>It has because
you asked the question.
*** I did? I learn something everyday!
But I remember differently. It arose from a phoolosophical
assertion that all govts. are bad. And I did not make it.
>You mean in
the past?
Take a wild guess!
>But it is now
a part of India.
*** That is YOUR concept. Not something Assam universally
accepts. Or did you forget that?
>Nagaland,
Manipur, Tripura, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Kashmir,
Andaman Nikobar, Kerela and >many other states were never parts of
present India.
*** Tell me something I don't know.
>But what that
has to do with the prsent.
*** Exactly. What?
>Are you trying to say that your grandfather were rich and therfore I have a right to be rich?
RB
*** Is this another eruption of superior logic?
At 8:53 PM -0600 2/13/06, Barua25 wrote:
>What do these other states' inr terests have to do with Assam's?It has because you asked the question.>WHY should those states that ARE India, should be seeking to be independent?>It nmever WAS a part of India!You mean in the past? But it is now a part of India. Let us talk of the present.Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Kashmir, Andaman Nikobar, Kerela and many other states were never parts of present India. Other states like Tamil Nadu etc were parts of India for some of the time. But what that has to do with the prsent. Are you trying to say that your grandfather were rich and therfore I have a right to be rich?
RB
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
