I don't know whether it is clear or not - Utpal and others seem to have attempted to make it clear - that the real interest is in a response from ULFA.
Even though C-da has articulated A LOT in this forum (I am sure everyone agrees with the that), his articulations do not amount to a response from the esteemed organization. --- Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Utpal: > > I have found what I was looking for. > > > You wrote that you were reading my responses to > SH with a lot of interest. I feel honored, > considering that many tell me they never read > what I write or give a damn. > > > I will attempt to answer your questions, but NOT > as in an inquisition or interrogation, where you > ask the questions and I am required to give the > answers, while "---dont wish to join you in a > debate". > SH also refuses to debate me. I understand he has > no time for such. I like to think that you have > at least a little more time than SH, considering > you put together that exhaustive list of > questions for Rubi Bhuyan. And I have no reason > to think that you all prefer to pick on easy > targets only. > > > > SH declared on your behalf that your > > "--- 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. > > > Taking his word for it, before I give any > answers, would you kindly share with us what the > primary objective of your ( and others' too, if > you share theirs) question/s was/were? > > I ask, because it was not clear. I am no > journalist, just an ol' homespun observer. But I > know from observation, that dedicated and > effective journalists ask questions with an > objective in mind and keep asking, seeking until > they arrive at the objective or find the answers > that help them achieve their objective/s. > > What was your objective, your AIM? > > > After that I propose to engage in a give and > take, ask/answer/follow-up and so forth, as in a > civil dialogue between two mature persons. I > promise not to ask anything personal or call you > names or question your intelligence or integrity, > comment on your language skills and indulge in > other such confrontational or condescending > tactics. If you wish you can appoint one or more > ombudsmen/referees of your choice monitor the > dialogue, but only for form/tenor of the > discussions--not on the subject matter/s. > > Is that a fair deal? > > You are also welcome to have others in your team, > perhaps no more than say two more persons. I > don't want to get into what I termed the other > day a feeding frenzy of scavengers. > > I am hoping that you will not decline on account of > your sixth question below: > > > 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, > > > The answer to that is this: > > Let us assume that ULFA is incapable of > answering your questions, as was concluded > by many of the inquisitors. But that does > not mean these are unanswerable. I can > field those questions. We will let you > and the netters judge how well or how poorly. > > You are interested , after all, in seeing > if these resolvable issues. If I can answer them > satisfactorily, and if ULFA does not have > anyone in its policy-making body capable > of dealing with them, they can always > HIRE me. I will be pleased to help them, > having proven in this forum that I am up > to it. That is the kind of work I do for a living, > as a consultant, solving other people's > problems. And in this era of globalization, where > boundaries of state is an obsolete > concept as you all declared, the fact of my being > an ex-pat ought not to be an issue. > > Shall we ? > > c-da > > > > > > > > > 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 truncated ===> _______________________________________________ > assam mailing list > [email protected] > http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
