C'da,
I kept the best for last.
>So, how can you categorically say he is NOT for peace but his agenda is to disrupt the process.
What 'agenda' the writer has, we have no idea. But assuming, as you say, that he is wanting to disrupt the peace process, where, can you point out exactly has he given himself away? And even if does have one, do we also thrash his points? He did seem to make a ggod case (a) on the release of the leaders and (b) on the ULFA's dependence on the ISI and the B'deshis. Now, before you jump at the 'lungi menace' thing, it is very simple - the Pakis and the B'deshis don't have the best interests for India, and groups like the ULFA have in my mind aligned themselves with the wrong crowd.
If the ULFA were to 'ignore' the release of its leaders, and sit down face to face with the GOI, wouldn't the process continue?
>IF it is MORE important for GoI, with help from the letter writer and his fellow doubters, including >the Sentinel, to continue to INCARCERATE the ULFA leaders, and thus RISK torpedoing the peace->negotiation prospects?
Is the release more important for the GOI or for the ULFA? I read somewhere (I think the Sentinel or AT), that in this day and age, it is very easy for those incarcerated to still be a part of the process thru teleconferencing or even have them attend and taken back to prison or release them depending on the outcome of the negotiations.
BTW: The GOI, when it caught these leaders had no inkling of a possible peace process. What are the reasons you see that they ought to be released now. I am sure the GOI must have lost some soldiers when they captured them. In the eyes of the GOI these incarcerated individuals are anti-national elements involved in a variety of crimes. They were not caught just because they were jay walking, but because they were waging a war against the Union.
So, in their eyes, they are not only criminals wanted by the state, but once released they may go about their usual business of fighting the union and killing a few more Indian soldiers. Further they also could be a bargaining chip in negotiations, but the Center would really look stupid if they were to flee once again. The Center will definitely try and get the best bargain. Don't you think so - if you were in the Center's shoes?
>As I read the letter and your responses, it appears to me that you all do indeed believe it IS more important >to incarcerate them. Because who knows, they may never return, like Anup Chetia? Just look at the >awesome arguments above!
Actually, you are wrong. No, ofcourse, it is NOT more important than the peace process. But then, I am not the GOI or speak for them. I am just giving you possible reasons why the Center is hesitant. A possible scenario may be that the Center releases them, they flee, the ULFA breaks negotiations, take a breather, and everything is back to square one - Kay Sara, Sara. Why would the Center set itself up?
Further, true revolutionaries, would bravely ask the Center to do what it needs to under its laws with regard to to the jailed leaders. If the ULFA were to sit across the table, thrash out a negotiation, and if everthing went OK, why would NOT those jailed be realeased.
Will that happen? I doubt it. This negotiation side show is just that. I seriously doubt, either the ULFA or the Center is gung-ho about 'peace'. With the GOI, its military advisors seem against any peace moves. On the ULFA side, it seems illogical for it to give up something that its been at it for 25 + years?
Whatever will it do, if there suddenly, was peace?
Peace is only good for the comman man - but then who cares about them? :-)
--Ram
On 9/4/06, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ram:
I am sure your being neutral to a fault and being unbiased in these matters have been responsible for being able to read the REAL meaning of the letter in question, namely the writer's purported desire for a negotiated solution for bringing back peace to Assam.
But, being as language challenged as I am and being the biased person I am, I failed to read it as such.
So let us look at it once more. Perhaps you will be able to help us see the light here and read into the "essence of the letter", so that it could not be diluted by spinning of the partisans here. And to give you a hand, allow me to ask about what stumps me, and you can then 'splain:
*** WHAT, did you read as the MAIN POINT/s, the OBJECTIVE of the letter, the ESSENCE that is?
>The writer obviously has no trust in Ulfa's promises.
*** Is that the ESSENCE?
>So, how can you categorically say he is NOT for peace but his agenda is to disrupt the process.
*** I know, it is hard to see. I will explain that once again. But after you cleared things up for me.
>The question you and others should answer is whether the release of some ULFA is more >important than peace in Assam?
*** Forget about me Ram. You know I am biased. But I have to ask you and other unbiased, neutral people yearning for peace, IF it is MORE important for GoI, with help from the letter writer and his fellow doubters, including the Sentinel, to continue to INCARCERATE the ULFA leaders, and thus RISK torpedoing the peace-negotiation prospects?
>What answer do the peace committees have to the jailed ULFA leaders jumping out of parole if released? >Are the peace committee members ready to undergo imprisonment and serve the remaining jail term on >behalf of the released leaders?
As I read the letter and your responses, it appears to me that you all do indeed believe it IS more important to incarcerate them. Because who knows, they may never return, like Anup Chetia? Just look at the awesome arguments above!
I will also have a follow up after I get your explanation here.
>The unconditional release of those five jailed terrorists at this time will conclusively prove that either some >top Indian bureaucrats are lured by the ULFA's money power, or that some top Indian politicians >deliberately want to keep the ULFA issue alive for ever.
*** Again I read: GoI MUST NOT RELEASE the ULFA leaders! What do you read Ram?
And if you read as I do, what does it REALLY mean?
You WILL explain, wouldn't you?.
c-da :-)
PS: BTW, Ram, if you didn't know, spinning out of control has its down-sides. It destroys credibility.
At 12:31 PM -0500 9/3/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:I don't C'da,I look at the letter from a different point of view.The writer obviously has no trust in Ulfa's promises.Look at what he writes:What has happened that the ULFA is desperately pressurizing the Centre for the release of its five comrades? It cannot be for reasons of peace, because till today extortions in upper Asom are in full swing. If the outfit is actually so keen to set the stage for peace talks, let it sit for the first round of talks without the jailed leaders participating in the talks. This will clearly show that their emphasis is on peace rather than the release of jailed terrorists.So, how can you categorically say he is NOT for peace but his agenda is to disrupt the process. Whats that going to do for him. Regarding the release for its leaders, ULFA doesn't seem to have a good track record. The last time Chetia was released, then he took off - so why would the GOI buy into this again?>Now why would a mature, responsible, supposedly 'respected' newspaper >publish a piece like that? For the public good? For bringing about peace to >Assam?Would you want the Sentinel only publish letters/editorials that only support the ULFA? Are you advocating some kind of censorship? You, yourself have posted several letters/editorial that support views that somewhat support Ulfa's position (from the Sentinel). I think they are balanced in their approach. Your frustration should be with the author of the letter as opposed to the newspaper itself. And the author of the letter is not important, but he does make some good points.Everyone wants peace in Assam. The thing that many doubt is whether the ULFA is serious about it and are willing to get to the negotiating table directly with the GOI.The question you and others should answer is whether the release of some ULFA is more important than peace in Assam? I think once the ULFA and GOI sit face to face, the 5 jailed ULFA will be released. It is ultimately in GOI's interest to solve the Assam insurgency problem, once and for all - it costs men and treasure, and stalls economic development for a state which was in need for one yesterday.--Ram
On 9/2/06, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ram:
Let us examine the 'essence' of this gem of a 'letter' :
To that we need to determine what the PURPOSE of the letter is.Without a doubt it is to PREVENT from GoI giving in to ULFA demands for release of their senior cadres. And since ULFA has made it a cornerstone of their conditions for entering negotiations, the motive of the letter could be clearly established as to torpedo any such peace negotiation.
The piece questions the "need" for ULFA's demands for release of their top cadres. And the writer no doubt knows best, what ULFA's needs are. Why should anyone NEED their comrades' release from prison? They can go to 'o peace-talks' anytime they want to? What prevents them from surrendering?
Powerful logic no doubt! No wonder it touched a chord :-).
The piece is full of taunts. Why does one resort to taunting? Could it be toENCOURAGE ULFA to come to the negotiating table? Or could be because the writeris frustrated by ULFA, and not having a clue to doing anything about it constructively, resorts to taunting?Is it the sign of a mature, thinking man, looking out for Assam's welfare, or is it the ranting of someone whose real interests is in asserting his own righteousness, his own ability to read the tea-leaves better than all those 'fools' who are attempting to have a negotiated settlement of the conflict and a return to peace in Assam?
You tell us.
Now why would a mature, responsible, supposedly 'respected' newspaper publish a piece like that? For the public good? For bringing about peace to Assam?
If ULFA/GOI peace negotiations are good for Assam, and if I remember correctly the Sentinel professed that is is indeed good, then should it be participating in promoting the agenda of those, such as this letter writer, who obviously do not want that to happen, for whatever reason he harbors?
Or could it be that the newspaper's own journalistic credentials or its maturity are questionable ?
You tell us.
c-da
At 3:14 PM -0500 9/1/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
Last updated : SATUR DAY 2 SEPTEMBER 2006Of Five Jailed ULFA Leaders
Why is the ULFA showing such desperation for the release of its five jailed comrades? Is it to enable it to have full-house discussion on the peace process? In other words, do they want us to believe that having terrorized the masses for 27 long years, they are suddenly in such a tearing hurry to give it up? Or have they suddenly developed love for their homeland Asom and hatred for Bangladesh? Has the ULFA suddenly become tired of raising millions of rupees by extortions and kidnappings, or has it suddenly realized the futility of money? Have Paresh Baruah and Arabinda Rajkhowa become saints overnight, realizing that all their guns and gold will be of no use in their last morbid journey on four shoulders and a yard of white cloth?
What has happened that the ULFA is desperately pressurizing the Centre for the release of its five comrades? It cannot be for reasons of peace, because till today extortions in upper Asom are in full swing. If the outfit is actually so keen to set the stage for peace talks, let it sit for the first round of talks without the jailed leaders participating in the talks. This will clearly show that their emphasis is on peace rather than the release of jailed terrorists.
Secondly, in this age of hi-tech gadgets, Paresh Baruah and Arabinda Rajkhowa can talk, see and discuss with all their jailed comrades through video-conferencing. For such discussions, it is not at all necessary to escort their friends from jails to Bangladesh in a chartered flight.Thirdly, the ULFA team can land at New Delhi for peace talks and the jailed comrades can be flown there to join their leaders. After the talks, the jailed comrades can be flown back to Guwahati.But the ULFA will never agree to any of the above modalities. It will insist on the jailed leaders' flight to Bangladesh. But why? This is so because their release is more important than peace in Asom. To understand this simple logic, one does not have to be a security analyst or a counterinsurgency expert.Today, the ULFA is a dying organization without any leadership. They desperately need to have their top leaders back. Their demoralized cadres can achieve nothing except throwing a few grenades here and there, or deliver extortion notes to innocent, unarmed civilians. Moreover, the lower-rung cadres are now much wiser, refusing to risk their lives for nothing except ensuring luxurious lifestyle for their top leaders. They can see through the false revolutionary ideology as the ULFA's, and the theory of ''xonar Asom" holds no attraction or conviction.
The ULFA desperately needs its top leaders not only to motivate their grassroots-level cadres, but also to check their fading mutiny - the lower-rung cadres are impatient and ready to revolt against their top leaders. Naturally then, it is only the release of those five jailed ULFA leaders that can control the mutiny and revive the sagging morale of the lower-rung cadres.
What answer do the peace committees have to the jailed ULFA leaders jumping out of parole if released? Are the peace committee members ready to undergo imprisonment and serve the remaining jail term on behalf of the released leaders?
One must never forget that there is also an ISI angle to the whole picture. Both Paresh Baruah and Arabinda Rajkhowa are fully under the grip of ISI bosses in Bangladesh. The entire business empire of luxury hotels owned by them in Bangladesh are under the control of the ISI. Even their families and their children residing in Bangladesh are under constant ISI vigil. Do the ULFA leaders have the permission of the ISI to sit for direct peace talks with India? Or do the peace committees - whether the PCPI or the PCG or whatever - want us to believe that they have a bigger hold on Paresh Baruah and Arabinda Rajkhowa than the ISI of Pakistan? Will Paresh Baruah and Arabinda Rajkhowa follow the diktats of Rebati Phukan & Co at the risk of losing their own lives, properties and families?
The unconditional release of those five jailed terrorists at this time will conclusively prove that either some top Indian bureaucrats are lured by the ULFA's money power, or that some top Indian politicians deliberately want to keep the ULFA issue alive for ever.
MP Talukdar,
Khaliamari Road,
Dibrugarh.
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
A taunt is a sarcastic remark, challenge, or insult intended to provoke a response of some kind from the one it is directed at. It can be compared to fighting words and trash-talk.
The act of taunting can be learned by observation and improvisation. It usually follows linear thought, correlating or building in some manner to the target of taunting. Things such as the victim's appearance, intelligence, mannerisms, education, background, past offenses, etc. can otherwise be insulted. When used in this manner, the effectiveness of a taunt at provoking a response varies depending on how the specific insult relates to its victim (or their sense of self), to what level of offense they regard the taunt, and how well the victim can control their emotions when responding.
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
