<<
insurgents. They don't seem to know where they are headed. If there wrere such aspirations in their nascent stage, they don't seem to
exist now, now these ideas are mixed up with other elements like ISI,
B'desh, cash & carry, Indian elections (ulfa seems to have a great
interest in the Assam elections too) etc, etc.>>>>>
Imaginations?mm
From: Ram Sarangapani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Assam] AT: 'Regional issues don't get priority in nationalmedia'
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:05:19 -0600
>C'da,
>
> > Your visualizations enumerated here are NOT the only >possibilities. Or are they?
>
>Well, I stated they were 'my' visualizations, so would guess people
>could dream as they wish :)
>
> > *** What if he DID have ULFA links? Would he have automatically >forfeited the right to live? And how do YOU know that he did not?
>
>Actually, I had covered that possibility - when I said he ought to be
>afforded due process. So, whether he was or was not Ulfa/had links
is
>besides the point.
>The Indian Army cannot behave like insurgents. They are held to a
>higher standard, and that standard requires that they adhere to the
>rules of engagement and treat those whom they capture with dignity and
>due process must be afforded. In that the Army has failed ( at least
>in this incident).
>
> > *** How do you know that? Is it in the realm of possibilities that >the villages did KNOW that he had ULFA links. And what if they >came to his defense--although tragically late, because they too are >sympathizers themselves ? Is it possible?
>
>Of course, that is a possibility. In that case, all the newspaper
>accounts of villagers lammenting that Mahanta was an "innocent man and
>had nothing to do with ulfa", etc etc goes to the trash.
>Then one can deduce that the villagers,
in order to get general
>support from all over Assam pretended he wasn't!!
>Is that what you are saying?
>
> > Is it hard to conceive of the fact that ULFA is synonymous with >Assam's sovereignty aspirations ?
>
>Well, to be frank, ulfa is not what one would call the 'paragon' of
>insurgents. They don't seem to know where they are headed. If there
>wrere such aspirations in their nascent stage, they don't seem to
>exist now, now these ideas are mixed up with other elements like ISI,
>B'desh, cash & carry, Indian elections (ulfa seems to have a great
>interest in the Assam elections too) etc, etc.
>
>--Ram
>
>On 2/13/06, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > R:
> >
> >
> > Your visualizations enumerated here are NOT the only
possibilities. Or are they?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > For example:
> >
> >
> > >Mahanta is needlessly murdered by the army, who assumed he had ulfa links.
> >
> >
> > *** What if he DID have ULFA links? Would he have automatically forfeited the right to live? And how do YOU know that he did not?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >The people in his village knew that he wasn't and that he was innocent.
> >
> >
> > *** How do you know that? Is it in the realm of possibilities that the villages did KNOW that he had ULFA links. And what if they came to his defense--although tragically late, because they too are sympathizers themselves ? Is it possible?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> You asserted that the popular outrage ad NOTHING to do with sovereignty.
> >
> >
> > Is it hard to conceive of the fact that ULFA is synonymous with Assam's sovereignty aspirations ? I can imagine it would be who are in abject denial. But anyone willing to acknowledge reality would agree that it IS so. And if it is so, then how can you assert what you do, with even a modicum of credibility?
> >
> >
> > >But its nice to feel that the bandhs/protests are on your side -:)
> >
> >
> > *** Thanks for the thought.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > c-da
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 6:32 PM -0600 2/13/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
> >
> > C'da,
> > >*** It will be the ultimate of denial
to think that it has NOTHING to do with Assam's sovereignty movement.
> >
> > I can visualize the scene. Trying to deduce logically what could have happened.
> >
> > Mahanta is needlessly murdered by the army, who assumed he had ulfa links.
> > The people in his village knew that he wasn't and that he was innocent.
> > The GOA and the army are nonchallant and did not take steps to inquire/redress the situation
> >
> > People from surrounding villages give support to the Mahantas
> > Politicians (the opposition to the ruling govt.) see this as an opportunity - remember this is election time, and everyone gets into the fray.
> > The ulfa also sees this as a great opportunity to get into this fray (remember Ajit Mahanta is not considered having links with ulfa).
> >
> > The Ulfa calls
for a 12 hour bandh. The AASU (which is at loggerheads with Ulfa) also call for a 12 band for the next day.
> > Both bandhs are going to to be successful. Nothing suceeds like bandhs. Even a normal 'drop of a hat' bandh gets near total success, and this tradegy with a number of people dead is charged with emotions is guaranteed to be a success.
> >
> > If one were to assume that the success of the bandh today (by the ulfa) was because people want a 'free Assam', how would you judge the success of the bandh call by AASU tomorrow?
> > Remember, the AASU position is to work within the Indian Constitution and DOES NOT seek independence.
> >
> > So, if both the bandhs are a success, how can you say that they were the clarion call for independence? The same people observing the bandh cannot be for and against independence, can
they?
> >
> > So, my conclusion, is that the protests/bandhs have nothing to do with Assam's sovereignty, but more to do with the frustrations at an inept GOA and an army that went berserk.
> >
> > But its nice to feel that the bandhs/protests are on your side -:)
> >
> > --Ram
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
