>From the email below - "Incidentally, the April 6 forwarded appeal was neither
>from MASS nor from Assamwatch UK, as far as I can tell. It was an appeal
>from/or on behalf of the fasting ladies."
"On behalf of" is what bothers me. Who made the appeal on behalf of the
ladies? Looks to me either ULFA or an ULFA affiliated group inserted the
"release of the leaders" in the appeal.
If the wives of the missing ULFA men are only in search of the whereabouts of
their men, and if they prepared the appeal themselves, there would be no reason
to include other demands in their appeal.
So, go figure who is using these poor victims as a front.
Dilip Deka
=============================================================
Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ram:
It was my bad . You are right about what I forwarded on April 6.
But THAT was not what I have been responding to during the last three days or
so. It was about the post from assamwatch UK, which was taken issue with by
'asom' list members. I don't recall seeing either MASS( brought into the
equation by Dilip with his acronym) or assamwatch uk, both HR orgs., mixing up
the two issues.
And on the April 6 post, I made the following, specific introduction:
"I would like to think, assamnetters would support the struggle of these
ladies who are seeking information on their husbands' whereabouts, if they are
dead or alive; regardless of whether they support or sympathize with ULFA ?
It will also be interesting to hear how netters feel about the GoI's refusal
to submit to the High Court's orders on the matter."
If I remember correctly netters gave the request a WIDE BERTH :-).
Incidentally, the April 6 forwarded appeal was neither from MASS nor from
Assamwatch UK, as far as I can tell. It was an appeal from/or on behalf of the
fasting ladies.
c-da
At 3:14 PM -0600 5/10/07, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
C'da
I will take this one portion of your response right now. For the rest, I
will have to respond later.
Me: >>The best thing to do (for those who are really interested in helping
these ulfa wives) is NOT to bring in
>>unrelated demands like bring ulfa to the table for tals, or release so & so
>from jail etc.
You:
*** That is an entirely different issue. Neither Assamwatch nor MASS have
attempted to mix the two.
At least I don't recall seeing any such thing. It is of your making. And of
those who were railing against
assamwatch's efforts to shame India in front of the civilized world by
publicizing GoIs despicable stonewalling on the matter.
It was the making of those who were questioning why these women should be
given that info. or questioning
their judgement and/or motives in marrying ULFA cadres in the most infantile
manner one can imagine.
I have seen some pretty despicable things from our fellow men.
But speculating on these women's motives as to WHY they married the men they
did was about
one of the lowest I have seen thus far.
_______________________________________________________ Below is a relevant
portion of what you forwarded on April 6th
They demanded that:
(a) the custodial disappearances of their husbands and others following
the infamous 'Operation All-Clear' in December 2003 be addressed by the highest
authorities of the land;
(b) peaceful resolution to the Indo-Assam conflict; and
(c) the unconditional release of the ULFA leaders in jail, which remains
a key to ensuring a just resolution to the impasse in the possibility of talks
between the government of India and the armed opposition group.
These three demands simply reiterate the basic tenets of democracy and
justice in the quest for a peaceful resolution to armed conflict. The
protesting women are demanding answers from India's political classes who tend
to forget that their celebrated democracy does not extend to the people of
Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura and other states of the so-called Northeast.
_____________________________________________
So, all signatories (that you appealed to) would be effectively signing
for (b) & (c) above EVEN if they may have agreed to some portions of (a) above.
IMHO, (b) & (c) and portions of (a) have nothing to do with any resolutions
that these women seek regarding their husbands' whereabouts. So, it is no
figment of my imagination and nor did I make it up as you indicate.
>But speculating on these women's motives as to WHY they married the men
they did was about
>one of the lowest I have seen thus far.
I DID NOT make any such statement. Don't know who did. --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
