|
>ULFA fights not JUST for the poor and the downtrodden, but a lot of
middle class people who are fairly well settled and >who hold the idea of
being able to be the masters of their own fate dear.
But you have already
disqualified the middle class of Guwahati. What middle class you are
talking about.
Jorhat? Thank you.
RB
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 10:20
PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Demand note is
ULFA's: IGP (SB) Sentinel
> but shouldn't they be accountable to at
least the downtrodden, whom Ulfa obviously champions?
*** And HOW do RS and RB get to don the halo of championing the cause of
those who have kept ULFA operating for a quarter century, and to demand
accountability of it?
On the other hand, what have RS ands RB done to demand accountability of
those whose cause they champion?
Also, just so no one gets the wrong idea here, ULFA fights not JUST for
the poor and the downtrodden, but a lot of middle class people who are fairly
well settled and who hold the idea of being able to be the masters of their
own fate dear.
At 6:24 PM -0600 1/20/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>Nor is it accountable to those who would
deny it its existence.
And what about those who do NOT deny its
existence? Forget the clueless NRAs or those sitting high and mighty in
Dispur or Dilli, but shouldn't they be accountable to at least the
downtrodden, whom Ulfa obviously champions?
--Ram
On 1/20/06, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Or the rule does
not apply there?
*** That depends upon whether one can apply some ordinary
analytical skills.
Accountability of a government exists to the people that put
it in place.
ULFA is NOT accountable to those who would have it submit to
their inquisition. Nor is it accountable to those who would deny it its
existence.
Or was that much too complicated to figure out?
At 12:34 PM -0600 1/20/06, Rajen Barua wrote:
Can we say the same for GOI
accountability?
Or the rule does
not apply there?
RB
----- Original Message -----
From: Chan
Mahanta
To: Rajen
Barua ; Ram
Sarangapani
Cc: ASSAMNET
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:35
AM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Demand note is ULFA's: IGP
(SB) Sentinel
>Parallel
govts must have its own accountability.
*** Only problem here is that " Xogunor xawt burha
goru nomore"
At 11:14 AM -0600 1/20/06, Rajen Barua wrote:
I think if ULFA would come up with a solid plan how to spend
that 5 billion dollar for Assam and agree to put that money in a
common World Bank account to be spent only for the cause of Assam, I
would support the ULFA move and would demand the money from GOI
instead and not from ONGC. But I will not support ULFA if they want
to collect the money and spend in Bangladesh Movie industry or any
other personal investment depriving the people of Assam and making
the people of Assam even
poorer.
Parallel govts
must have its own accountability.
Assamese people
are saying NO to Hobo Diok.
They are saying
: Amar Upai Nai.
RB
----- Original Message -----
From: Ram
Sarangapani
To: Barua25
Cc: ASSAMNET ; Chan Mahanta
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 11:25
PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Demand note is ULFA's: IGP
(SB) Sentinel
Heh! heh! Barua, that is yet another explanation for
the faux pas.
The idea seems to put the onus on the GOI. But who
knows?
On 1/18/06, Barua25 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
"Be
that as it may, the demand note to the ONGC will
not hamper the peace process since extortion by
militants is not unusual."
Thinking
again, I think the above statement by MRG may be a 'wish'
statement. Note the adverb 'will not'. Normally
only a spekeperson from GOI wiould use the phrase 'will
not'. MRG should have used 'should not', but by using the
'word 'will not', she is in fact wishing to tell the GOI, " Of
course, you are not going to stop the negotiations simply
because of this demand note, are you? You know these milliants
do this kind of thing al the time. You better hurry to do
the negotiations so that they will not do such things." In fact
she is wishing that the demand note issue may be used as a some
kind of trump card and force GOI to do some realpolitics.
Otherwise, I could not see why she used 'will not' without
any authority and did not use 'should not'.
RB
|
