At 11:19 AM -0600 5/22/07, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
In this age of pre-emptive this and pre-emptive that, this quote by
C'da is precious.
>*** I do have sympathy for ALL victims of discrimination. But NOT
all such victims' miseries are equal. >Therefore I CHOOSE who to
raise my voice for or against, since I cannot be a defender of ALL
victims >that need help.
While, it is true, that we can and often do try and defend victims
that need help and whose interests often mesh with our own, there
are some situations where in some of the posts we are egged on to
support a victim here and a victim there.
*** Perhaps that is not a credo of the fair and balanced crowd , but
if we go cry over all the wrongs of the world, what are the chances
anyone will be listening? I have not seen any of the fair and the
balanced crowd shedding tears over Darfur or East Timor or Kashmir or
Kakopothar .
>Some good examples we recently came across:
Netters were exhorted (forget the petition part ) to lend support to
the ULFA wives in search of their >husbands.
*** In a forum whose entire being is to foster discussions about
Assam, one might think it is an issue worth bringing up. Of course we
know how the fair and the balanced would respond. But that is no
reason NOT to. Because there are those who DO care.
>
Essentially "taking sides". Is taking sides all that bad?
*** Is it?
The other question that percolates to the mind is whatever happened
to 'fairplay' ?
*** Judged 'fair' according to who?
Whether some attrocity is perpetrated on ULFA cadres or the army or
police or the general public, >shouldn't there rise above all the
din, a sense of fairplay?
*** I don't know that anyone is prohibited from doing so. But there
IS a difference between the immensely powerful army of the worlds
largest 'democracy' , armed with AFSPA, terrorizing defenseless
villagers and meting out summary justice at will and a rag-tag band
of insurgents fighting
a for freedom from that power.
So ALL violence are NOT EQUAL.
Should we bother about such clutters, and just take sides based on
our socio-political beliefs? Would >that suffice?
*** Isn't that what we see here in assamnet? Have we ever seen any
different? And WHY should *I* abandon MY own sense of what is right
in Assam's conflicts. Or for that matter Ram? We should try to
explain, WHY our individual views are the right ones. That educates
the uninformed and the fence-sitters. But again, declaring GoI will
never accept this or that, or wishing ULFA away by calling it names
doers not do that. The able amongst us ought to try and rise above
that.
I asked GoI supporters, a number of times WHY Assam should remain
a subservient colony to be exploited by Indian interests, or WHY it
is good for India to hold on to Assam or for that matter Kashmir?
I don't recall any explanation that camer from the GoI supporters
here. Was it hard ? I know it is a lot easier to say GoI won't
accepot this or that. But what about those supporters' PERSONAL
views? What do THEY recommend?
On my part, when asked by Sandip, I did not beat around the bush and
gave my answer.
Some good examples we recently came across:
Netters were exhorted (forget the petition part ) to lend support to
the ULFA wives in search of their husbands.
Or enquired why the Indian army was given a pass (for its
attrocities) while the ulfa was condemned roundly.
Why netters were not upset over the Bhutan raid on Ulfa?
Or some states like Assam called to question for its performance,
while others were let off.
There were also examples of other netters doing the same things (but
opposite) -
Why ulfa supporters were not condemning frequent ulfa bombings?
Asked why the killings of the Dhemaji children were Not condemned by all?
Condemn the ulfa, but not the army or the GOI in cherry-picked situations.
Essentially "taking sides". Is taking sides all that bad?
Now, a statement like C'da's above comes in really handy in tight
situations. All one has to do is say - well I understand, etc etc,
but I have already lent support this or that cause - can't
support/defend all the people all the time.
The other question that percolates to the mind is whatever happened
to 'fairplay' ? Whether some attrocity is perpetrated on ULFA cadres
or the army or police or the general public, shouldn't there rise
above all the din, a sense of fairplay? Should we bother about such
clutters, and just take sides based on our socio-political beliefs?
Would that suffice?
Lastly, I just want to clear this up. I took C'da's quote ONLY as an
example and 'test case'. I have on occassion taken these same
'pre-emptive' avenues (even though, I haven't articulated as such).
Other netters have too. :)
Just meandering thoughts!
--Ram
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
