
