I agree, very informative. Thank you.
I just can't stop this from coming to my mind: if Badan was alive today, was he going to say that he did all this for the 'people of Guwahati' and not for the hope of himself being the Chief Minister or even the 'xorgodeu' of Assam?
>From: Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Saurav Pathak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Alpana B. Sarangapani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [Assam] re: from the Sentinel
>Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 12:12:57 -0500
>
>Thanks for that extremely informative bit of history Saurav. I would have
>been hard pressed to substantiate my assertions -- am much too history
>challenged :-). Yours makes it complete and believable without a doubt.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 12:26 PM -0400 8/7/03, Saurav Pathak wrote:
> >Alpana B. Sarangapani said on AssamNet:
> >
> >+ Actually I was trying to analyze why Badan B. did what he did.
> >
> >badan borphukon did what he did because he -
> >(1) had the opportunity: even though he was the ahom viceroy in
> >guwahati, he was far from the ahom capital. the borphukans were
> >always more independent than the borbaruas. in the past, another
> >borphukan had made a bid to capture the swargadeo-ship, laluk
> >borphukan, the brother of lachit. guwahati was the place where many
> >a conspiracy was born.
> >
> >(2) lacked political support: whereas laluk and others had a wide
> >network of support among the other nobles, badan lacked this. he
> >and his sons were autocratic, and cruel, and had fun at the expense
> >of his own subjects in guwhati. so when the ahom monarchy decided to
> >oust badan, he had no option but to flee. also, he failed to exploit
> >the other nobles as laluk and others could.
> >
> >(3) had some network in burmese capital: one of the queens in the
> >burmese court was an ahom princess. it was she who entertained
> >badan. (just like laluk tried to exploit the romoni gabhoru/rahmat
> >begum connection with the mughals and a past "traitor", baduli.)
> >
> >so badan was no different from the others. he just tried to exploit
> >the opportunities that were available to him. the later ahom
> >swargadeos had to hire merceneries and finally the british to oust
> >the burmese just like badan tried to capture power with outside help.
> >(even though this was not in the same class as the badan action it led
> >to the colonization by the british, just as badan brought in the
> >burmese).
> >
> >from the naga point of view, even though they were not in the least
> >involved in these events, the colonization of assam led to the
> >"colonization" of the naga areas under the british, and finally to
> >the present situation in nagaland. the dynamics of "buffer zones"
> >applied then, as it does now. it can be imagined that without tea,
> >assam would have been the primary buffer for british india, and not
> >nagaland (the british maintained the ahom swargadeoship for some
> >time after the yandaboo treaty, before it showed an interest in the
> >tea).
> >
> >is the badan action analogous to the naga situation? prima facie,
> >it is not. the indian "viceroy" in nagaland is the naga chief
> >minister. the jamirs of nagaland. and the analogy stops right
> >here, and cannot be stretched further, imo.
> >
> >--
> >saurav
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Assam mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Get 2 months FREE*.
_______________________________________________
Assam mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
