Dear BK:
Glad you responded :-).
>Chandan,I am
afraid you've little conception of even the best democracy at
work.
*** Obviously I don't. But then again, I just might know its
pitfalls all too well.
>Democracy is not
the best form of government. Democracy is supposed to be a
government of the people. In practice >decisions are always taken
by one person, perhaps two. There are indeed charismatic leaders
who can organise >and lead. And the rest have to follow
like sheep. That is normal. There are of course
exceptions.
*** But regardless of MY naivete about the real workings
of democracy, I must ask those who do know the sordid truths about
democracy: Why do they wave it around the way they do?
Here I will let you in on a little secret, which you, and perhaps
others have so far missed: I bring this 'demokrasy' thingie up,
--to be precise the desi variety, every time I get a chance, to rub it
in on my compatriots on how it is has been reduced to a joke, if not
entirely corrupted and degenerated.
I just hope, it has registered enough on those who bandy it
around not to invoke it like they do, now that YOU have told us the
truth, even if only inadvertently.
*** Having gotten over that part, allow me now to ask you, and
others with enough integrity to admit to democracy's limitations, IF
it is ACCEPTABLE for the intelligentsia of a state like Assam, for
even its colonial rulers or despotic dictators to, unilaterally,
without advice and consent of the people, CHANGE the state's name, in
this day and age ? Never mind about that supposedly
"democratically elected" govt. which has done so.
>Characterization of
what? Not surely for a filmscript or the outline for a Booker Prize
winner.
*** I don't know if Rajen has been angling for a Booker prize,
but even if he hasn't, I can IMAGINE that it was one of a number of
ways one uses language to draw attention to, to underscore, a
point.
The fact that it got under your skin BK :-), proves that his
words were effective. Oh, I realize that it won't PERSUADE you. But I
am sure Rajen has already realized that. Had he not, he might not have
used them they way he did.
*** Personally, the 'kharkhowa' attribute does not at all bother
me. In fact I consider it a term of endearment.
But I do take issue with the "lahe-lahe" epithet, when
it is INTENDED to denigrate the entire Assamese 'jaati' as a RUSE to
deny its sovereignty aspirations or to shield Indian
exploitation.
>Chandra Prasad Saikia was a past President of Asam Sahitya Sabha and had outstanding literary contribution as I understand.I don't think Chandra Prasad Saikia
>deserves such an
irreverent treatment.
*** This is your weakest argument here BK. I don't know either NS
or CPS. Literature has never been an interest of mine. However, had
CPS been even the first Kharkhowa Nobel Laureate, it still would NOT
shield him from the issue in point: The promotion of "Asom"
as a way to transliterate Oxom or substitute Assam; because it DEFIES
ordinary logic.
A person can be an undisputed genius in one field, or even ten,
but still might be a mere mortal in that eleventh, and thus open to
challenges and criticisms.
Just because Rajen criticized or even denigrated
CPS' promoting of ASOM, does not, in any way, shape or form, devalue
CPS' legitimate contributions to whatever field he contributed
to.
In that,feelings of hurt, for a person of your caliber and
abilities, does not come off as a persuasive reason for discarding
Rajen's presentation and its logic in the matter. It sounds
disturbingly like a very weak alibi.
Best regards.
c
At 1:22 PM -0400 10/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The "denigration" that you refer to is not a denigration at all, but a characterization employed to explain the uncritical acceptance of the diktats of authority and authority figures and acquiescence to trampling of democratic principles.
I was so incensed by Rajen's rejoinder that expletives dropped off my lips involuntarily. I said to myself: Cool down, Bhuban, there is no use pumping your adrenalin just to stop dead for crap.
I do not object to the substance of what he has so painstakingly tried to prove.
Chandan,I am afraid you've little conception of even the best democracy at work. Democracy is not the best form of government. Democracy is supposed to be a government of the people. In practice decisions are always taken by one person, perhaps two. There are indeed charismatic leaders who can organise and lead. And the rest have to follow like sheep. That is normal. There are of course exceptions.
And sorry to say this,in spite of your strong advocacy of principles, you too are one the sheep like the rest of us. It is easy to criticise without self-analysis. An ex-Chancellor of West Germany in his memoirs has described George Bush as a Christian fundamentalist who attacked Iraq. Did you protest ? Did your Democratic Senators protest? Did the MPs of UK Parliament protest? Yes, there were protesters, even the Prime Minister's deputy who of course resigned in protest. Most European allies of the UK did not support UK in this war.
I can elaborate these points further. I thiink this should do because in theory what you say is right; the ideal I mean.
Now the characterization part. To save space, I am not quoting this portion from Rajen's letter. Characterization of what? Not surely for a filmscript or the outline for a Booker Prize winner. I concede the 'kharkhowas' are what he says. We are not proud of it. But so are the Italians and many other nations. Let me quote from Bill Bryson's 1991 edition of Neither Here Nor There which I am reading at the moment:
"They don't queue, they don't pay their taxes, they don't turn up for their appointments on time, they don't underake any sort of labour without a small bribe, they don't believe in rules at all. ...........At the time of my visit, the Italians were working their way through their forty-eight government in forty-five years. The country has the social structure of a banana republic,yet the amazing thing is that it thrives. It is now the fifth biggest economy in the world, which is simply a staggering achievement in the face of such chronic disorder. If they had the work ethics of the Japanese they could be the masters of the planet. Thank goodness they haven't."
He mentioned Chandra Prasad Saikia and Dr Nagen Saikia. I did not know the former but the latter I know very well. Chandra Prasad Saikia was a past President of Asam Sahitya Sabha and had outstanding literary contribution as I understand.I don't think Chandra Prasad Saikia
deserves such an irreverent treatment.
Rajen ought not to worry. He had done a little research and circumstances permitting he would also be consulted in the matter, only that his staure has not grown as yet to the level of either Dr Nagen Saikia or late Chandra Prasad Saikia.
Another point. It is very easy to comment on the apathy of the masses or the intelligentsia to any specific issue. The tragedy is that the very proponents of ther principles do not live up to their ideals.According to the social scientists this apathy is most conspicuous in the case of people like us who like to see others do the job for them which they like to read in their morning newspapers. Physician! Heal thyself!
Best regards
Bhuban
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
