Chandan-da, I have been reading with great curiosity your mails arising
out of Shantikam Hazarikas comments on my questions posted to ULFA on another
online group of Assamese people. I dont wish to join you in a debate on the
exchanges you have been having with Hazarika or others, but I would be grateful
if you let me know:
1. How you deduced that my questions to ULFA were constructive (as you put it,
So, even though you have been evading the points I raised, you can correct
yourself, and tell us, that Utpal's ploy was not a constructive one).
2. I had asked ULFA some stratightforward questions, and HAD given the reasons
why I was asking them. I am not sure if you saw / have seen the questions while
questioning the motive behind them, because I have posted them on another group
and on this group it just took off on the basis of Hazarikas comments. (I am
also not sure if you are a member of the other group, since you have not
participated in the debate on the other group, though you have said in this
forum As I wrote earlier, Utpal's questions were virtually the same as those
posed to this writer by Chittaranjan in May of this year.)
3. How did you arrive at the conclusion that the questions were an
inquisition and an interrogator's talking points, and that it was not
designed to have a SINCERE DIALOGUE?
4. If the ULFA dispatcher might have been farther handicapped by not being
in on ULFA's policy making or communicating team (I would like to know how you
arrived at that conclusion, or whether you are privy to some inside information
on this, since Ruby Bhuyan is a member of ULFAs central publicity committee,
as is mentioned in the ULFA press release emails), s/he should have told me
that. My questions were not directed at him/her, but at the ULFA, so s/he could
have taken some time maybe even collecting all the questions of all varieties
(pro/anti/whatever) from more questioners and come up with an overall response
from the leadership, the one which makes the policies. If the ULFA dispatcher
is not part of ULFAs policy making or communication team, n that context,
there is no use in sending any question to ULFA through Ruby Bhuyan
5. ULFA, for your kind information, did not even attempt to reply to a single
question in a straightforward manner it just inserted some words in different
colours, adding some caustic comments and remarks. I would have appreciated if
it had replied to my questions even if it had been in the manner you had argued
with Chittaranjan Pathak. I am not sure if you have seen the so-called reply
before questioning my motive.
6. Since you say you do not speak for ULFA and am NOT PRIVY to
its policy-making, would not it be better if ULFA talks directly to all of us?
with regards,
Utpal Borpujari
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 08:52:39 -0500
From: Chan Mahanta
Subject: Re: [Assam] What a response!!
To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the
world
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Is the debate worth the hurt feelings it is causing?
Personally, I don't have any problem with anyone calling me names or
personally attacking me. My feelings could not be hurt by people who
make fun of me or my views. Those who indulge in it, really expose
their own inability to articulate a coherent response, much less a
credible one.
But I do realize, that those whose feelings are founded on how others
perceive them and if they end up being presented in an unflattering
light for what they say or imply, that might cause humiliation,
anger,
lashing out with personal attacks, parodying and caricaturing,
attributing manufactured quotes and such other less than honorable
or mature reactions.
But there is a good way to prevent it: It requires a bit i of careful
thinking before shooting off one's mouth in anger or annoyance.
Do we need to continue the discussions and debates? Absolutely.
Just because a majority of the participants here sing the chorus of
Assam's continued servitude, does not make it the last word. Silence
merely helps shove the dirt, the issues, under the rug, and does not
lead either to thinking critically, nor informing that vast majority
of the audience who observe in a silence. While the term
'sovereignty' is an easy pill to reject for the nay-sayers, it has
ingredients that everyone needs to look at and decide if they are NOT
needed for their well-being. That is why it is of critical
importance, for the able and the willing, to analyze and examine them
and let the chips fall where they may.
>What amazes me is how the big group that is against is allowing the
>two to rile them up.
*** I explained that a number of times, didn't I ? Hard to accept
that however, isn't it :-)?
> Differences will always exist, and it is also a great quality to
>agree to disagree and move on.
*** That will be a very simplistic conclusion, to agree to disagree
and move on, particularly on THIS issue of enormous importance to
Assam's present and its future. We all have a stake in its many
ramifications.
>As for debating on facts, It does not seem to stick, on this subject.
*** I don't get it. But if I agree we cannot depend upon "FACTS",
since there is no telling how trustworthy the facts presented might
be. That is why I always resort to looking at the basic principles.
At 7:42 PM -0700 10/5/07, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote:
>Gentlemen,
>I am sorry to say that it is degenerating into personal attack. Is
>there a need to continue it?
>let's stop and count how many are arguing for Assam's sovereignty in
>this net and how many are against. I count two for (not counting
>Rubi Bhuyan), and many against. What amazes me is how the big group
>that is against is allowing the two to rile them up. Is the big
>group trying to reach unanimity? Differences will always exist, and
>it is also a great quality to agree to disagree and move on.
>As for debating on facts, It does not seem to stick, on this
>subject. It looks like a cat and mouse game.
>Is the debate worth the hurt feelings it is causing? I have my
>doubts. How about you?
>Dilip Deka
>=======================================================
>Shantikam Hazarika wrote:
>
>Next time whenever any one has a query, the questioner would have to
>qualify each question with the rationale behind each question. I think
>I would give your argument to the Students' Union so that they can
>agitate that in future, every question paper in examinations must have
>a page explaining what the question setter had in mind while setting
>the question.
>
>Wah.....When you have no answers to Uttam's questions, you first
>insist what is the purpose without which you are not willing to
>answer.
>
>> But I' will give you one more chance to redeem yourself. We all make
>> bad decisions every now and then. So, even though you have been
>> evading the points I raised, you can correct yourself, and tell us,
> > that Utpal's ploy was not a constructive one. A far better one would
>> have been to engage in a sincere DIALOGUE, of give and take; ask,
>> answer and vice-versa.
>
>I have much more important and better things to do than to redeem
>myself before you. Our purpose was a DIALOGUE, and that too of the
>"sincere" variety and the best way we could have started was by
>seeking answers to questions that are plaguing the minds of most
>"educated", "middle class" Assamese people. You took the
>responsibility of holding the fort on their behalf while, as it seems,
>they have scooted, leaving you to hold the baby. Well, you deserve our
>pity, which we extend in unbound lots.
>
>Its not that we did not get all the answers. One we got right from the
>horse's mouth was the boundary of the "Independent Assam", where
>curiously Bangladesh did not feature. Is it because the "Independent
>Assam" you are extolling would be a part of Bangladesh, so how does it
>matter?
>
>Second answer YOU gave was that the purpose behind all the mayhem,
>disturbance of peace, killing of innocent daily labourers, is to
>liberate Assam......obviously from the poor people who are being
>regularly killed, or to liberate Assam from peace and tranquility in
>which case it may be difficult to sustain the comfort zones in which
>the leaders (and their cohorts) are dwelling?
>
>Lot of netters have patience, I being sixty, do not have it. Also, time.
>
>Shantikam hazarika
>
>
>
>On 10/5/07, Chan Mahanta wrote:
>> Dear Hazarika:
>>
>>
>> I am sorry that you , a well educated man, a pillar of your society,
>> is unable to deal with a very simple
>> issue:
>>
>> *** Why can't Utpal or yourself, or anybody else, are able
>> to tell us what objective they had?
>> Why can't you admit the truth with the COURAGE of your convictions?
>>
>> Not that it is a secret. Anyone with half a working brain can
>> see right thru it. And if it was not
>> so, and had a more honorable objective, you and a bunch of
>> others here in this forum
>> would have come out baying for my blood, for having the
>> temerity to doubt the
>> inquisitors' integrity. They have NOT, only because they can't.
>>
>>
>> And if you all had a good explanation, you would have come
>> out swinging, telling the world
>> how wrong I am in suggesting that a reasonable person could
>> have concluded that Utpal's
>> AIM was not solely for proving ULFA wrong and devalue their
>> goals, and that they had
>> no intention of engaging in a DIALOGUE, just an inquisition.
>>
>>
>> But I' will give you one more chance to redeem yourself. We all make
>> bad decisions every now and then. So, even though you have been
>> evading the points I raised, you can correct yourself, and tell us,
>> that Utpal's ploy was not a constructive one. A far better one would
>> have been to engage in a sincere DIALOGUE, of give and take; ask,
>> answer and vice-versa.
>>
>> The choice is yours.
>>
>> Best regards.
>>
>> m
>>
>> PS: I take all your accusations, wild and sad as they are, in good
>> humor, and hold absolutely no hard feelings.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 6:30 AM +0530 10/5/07, Shantikam Hazarika wrote:
>> >I am not willing to get into an exercise of explaining the rainbow to
>> >the blind.
>> >If you do not have answers to the questions, just keep quiet, unless
>> >you have been appointed to deflect the main issues. It seems they have
>> >already run away from the filed, leaving their ilks of you to hold the
>> >illegitimate baby.
>> >Or, is it that you already know they do not have the answers or are
>> >not capable of answering legitimate questions which any normal human
>> >being would like to ask?
>> >
>> >BTW Mahanta, if you are thinking that I am trying to reach out to
>> >those whose apologist you are, forget about it, Frankly I have no time
>> >like you to split hairs and develop my mastery of deflection. You have
>> >time, go ahead, from your comfort zone, what else can you do?
>> >Shantikam Hazarika
>> >
>> >On 10/4/07, Chan Mahanta wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> But levity aside, allow me ask you and other wise folks once more, IF
>> >> Utpal's aim was merely to assert that ULFA 's aims have no
>>validity, WHY on
>> >> earth does he or his fan club need Ruby Bhuyan or whoever to answer
> > >> anything?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> They already know they are right and ULFA is wrong. They can go right on
>> >> with their monologs as some of our friends do right here in assamnet with
>> >> the pomposity and certitude of God himself.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Am I spinning here? Is it an irrelevant question? An
>>unreasonable one? One
>> >> designed to obfuscate and muddy some higher truths?
>> >> Tell us H. Go right ahead and mince no words. Educate us.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >AIM of GOALS , what a fantastically creative phrase. Frankly I have come
>> >> across this phrase for the first >time in my life.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> *** Sorry H, but conveniently cut and pasted words of mine to
>>devalue what
>> >> I wrote does not rescue your sinking effort here. I wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "What is missing from the exercises is a rudimentary element of
>> >> AIM of GOALS. "
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I did however miss the comma between the two. That I remain
>>guilty of. But
>> >> to attempt to use that bit of typo, or solecism if you prefer, is riskier
>> >> than groping at straws, won't you think?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > If one has beliefs, one must be ready to face INQUISITIONS.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ****Is that your best argument here H?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Good sermon, I am sure. But you need a flock to listen to it. I
>>may be off
>> >> the wall here, but somehow I get this feeling that ULFA is not
>>about to make
>> >> a beeline to listen to or pay heed to your sermon. What do you think?
>> > >
>> >>
>> >> BTW, the meaning of the word INQUISITION, as you understand it
>>and use it in
>> >> "---that we did not subject the leaders to frequent inquisitions," is NOT
>> >> what it is. If you look it up, you will know that it means: A rigorous,
>> >> harsh, interrogation, one that disregards the privacy rights,
>>feelings etc.
>> >> of the target. One that does not allow the target to ask questions, one
>> >> sided inquiry.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Therefore, had you attempted to subject them to your 'inquisition', the
>> >> results might have been less than what you have hoped for. Just like it
>> >> won't work with ULFA today . To disregard it merely displays
>>one's delusion,
>> >> that's all.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>*************************************************************************************************************
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> > >
>> >> At 10:53 PM +0530 10/3/07, shantikam hazarika wrote:
>> >> What a wonderful deflection from the main issue. Chandan Mahanta, you are
>> >> really a master at it. If there is a Nobel equivalent, I would strongly
>> >> recommend you for the same.
>> >> Poor Utpal. I am sure he, and many like him, have been itching
>>to ask them
>> >> some questions which are lurking in the minds of almost all
>>Assamese people.
>> >> He got a chance and asked them, in plain, straight forward
>>English language,
>> >> without any ambiguity. So, attack his "design" in asking these questions,
>> >> since, frankly, they and their sympathisers have no answers.
>> >>
>> >> I remember, in one of the seminars organised by the students of the Assam
>> >> Institute of Management on Assam's current critical problems, Sanjib
>> >> Sabhapandit used a curious phrase: "Don't intellectualise
>>Assam's problems."
>> >> Well, here we are seeing an effort to intellectualise even
>>simple and honest
>> >> queries to those who seem to have solutions to Assam's problems.
>> >>
>> >> No one in Assam is quite clear as to what these people are
>>fighting for. A
>> >> large number of the people of Assam believe that there is a big
>>nexus that
>> >> sustains them, that they are anything but revolutionaries, and when
>> >> opportunities are provided to them to justify their actions,
>>they run away
>> >> and leave it to people like Chandan mahanta, ensconced in the
>>middle of the
>> >> USA, to obfuscate the issues on their behalf. This is indeed a gem:
>> >> Quote
>> >> Where is the ORDINARY integrity expected of the intelligentsia
>>here, if one
>> >> can misuse the English word under the circumstances? The sincerity of
>> >> purpose?
>> >> It is obvious that those who consider themselves the 'educated'
>>and'wise',
> > >> unlike ULFA, and who parade around wearing the garbs of
>pillars-of society
>> >> do not think so and thus the eloquent outpourings of
=== message truncated ===
---------------------------------
For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month._______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
