You go on splitting hair, it does not bother me. What you are trying
to say is that ULFA is not in a position to or incapable of enter
into a dialogue or answer questions posed to it.
Unfortunately these questions are being asked by everyone in Assam
and we are perplexed why they cannot answer.
I am not interested in anything else.
Shantikam Hazarika
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 09:31:49 -0500
To: assam@assamnet.org
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Assam] What a response? My Conclusions: PART 1
.ExternalClass blockquote, .ExternalClass dl, .ExternalClass ul,
.ExternalClass ol, .ExternalClass li
{padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;}
I will stay to the main issue in this part, and avoid dealing with
the extraneous issues, which I will try to address in Part 2.
I thank Hazarika for changing his earlier position expressed in the comment
"BTW Mahanta, if you are thinking that I am trying to reach out to
those whose apologist you are, forget about it, "
with the following clarification:
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.
The only things we need to decide now are:
A: Whether the questions posed by Utpal were they designed to
generate a dialogue, of give and take, of understanding each other's
concerns and actions; or subject the ULFA dispatcher to an
inquisition to extract an admission from ULFA, that their goals and
objectives are all bad for Assam, while the inquisitors' ( Utpal's ,
Hazarika's and those I fondly call the "'righteous block's" ) own
notions and beliefs are the right ones?
B: If the ULFA dispatcher did not or could not answer Utpal and
other's interrogations to their satisfaction, whether any
satisfactory or credible answers are at all possible, whether they
exist?
Why this arises is for the simple reason that not everyone amongst
us is capable of articulating a coherent response. It is hardly a
mystery that our communicative skills, by and large, are , shall we
say--a work in progress?
Utpal, a journalist, wrote his piece quite well as an
interrogator's talking points. But was it designed to understand
the whole issue, as a SINCERE DIALOGUE, as Hazarika wants us to
believe?
I will let netters decide that.
It was obvious that the ULFA dispatcher was not someone used to or
experienced in effective written communication. He/she might have
been farther handicapped by not being in on ULFA's policy making
or communicating team.
He is hardly an exception. Most of those of the 'righteous block'
that made fun of Ruby Bhuyan's English language skills would not
fare much higher on the communication skills scale either.
BUT, does that mean, that there can be no good answers to the questions?
I would submit there are. As I wrote earlier, Utpal's questions were
virtually the same as those posed to this writer by Chittaranjan in
May of this year. And I addressed those in considerable detail, in
mY PERSONAL CAPACITY, since I do not speak for ULFA and am NOT
PRIVY to its policy-making .
If anyone is curious enough about it, I will be pleased to revisit
them, as time permits.
Finally, I would ask 'the righteous block' and other netters this again:
Can they seriously expect ULFA to participate in a dialogue, if all
they are interested in is extracting an admission from it that what
they have fought for a quarter century and gave thousands of their
lives, is all WRONG?
At 5:52 AM +0530 10/6/07, 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
disappointment, not to
>> mention the offenses to their genteel sensitivities . Not just that, the
>> self-fulfilling prophecies too of the band of braves indulging
in the "hola
>> gosot baagi kuthar mora" enterprise, justification why their
masters don't
>> talk to them, or should not.
>> unquote
>> AIM of GOALS, what a fantastically creative phrase. Frankly I have come
>> across this phrase for the first time in my life. May I add,
AIM of GOALS of
>> OBJECTIVES?
>>
>> If one has beliefs, one must be ready to face INQUISITIONS. In fact, the
>> mistakes we made during the Assam Movement was that we did
not subject the
>> leaders to frequent inquisitions, which resulted in the
movement being led
>> astray.
>>
>> Apologists, awake, arise and continue to give proxies for those who have
>> lost the way long ago. After all you have nothing to lose.
>>
>> Shantikam Hazarika
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 08:33:27 -0500
>> To: assam@assamnet.org
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: [Assam] What a response!!
>>
>> .ExternalClass blockquote, .ExternalClass dl, .ExternalClass ul,
>> .ExternalClass ol, .ExternalClass li
>> {padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;}
>>
>> Before we pass judgement on the response, we also ought to be
able to judge
>> the QUESTION.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What were the questions posed by Utpal designed to ?
>>
>>
>> To help him and others decide, if what ULFA has been fighting
for, Assam's
>> sovereignty, is a sound and beneficial move for Assam? And
if they are
> > persuaded by ULFA's response that they are sound, Utpal and
others would
>> SUPPORT it?
>>
>>
>> Or were they designed to extract an admission from ULFA, that their own
>> notions and beliefs, that it is
>> patently bad for Assam, never mind HOW or WHY they have concluded that
>> their notions and beliefs are the truly wise and considered opinions?
>>
>>
>> Is it therefore REASONABLE to evaluate INTENT for ULFA before
submitting
> >> itself to the INQUISITION?
>>
>>
>> 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
>disappointment, not to
>> mention the offenses to their genteel sensitivities . Not just that, the
>> self-fulfilling prophecies too of the band of braves indulging
in the "hola
>> gosot baagi kuthar mora" enterprise, justification why their
masters don't
>> talk to them, or should not.
>>
>>
>> What is missing from the exercises is a rudimentary element of AIM of
>> GOALS. Never mind the need to explore the reasons WHY ten thousand plus
>> Oxomiyas have given their lives. No doubt their lives were nearly not as
>> valuable as one Sanjoy Ghosh's.
>>
>>
>> Aimless exercises unfortunately lead to nowhere. With such pillars of
>> society looking after its well-being, one hardly needs enemies
to tear it
>> down.
>>
>>
>> cm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 11:19 AM +0530 10/3/07, shantikam hazarika wrote:
>>
>> It seems that some of us are being branded as part of an
"unhappy gang with
>> their so-called education". And they would be 'selective' in
answering their
>> questions; which means they would only reply to 'sincere'
questions, from
>> 'real questioners' after their 'background check done'.
>>
>> Well, in case they have to do a background check in my case,
let me tell
>> you that my life has been an open book and if a background
check is requird
> >> in my case, it simly shows how much these people are in touch
with reality
>> or the ground situations.
>>
>> Incidentally, let me also tell, that there has been enough background
>> checks done about these people, their cohorts, sympathisers,
beneficiaries,
>> supporters, hangers one and what not. Lot of people already know who
>> benefits from their actions, who are actually propping them
up. For example
>> when they killed Sanjay Ghosh, it did not require much
background check to
>> find out why they did so, what was the nexus behind that
sordid deal and who
>> would be the real losers if Majuli is genuinely saved in a very cost
>> effective manner. Obviously, they are buying time to prepare some
>> obfuscating response, what we may call "saale bere kobowa" reply in the
>> name of background checks and what not.
>>
>> Also they have already said that they would ignore "halfwit
questions and
>> questioners". How more selective can your comfort zone be...
>>
>> Interestingly, I was reading something today and I came across the
>> follwoing phrase: The truth is that many terrorists are doing
very well out
>> of violence. Extortion rackets give them a lifestyle they
cannot aspire in
>> times of peace. They have money, excitement and status: what
more you seek
>> in life?
>>
>> Mantabya nisproyojan.
>>
>>
>> Shantikam Hazarika
>>
>> Director,
>>
>> Assam Institute of Management
>>
>> PO Box 30, GUWAHATI 781001, India
>>
>> HOME PAGE: www.aimguwahati.edu.in
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 17:17:14 +0100
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To: assam@assamnet.org
>> Subject: Re: [Assam] assam Digest, Vol 26, Issue 66
>>
>> To: assamonline
>>
>>
>>
>> ULFA invites genuine sincere questions from persons(not
gangs) not
>> happy with their so-called education ,wanting to KNOW how to
fight and win
>> their great future in sovereign Assam .
>>
>>
>> Firstly we will have background checks done on real (?) questioners.
>> Please tolerate delays.
>>
>> ULFA will ignore halfwit questions and questioners who
think they already
> > > know and are already bonded mentally or monetarily.
>>
>> With Best Regards to respectable Assamonliners,
>>
>> Rubi
>> --------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Call friends with PC-to-PC calling -- FREE Try it now!
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> assam mailing list
>> assam@assamnet.org
>> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Windows Live Spaces is here! It's easy to create your own
personal Web site.
>> Check it out!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> assam mailing list
>> assam@assamnet.org
>> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> > assam mailing list
>> assam@assamnet.org
>> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>assam mailing list
>assam@assamnet.org
>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
Search from any Web page with powerful protection. Get the FREE
Windows Live Toolbar Today! <http://toolbar.live.com/?mkt=en-in>Try
it now!
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
