Are you trying to drag me into some intellectual talks, C'da? :)
All I am saying is, there will be some whiners everywhere, it is only dangerous and sad when they become violent and deprive the others (the 'real' people, as I have mentioned lately, and you were quite subtle in making fun of it :)) of peace and harmony for decades - not necessarily Nagaland (as I mentioned, I don't know what the ordinary people of Nagaland want), but many states in India, or around the world, where there one does not see much of law and order exist - be it on the "mainland" or on the "occupied" land.
I will make peace with you: will NOT say a word about how I want Assam to go back to the peaceful Assam of the 60's or 70's - the place that I remember to be the safest heaven on the earth, for a week.
So, cease fire. :)
>From: Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Alpana Sarangapani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Assam] re: from the Sentinel
>Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 08:55:44 -0500
>
>Hi A:
>
>
> > This is the very last para: Some Native Hawaiians want to regain
> >land >lost to the United States when they annexed Hawaii. Several people
> >believe >the United States should return Hawaii to its rightful owners,
> >allowing the >Native Hawaiians to have their own government. State
> >leaders are striving to >solve these conflicts.
>
>
>
>*** I am sure you see a connection to all these instances about Hawaii (
>and you might want to look up Puerto Rico as well, while you are at it :-))
>and a Naga homeland as well as Assam.
>
>
>But somehow I miss the connection. I see precious little similarity here,
>between some Hawaiiian's demands to revert the island back to native
>ownership, and a 55 year war between the Nagas and the state of India.
>Similarly, I see nothing in common between the Assam / India situation and
>the Hawaii / USA relationships; that nothstanding the FACT that large
>numbers of American mainlanders do not even realize that Hawaii is an
>American state and thus consider Hawaiians 'foreign'.
>
>There are other very significan differences. Namely:
>
>1: Functioning and reliable institutions of democracy that are capable of
>resolving conflicts, between states and the states and the center in the
>USA.
>
>2: That the FEDERAL system in the USA is REAL, it exists, and not merely
>something on paper to wave. Washington DC does not send ex-military
>generals to rule over Hawaii. The US Feds do not claim ownership to
>Hawaiian natural resources or invoke those to bring those to the mainland
>as they see fit. Mainlanders have not been able to go buy up Hawaiian land
>and become de-facto Owners of the islands.
>
>I can go on and on.
>
>3: That the US system of governance DOES indeed provide checks and balances
>that prevent majoritarianism and that minority rights enshrined in the
>constitution have repeatedly been upheld and enforced. Might, be it
>economic, or be it of numbers, cannot always trump rights; unlike in India.
>
>The Naga conflict, or the Assam and the contiguous states' conflicts would
>not have reached the point they have, had the Indian state been able to
>live up to what it pretends to be.
>
>I realize, it is not an easy job. It takes time to build a functioning
>democracy, unlike what Wolfie or Rummy or W might like to believe. But
>there has to be discernible, perceptible trends, which the disaffected can
>hang their hopes on. In the Indian context the trend has NOT been upwards
>or forward looking; it has decidedly been on a downward spiral, with
>increasingly fascist
>tendencies.
>
>Those, as I see it, ARE some of the difference Alpana.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 10:13 PM -0500 8/7/03, Alpana Sarangapani wrote:
> > > *** It goes like this A: Hawaii WANTED to be a part of the US. That
> >is how
> >> it did. It was not because the USA claimed Hawaii to have been an integral
> >> part of the US, and so it were to have remained.
> >>
> >> That is a huge difference.
> > O' really! Please look at this site, C'da:
> >
http://www2.thingstodo.com/sta
> >tes/HI/history.htm
> >
> >"Bills for statehood were introduced to Congress as early as 1919, but
> >many feared there would be no support from the islands during wartime.
> >This fear came to an end as thousands fought from Hawaii in World War II
> >(1939-1945) and the Korean War (1950-1953). Hawaii became the 50th
> >state on Aug. 21, 1959.
> >
> >
> >
> >So did the "real" people in Assam..
> >
> >
> >
> >Since statehood, Hawaii�s population has doubled. Sugar refining and
> >pineapple production remain important but have declined. Tourism now
> >leads Hawaii�s industries, estimated now around $4 billion annually. A
> >new jet-aircraft terminal, completed in Honolulu in 1962, cut flying time
> >from the United States in half. Huge resorts and new hotels were built
> >throughout the islands of Hawaii, Kauai, Maui, and Molokai.
> >
> > This is the very last para: Some Native Hawaiians want to regain
> >land lost to the United States when they annexed Hawaii. Several people
> >believe the United States should return Hawaii to its rightful owners,
> >allowing the Native Hawaiians to have their own government. State
> >leaders are striving to solve these conflicts.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chan Mahanta"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Alpana Sarangapani"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc:
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 9:55 PM
> >Subject: Re: [Assam] re: from the Sentinel
> >> At 9:42 PM -0500 8/7/03, Alpana Sarangapani wrote:
> >> >> *** What is so unusual or bad about history repeating itself? If it is
> >> >good
> >> >> history, why not? Who would, for example, not wish to see the history of
> >> >> America, or even India -- in spite of all its problems, becoming
> >> >> independent repeat ?
> >> >
> >> >You would be upset again :), but I was referring to the part of the
> >>history
> >> >where Badan was involved - the traitor part. Moreover, I thought you just
> >> >said that you didn't care about what about 300 years ago.
> >>
> >>
> >> *** No, I said I would not be interested in SPECULATING about what BB MIGH
> >> HAVE said. It is about something that did NOT happen. History is about what
> >> DID happen, not speculating about what MIGHT have happened. Am I mistaken ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> *** Too cryptic for me A, this Hawaii reference. What does it mean?
> >> >
> >> >Simple, C'da. Like Hawaii has been with the US from 1959, less than Assam
> >> >and or Nagaland is with India. But do they claim that to be a reason
> >>for it
> >> >to be separated from the US?
> >>
> >> *** It goes like this A: Hawaii WANTED to be a part of the US. That is how
> >> it did. It was not because the USA claimed Hawaii to have been an integral
> >> part of the US, and so it were to have remained.
> >>
> >> That is a huge difference.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Not that one has to follow what they do, but it
> >> >looks like some are looking for their help/approval in these matters,
> >>thats
> >> >why. One of the intellectuals in this net even, was of the opinion that
> >> >Assam was never part of India before independence, etc., etc., and it is a
> >> >valid point for her to be independent.
> >>
> >> *** It sounds like a good argument. The only thing I would add to it is
> >> that it has to be the decision of the people of Assam. You may say, the
> >> REAL people of Assam :-).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >----- Original Message -----
> >> >From: "Chan Mahanta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >To: "Alpana B. Sarangapani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 1:32 PM
> >> >Subject: Re: [Assam] re: >from the Sentinel
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >just wanted to clear one thing: have never done a survey or never
> >>talked
> >> >> >to any of our Naga classmates about what they thought about this
> >> >> >independence, so really don't know what the "real people" in Nagaland
> >> >> >want/need, so am not sure about Nagaland.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> *** I won't hold your lack of surity against you Alpana. That is not at
> >> >all
> >> >> unusual. You ( or I for that matter) are hardly in a position to be able
> >> >to
> >> >> pass judgement on what the REAL ( as opposed to those who might
> >>pretend to
> >> >> be their proxies) Naga people want, never mind what your Naga classmates
> >> >> MIGHT have told you.
> >> >>
> >> >> Only the Indian Govt. and those Indians who like think they OWN the land
> >> >> which the Nagas call home would indulge in such pursuits - I mean
> >>attempt
> >> >> tell what the REAL Nagas want :-).
> >> >>
> >> >> But these folks could get to the bottom it very easily you know? Let the
> >> >> REAL Nagas speak -- thru the ballot box. I am sure you will agree it is
> >> >not
> >> >> that elusive an answer.
> >> >>
> >> >> What do you think :-) ?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >..probably it is because of the fear that it might repeat again?
> >> >>
> >> >> *** What is so unusual or bad about history repeating itself? If it is
> >> >good
> >> >> history, why not? Who would, for example, not wish to see the history of
> >> >> America, or even India -- in spite of all its problems, becoming
> >> >> independent repeat ?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >But being part of a country only recently is not an excuse, IMO. Like I
> >> >> >asked, >Hawaii was annexed only in 1959(?), so?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> *** Too cryptic for me A, this Hawaii reference. What does it mean?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> At 1:04 PM -0500 8/7/03, Alpana B. Sarangapani wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I know, I myself feel like an old historian who won't let go of his/her
> >> >> >findings :)..probably it is because of the fear that it might repeat
> >> >> >again?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >But being part of a country only recently is not an excuse, IMO. Like I
> >> >> >asked, Hawaii was annexed only in 1959(?), so?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >From: Chan Mahanta >To: "Alpana B. Sarangapani" ,
> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >CC:
> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [Assam] re: from the Sentinel
> >> >> >>Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 12:50:37 -0500 > >At 12:35 PM -0500 8/7/03,
> >> >> >Alpana B. Sarangapani wrote: > > > > > >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? >
> >>> >***
> >> >> >To speculate on what might have been claimed by Badan Borphukan, three
> >> >> >>hundred years or so later, is a lost cause A :-). Who cares, what BB
> >> >> >might >have claimed? The facts, as knbown, speak for themselves, don't
> >> >> >they? > >
> >> >> >Protect your PC - http://g.msn.com/8HMGENUS/2755??PS=>Click
> >>here for
> >> >> >McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Assam mailing list
> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
