Dear Utpal:
Sorry for the long delay in responding to your questions of October
13. I have been on the road lately and just got back home. BTEW, I
hunt-and-pecked the response, sitting under a wedding pandal at
Guwahati.
I only had a printout of your questions/comments here, and couldn't
cut and paste them with my responses for reference. I failed to
download the messages on to my laptop at that time and had only some
e-mails to refer to. Hope you will be able to put two and two
together.
But before I get into it, allow me to offer my hearty congratulations
on your inclusion as a judge of the upcoming international film
festival in Mumbai ( or is it in Dilli?). That is definitely an
honor, and you do us proud. I was however left a little confused by
Manoj Das' interpretation of the honor as a journalistic
achievement. Is it considered a journalistic pursuit? Perhaps it is.
Forgive my ignorance if it is so.
Back to the subject:
**** Your opening paragraph showed you were confounded by my
conclusion that you did have an honorable intent, or AIM or OBJECTIVE
behind your interrogations of Rubi Bhuyan, even though you did not
think of it that way, and wanted to know how I arrived at that
conclusion, asserting that I " READ INTO PEOPLE'S MINDS", obviously
not as a compliment.
But first may I ask if I was wrong? If I was not wrong, does it
matter how I arrived at that conclusion? And if I was wrong,where or
how?
Not that I have a secret. I just read between the lines, like most of
us who are capable of doing that. Or infer them from the written
words elsewhere in the exchanges, but with context in mind.
It may seem to some that just because you or I don't say something in
so many words, people cannot or do not understand what lurks beneath
the unspoken words. That is an unrealistic expectation. It is both
the spoken and the unspoken, with which we assess the sum total of a
proposal or an argument, not just in this forum, but in all of life's
most critical evaluation processes. It is not like we are in a court
of law where the unspoken words could not be presented as evidence.
My personal motto is that what is considered 'legal' is the lowest
threshold of acceptable behavior. We, in civil society, ought to and
do, behave on a far higher level, everyday.
In this case it was quite simple. You wrote yourself that you were
asking the questions of Rubi Bhuyan as a " Common Assamese who wants
to have a peaceful Assam".
Oh I know why you opened your response this way. It was with the
desire to paint my responses, comments and observations as highly
speculative and thus amounting to mind reading; unsupportable by
easily verified facts; while failing to deny it categorically. But no
harm done; I am used to these tactics; sometimes used by the
inexperienced, stung by critical responses and at other times by the
disingenuous. It is just that these tactics do not produce any useful
result.
I am making a point of it here to illustrate the fact that a sincere
and productive dialogue cannot take place, if the parties indulge in
such games; just like the exchanges with Rubi Bhuyan that you all
engaged in earlier, leading to this conversation between you and I.
**** I hope the above will explain your second frustration: That I
was trying to paint your "honorable AIM" in a negative light. And you
wanted me to prove that it was deserving of such.
I don't need to prove or disprove anything in this context for the
simple reason that I did not MANUFACTURE it. I merely pointed out
what your comments and arguments meant. Since you take issue with my
observations ,analyses or interpretation, you can just tell us that
I was wrong, giving a credible reason why, like you have gone on to
assert in the paragraphs 3 thru 5. Question would be whose
presentation would be more persuasive to the audience?
The issue, again, was about the OBJECTIVE of the discourse; not about
asserting our own personal righteousness. You go to great lengths to
tell us how you abhor violence (perhaps unlike the rest of us who
don't or may not), or how you have been a victim of the conflict (
unlike perhaps the rest of Assam who may have not). But that was not
at all necessary. No one in this discourse questioned WHY the AIM
ought to be a search for an end to the conflict, even though some did
at other times and perhaps still do. Most here would agree that it is
a desirable AIM or GOAL.
The QUESTION here is what you or I or all those others are going to
do about it? I surmised you want to see an end to it, just as I (and
I like to think others) do. But HOW?
**** In paragraph 6, you take issue with my suggestion that you would
be one who would seek a political solution to the conflict, instead
of a military victory by either GoI or ULFA and then go on to admit
that it is what you wish. Isn't it quarrelling for the sake of
quarreling? It appears that you are more interested in judging ME ,
in paying back for having been stung by my criticisms of Rubi
Bhuyan's inquisition and its apparent AIM or absence of it, while
being in agreement with my conclusion.
While I understand the all too human reaction, let us not forget WHY
or HOW such criticisms of mine appeared on the scene. And you cannot
erase or neutralize the SUBSTANCE of my criticisms -- that your
interrogation of the ULFA messenger was AIM-less, if not altogether
counterproductive to your not-so-clearly-stated but honorable goal of
helping find an end to the conflict.
**** In para 7 you find my suggestion that Assam intelligentsia's
participation is indispensable to finding a negotiated settlement a
strange trait and claim you are not a member of Assam's
intelligentsia.
The above has several very important implications. Let us examine them:
If people like yourself, the educated, the informed and the
able; do not believe in your
citizenship duties and responsibilities ; WHO do you think
will shape the future of
Assam; in defense of whose welfare you are participating in
these debates?
Certainly not the uninformed, the uneducated or the
dispossessed. Certainly not itinerant
Indian bureaucrats in punishment-postings, certainly not the
Indian army and certainly
not those of Assam whose only interest is in milking the
dysfunctional system that passes
for governance, for their sole personal gains. Wouldn't you agree?
I find this attitude of Assam's intelligentsia's apathy,
disinterest and undisguised disavowal of
of responsibility in helping shape their society's future;
while waving that flag of fealty to
democratic values, quite appalling. But having been a product
of the same society I realize
it is a culturally rooted quandary, further exacerbated by a
simple-minded and incomplete
concept of what democracy is all about.
Recently another of our netter friends eloquently asserted
a similar disavowal
of responsibility in the course of the debates in this same
subject. I had to ignore the
comment then, even though it rang in my ears, due to a
shortage of time to explain things.
While no one would attempt to suggest that taking care of our
own needs is not first and
foremost and that there is no limit to how much we can
contribute; to suggest we have no
responsibility is nothing less than scandalously uninformed,
if not entirely hypocritical.
We must not forget that 'democracy', which many of us here
chant like yet another
Indian montro, oblivious of its meaning; cannot
function without an informed and
involved polity.
That brings us to your attempt at explaining your stance by
claiming you are not a part of
Assam's intelligentsia: Regardless of whether it was a result
of not knowing the meaning
of the word or a gratuitious display of false-modesty, we
cannot pin our society's
welfare on one or a few stellar personalities, be it Parag
Das or be it Bhodai Das. Nor can
you explain your absence from the process by lamenting Parag
Das' absence from the PCG.
There were ample opportunities then and there are now, to
stand up and be counted in the
process with your own constructive ideas for the PCG to take
to the table on behalf of Assam
, if and when GoI sits down for a sincere dialogue.
Question is if you will discharge your societal
responsibilities with a positive AIM or will
remain satisfied with shedding e-tears or attempting to trap
an inarticulate
ULFA messenger with your semantic skills, to paint
ULFA as incompetent or insincere
or both, with the hope of wishing them away.
Here you had an opportunity to affirm your constructive
intentions by taking a stand on
whether you would offer your support to PCG/ULFA on Assam's
behalf, provided you
received satisfactory answers to your queries, delivered in a
'professional manner'.
But could you? Would you?
And if there is no intention of giving ULFA any support,
regardless of getting acceptable
answers, unacceptable answers or no answer; what would that
signify? I ask, because if
I say it, you will be offended I am sure.
**** Even though I am flattered by your amazement at my deductive
abilities, expressed in in para 8, it is not about me. So I will
have to pass on the lovely compliment. But I hope you got your
answers to where the reference to the self-righteous and the
superficial came from , in the explanations earlier in this post. And
I hope you read my responses to the ACE question in your and others'
arsenals against ULFA's goals for an independent Assam as regards to
boundaries, when I replied to Uttam Borthakur a couple of weeks back
and like I replied to Chitta earlier. Would love to hear a response
on those from you, should you care to.
**** Paragraph 9 summarizing your understanding of WHY ULFA came into
being, betrays a degree of naivete that pervades the entire gamut of
the discourses on this issue, not merely in Assam, but also in most
of the Indian discourses as well, rare as they are. I won't even take
on the maturity of the argument about your certitude by reason of
proximity (and thus superior to mine because I have been away), in
order not to digress from the subject.
I have explained this earlier, in great detail, notably in the series
under the header of Why Independence. It is entirely possible you and
others did not read them, or discarded them because they don't fit
your needs.
But to make a long story short, you and others need to realize that
the 'anti-foreigner' cause was merely the straw that broke the
camel's back. The underlying reasons were legion, and they remain so,
unattended-to, even today.
How could I know that, be so sure of that, from across the
seven-seas? Since *I* don't have much credibility capital with you
all, I point to the writings of one, who by your own declaration
here, you knew, trusted and respected: Parag Das. And that
knowledge, instead of being a reassurance of your understanding and
goodwill towards Assam's grievances that you will consider
'legitimate' (unlike perhaps ULFA's) ends up further eroding your
credibility in the matter. It re-affirms the cursory and superficial
nature of your interests.
**** In paragraph 10, you complain of RB's e-ID being used by more
than one person to reply to your queries, leading to 'contradictory
views' and you wished ULFA would use the forum to interact with
people in a 'constructive manner'--without 'back-ground checks' to
exchange views on 'any and everything' and 'answer critical
questions'. I am with you on these Utpal, except that I can't care
less who or how many people are behind the name Rubi Bhuyan. Again,
because it is not about the personnae who answer the questions. It is
about the substance or absence of what they contain. Therefore, those
who are unable to analyze the substance, but are satisfied with
complaining about WHO might be behind the name/s are of little
substance themselves, wouldn't you agree?
And with that in mind, so we can establish a standard of
expectations; what would you consider a reasonable example of such
exchanges ? Would you consider your responses to my queries a good
example? And do you consider the tenor of the interrogation of Rubi
Bhuyan, undertaken by you and your fellow asomonline members such;
likely to generate a productive discourse? And if not, now armed with
hind-sight or having been chastened by the experiences, how would
you approach the subject, given a second chance?
An honest and sincere attempt to respond to my queries above, also
ought to help you understand your, Nayanjyoti's and others'
disappointments with those despicable people posting under that
e-mail ID of Rubi Bhuyan; the tenor of what I would characterize as
"sunga-sai-xwpa", "jen-kukur-ten-tangwn",
'smart-alec-retorts-to-dumb-questions' and the like. Am I being
unfair in my assessment here?
Let us try a bit of role-playing: If you placed yourself in RB's
shoes, under the circumstances referred to, how would you have
responded? Just an example or two would suffice to get the idea
across.
And finally, I didn't miss the widespread outrage amongst the
inquisitors to the suggestion by whoever was responding under RB's
e-mail ID about 'background check'. I am however quite amused by the
immature -at-best outbursts. Because if I were to be in their shoes,
I would have been all too willing to submit my background to any
scrutiny. I have nothing to hide. Just like all those who see ULFA as
mere puppets of the ISI, would it be unreasonable for the ULFA to
cast aspersions on the inquisitors' AIM, its OBJECTIVE? As a mature
and sincere person, trained as a journalist, what do you think Utpal?
**** Provided we can establish the standards above, we can now go on
to deal with your proposal posed in paragraph 11 and 12. To make
things easy, I offer my services to ULFA for free, in the interest of
promoting the cause of an intellectual debate here, with a mutually
acceptable AIM or GOAL or OBJECTIVE. I will not, for obvious reasons,
speak for ULFA, but will deal with the issues and the principles
involved which are universal in nature and are not subject to
partisan interpretations. Similarly I invite the would be
participants to this 'dialogue' --- as opposed to an inquisition ---
to ask and answer questions, offer explanations or define problems
and propose solutions as they see fit, and NOT try to speak for GoI
or GoA or people who they have no claim to speak for.
Shall we? There is a very good chance it will be a good learning
experience for all, including ULFA.
Mind you now, just because I might not be the easy target Rubi
Bhuyan originally was , should not disqualify me from interacting
with my fellow men with honorable intents, in analyzing,
hypothesizing and proposing solution scenarios if possible; like the
informed polity of a democratic state might, should it?
I notice in paragraph 12 that while being optimistic on the outlook
for finding believable answers to those many interesting questions
that might be forthcoming, you hope for answers delivered in a
'professional manner' by ULFA. I am hoping you would not decline to
discuss these with me on grounds of such feeble alibis as my not
being an official spokesman for ULFA for example, like an eminent
members in assamnet did. It is not like we are the GoI vs PCG/ULFA
bargaining to cut a deal here.
Why I say this is to underscore the fact of the existence of a
pac-man like mentality here in these forums; where stronger voices go
run roughshod over weaker ones, in an attempt to exercise
self-serving superiority of superficial intellect, while running from
more formidable adversaries. That I would submit is unseemly. After
all it is not about an intellectual beauty contest here. It is about
the collective well-being of the people of Assam. Won't you agree?
**** I hope I have been able to respond in the format you requested
in paragraph 13, point by point.
I also tried to be considerate of your self-described inferiority (
and your perception of my superiority) of juggling words and phrases,
confounding you, even though it is quite unnecessary. You have
demonstrated very well your own skills in diverting attention away
from substantive issues to semantic spin.
As I explained earlier, the reference to Kukurmuta canines was an
accidental coincidence, and not a subtle ploy to intimidate you or
anybody else with my own background checks on your antecedents.
Heaven knows I have submitted myself in assamnet to any number of
inquisitions to people who obviously have been creations of rich
kharkhowa imaginations only. And I always accepted the indignities
heaped upon my persona by those interrogators in the interest of
helping my fellow men in being critical and substantive in their
inquiries. Perhaps you will consider trying it too. It really does
not hurt.
**** So far we dealt with extraneous issues only rarely touching the
main goal. I participated in this exercise, lengthy as it is, with
the hope of satisfying all those who complain I don't answer
questions, that I divert attention away from hard subjects with
semantic jugglery. Now it is their turn to face the harsh truths
about their dispositions.
Cantankerously as always :-).
c-da
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
