*** I never fail to be impressed by people who don't look at assam net posts , yet go to great lengths explaining why or how they end up responding to one that offends their senisibilites. But it is not all necessary, unless one has a need to affirm a superior self image, not given to comisserating with the riff-raff, the apologists, the anti-indians or similarly despicable what-have-yous. That unfortunately paints a rather uinflattering picture of the offended, instead of setting the perceived incorrect perspective straight. Wouldn't it be a whole lot more credible just to be one of the crowd who doesn't agree?
Talking of correcting the perspective,let us look at the arguments presented to uphold and affirm GoI's honor and sincerity, by someone who must matter to or in GoI ( why would someone who doesn't matter even bother to contradict his own firmly declared resolve not to respond to those who do not matter; and that too so unceremoniously in full public view here ?): >> In the situation prevailing, the question of putting preconditions > before starting any discussions should not have arisen. Every one > knows that results cannot be expected in just one discussion. Normally > the first discussion is always to know each other and to determine a > road map that would lead further discussions. *** Very well said. Can't agree more myself. And how does that fit with the public record on WHO would NOT agree to sit for it, and under what conditions? Is there some confusion, some ambiguity? Or are the details buried in a hoary history long faded from public memory? I would netters judge that for themselves. Would also be a good exercise to review one's acuity of recent memory. > But whenever such offers are made in the past, they always found a > convenient way to wriggle out. I remember about a year back, PM > Manmohan Singh wrote to them about having discussions. At that time, > bet amongst us was not whether they would accept the offer or not. We > were dead sure, and we turned out to be right, that they would reject > the offer. We were betting about what wishy washy grounds they would > give to wriggle out. *** From the above account, those who are unfamiliar or are ignorant of the history of the Goi 'offers' for talks, might actually believe that they were unconditional. Were they? And if they were not so, WHAT were those conditions? And would those who bet and must have won, at least in their own minds, take to assamnet to reassert their infallibility or prescience, NOT tell us clearly what the subject of their wager was? Namely what the conditions were, if there were any, and still the slimy lot found a way to wiggle out of, just as they expected? Ordinary people might expect they would. But then why were they not spelt out? I will let netters mull over that and see if they can sort that out. I 'll bet a rupee, they are eminently able to, unless afflicted by a convenient loss or lapse of memory. And finally, how would the bettors' integrity fare if they also are the same one's who publicly questioned, even as the public debate raged, as to WHY should the GoI even negotiate with ULFA, WHAT FOR, and in so many words? Self-fulfilling prophecy would be the least unflattering characterization that would come to mind. Worse can easily be argued. cm ---- Shantikam Hazarika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was determined not to get caught in the garrulity and have ignored > the loquaciousness of the apologists. As I said earlier, I would have > only responded to specific queries put to me by those who matter or to > their responses to what I have said earlier. I do random checks to see > if anything specific to me has been raised. While doing so, I came > across the following response which I felt need to be put straight. > > In the situation prevailing, the question of putting preconditions > before starting any discussions should not have arisen. Every one > knows that results cannot be expected in just one discussion. Normally > the first discussion is always to know each other and to determine a > road map that would lead further discussions. > > > Discussions without preconditions does not mean "Its like asking, 'Please > come let us talk, but not about what you have been fighting for'" > because in that case it becomes a pre-condition. But then for those > who are experts in "baal ke Khaal nikalna", such gimmicks would be > common. > > Shantikam Hazarika > > On 10/14/07, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > At 11:49 PM -0500 10/13/07, kamal deka wrote: > > The GOI has similarly been willing to hold parleys with ULFA in order to > > hammer out a solution within the ambit of the Constitution.What is wrong > > with that ? > > KJD > > > > > > **** It is a surreal proposition, that's what. Its like asking, 'Please > > come let us talk, but not about what you have been fighting for'. > > > Is that a deal-maker or what ? > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > assam mailing list > [email protected] > http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org _______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
