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
