> Catch 22 here, isn't it?
It sure is.
No wonder then the only alternative is to defy the laws and even
resort to violent means.
Many countries will allow you to at least challenge the validity of
the Constitution in such cases. Even India does. So, violence and
breaking laws is not the ONLY way out.
But IF they see that IT IS the only way out, then, of course, those
who defy such laws oughtn't to cry foul when they are hunted down.
They know the rules of the game. The freedom they thus seek, if it
does come, comes at a high price, and they should be prepared for the
worst and hope for the best.
But all this could have bee prevented, or at least diluted, when
India saw what was brewing
Wonder what the US would do in such a situation? The US for all its
might and glory and democratic institution, puts down such insurgent
tendencies with swift and summary justice. They have no patience or do
not as a policy go soft on such groups.
But India is unable and unwilling 25 years ago and is no different
today.
C'da, its a two-way traffic. IMHO, the ULFA has to put down arms and
stop violence before the GOI will give it any serious hearing.
The GOI for all its faults can keep this festering for another 50
years without flinching, can the ULFA? In the end the people lose.
--Ram
On 8/4/05, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Jugal, I really cannot think of one single democratic country that
>will allow that in their constitution, a sedition clause. Does the US
>allow that, the UK?
Catch 22 here, isn't it?
No wonder then the only alternative is to defy the laws and even
resort to violent means.
But all this could have bee prevented, or at least diluted, when
India saw what was brewing . Even at this late date things could be
done, reforms undertaken to address the causes of the insurgencies.
> But India is unable and unwilling 25 years ago and is no different
today.
That is the difference.
At 1:46 PM -0500 8/4/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>Hi Jugal,
>
>I grant you this - during the British times, yes, because of the
>strong British ideals for magnanimity and that they were also sure of
>themselves (they couldn't fathom that anyone would want to actually
>break away from the Empire), they did allow certain oppossing points
>of view.
>
>But they too did NOT allow those to be expressed in violence. They
>applied the laws against sedition very severely (Bhagat Singh an
>example). Subash Bose was always in hiding. Even Gandhi was accused of
>sedition, even though the British themselves knew he the apostle of
>peace.
>
>You may recall the number of times freedom fighters were imprisoned.
>So, even in the British times it was not easy for freedom fighters.
>And Sardar Patel died because of the beatings he sustained from the
>British.
>
>Now, in present day India, I think there is freedom of expression.
>Just read the newspapers. They are not all singing praises of the
>establishment. I do not think just talking about seperation or freedom
>necessarily means that one could be killed or jailed.
>
>In the case of South Africa, Mandela paid a huge price. Others like
>Patrice Lulumba was hunted down and killed. Where do you see any
>tolerance for seditious behavior (whether freedom was warranted or
> >not). Nations will, usually not tolerate such behavior, specially if
>they are violent. In this country, you have incidents like Ruby Ridge.
>
>I am not sure which democratic country will, in this day and age,
>tolerate a section of its population going violent because they want
>freedom? Can you or anyone, name one such country?
>
>Britain again, came close to your definition, when they allowed Mullas
>to preach violence in mosques on English soil. Now, with the bombings,
>even the British patience has run out. Those Mullas now stand to be
>deported/jailed immediately (if they preach violence and hatred).
>
>>It is not possible under current India's constitution to organize a
>party or >movement that seeks independence in a legal manner.
>
>Legally, I think, one can sue the Govt. of India (or the Union) for a
>separation from the Union. It may NOT be in the Constitution, but
>Indian Courts do allow anyone to challenge the constitution. Whether
>the Supreme Court will hear such motions is another thing altogether.
>
>Jugal, I really cannot think of one single democratic country that
>will allow that in their constitution, a sedition clause. Does the US
>allow that, the UK?
>
>--Ram da
>
>On 8/4/05, J. Kalita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have taken that into consideration, Ram da. During the
British rule, it
>> was possible, within
>> the political system to talk about liberation or freedom. However, it's
>> impossible to do so in a legal manner in current India under its
>> constituion in a peaceful manner. It is not possible under
current India's
>> constitution to organize a party or movement that seeks
independence in a
>> legal manner. If someone tries to do so, they will be banned
or even worse
>> killed by the India government that exists today.
>>
>> Jugal
>>
>> > Jugal,
>> >
>> > But you seem to be missing one important ingredient. All the people
>> > you listed below had mass followings and more importantly they did not
>> > have large sections of the people they wanted to 'liberate' NOT
> > > wanting them to do so on their behalf.
>> >
>> > Does ULFA have those qualities, ie. a large section of the Assamese
>> > population following their core ideals?
> > >
>> > Gandhi, Bose, Mandela were not elected memebrs, but they did command
>> > huge followings. Perhaps even Jinnah. And so did Mao and Hitler.
>> >
>> > Sometimes they were wrong (like Hitler) while at other times it paid
>> > off, like Mandela.
> >> >
>> > Another important point is a 'populist leader or group' can get public
>> > support in two ways:
>> >
>> > By making people want such freedoms from their hearts.
>> >
>> > Or
>> >
>> > By using guns, threats, kidnappings, and 'or else' methods to 'win'
>> > people's hearts.
>> >
>> > IHMO, the former option is what the world looks up to and would at
>> > least give tacit support.
>> >
>> > What do you think the Assamese people will be more comfortable with?
>> >
>> > --Ram da
>> >
>> >
>> > On 8/3/05, J. Kalita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> In the same logic, how did Mohandas Gandhi or Subhash Bose
or Jinnah in
>> >> pre-1947 British India represent the people of India? Was Mohandas
>> >> Gandhi
>> >> elected to be President/Prime Minister/king/emperor or whatever of
>> >> pre-1947 India? Was he a demagogue? Did Nelson Mandela represent the
>> >> people of South Africa when he was languishing in jail? Was
he elected
>> >> to
>> >> represent the people of South Africa? Was Simon Bolivar
elected by the
>> >> countries of South America before he led the war for
independence from
>> >> Spain? Were the framers of the US constitution in
Philadelphia elected
>> >> by
>> >> the people of America?
>> >>
>> >> Jugal Kalita
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Of course, we are all well-wishers of Assam. But what
has that go
>> >> to
>> >> >>do with ULFA's 'interest' in an election conducted by Indian
> >> >> >>authorities.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > *** Unlike me or you, ULFA is made up of people, who, rightly or
>> >> > wrongly, claim to represent the wishes of the people of
Assam. Their
>> >> > constituency, their supporters, also believe that Indian political
>> >> > machinations have hurt Assam's interests.
>> >> >
>> >> > You may not accept that. But that is different.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Who is the ULFA to tell the Assamese whom they should
or shouldn't
>> >> >>invite from Delhi?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Same explanation here.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Why do you assume that just because some minister
comes down from
>> >> >>Delhi to lecture, it is necessarily bad or polarizing for Assam.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Come on Ram, you keep missing the obvious: ULFA does not recognize
>> >> > Indian controls over Assam. That is why they are telling Indians to
>> >> > keep out. It is not about whether it might be good or bad
for Assam.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > But let me ask you this: Is it good for Assam, for its elections to
>> >> > be INFLUENCED by remote interests from elsewhere in India?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Assuming ONLY regional parties participate in the elections, how
>> >> will
>> >> >>that benefit ULFA?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I cannot speak for ULFA. But I am of the belief that Assam's
>> >> > interests are best served by political parties who are rooted in
>> >> > Assam, and whose elections are not interfered with by outside
>> >> > interests. That is what local self-government is all about.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> >All of this just pure humbug. What the ULFA is
probably trying to
>> >> do
>> >> >>is to draw some attention to themselves. They have been left out to
>> >> >>dry for a while, so passing a Dikat here and a Dikat there might
>> >> >>actually bring the spotlight on them.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > You may be right, or you may be wrong. Neither has anything to do
>> >> > with the premise of the original argument and conclusions, that
>> >> > started this debate.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>As for polarization problems, sitting cozily in Bangladesh, passing
>> >> >>dikats, and encouraging illegal immigration does more to
polarize than
>> >> >>anything else.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > You can spin it anyway you wish. But can you show how
ULFA is either
>> >> > encouraging illegal migration, or causing polarizations in Assam?
> > > >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > At 11:03 AM -0500 8/3/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>> >> >>C'da
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> If you were to be an independent
> > >> >>>observer and well-wisher of Assam, would that seem
unreasonable or
>> >> >>>bad for Assam ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Of course, we are all well-wishers of Assam. But what has
that go to
>> >> >>do with ULFA's 'interest' in an election conducted by Indian
>> >> >>authorities. They are the ones passing out dikats left
and right, and
>> >> >>basically infringing upon the free will of the Assamese people (not
>> >> >>you and I).
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Who is the ULFA to tell the Assamese whom they should or shouldn't
>> >> >>invite from Delhi? Don't the Assamese in Assam know what
is or what is
>> >> >>not polarizing, instead of having the ULFA intelligensia
forcing them
>> >> >>to think otherwise and dictating behavior?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Why do you assume that just because some minister comes down from
>> >> >>Delhi to lecture, it is necessarily bad or polarizing for
Assam. When
>> >> >>Assam had no regional parties, was Assam more (or less)
polarized than
>> >> >>it is now?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Assuming ONLY regional parties participate in the
elections, how will
>> >> >>that benefit ULFA?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>All of this just pure humbug. What the ULFA is probably
trying to do
>> >> >>is to draw some attention to themselves. They have been left out to
> >> >> >>dry for a while, so passing a Dikat here and a Dikat there might
>> >> >>actually bring the spotlight on them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>As for polarization problems, sitting cozily in Bangladesh, passing
>> >> >>dikats, and encouraging illegal immigration does more to
polarize than
>> >> >>anything else.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>--Ram
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>On 8/3/05, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>> > >Huh! So, it now seems that inspite of ULFA NOT recognizing
>> >> Indian
>> >> >>> >rule, they are still interested in an election conducted and
>> >> >>> >participated by the Indians.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> **** I can't answer that. I was merely examining the
logic of the
>> >> >>> original post, and the conclusions drawn.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> But one thing can be surmised: That the ULFA is attempting to
>> >> prevent
>> >> >>> interference of Indian political parties and injection of
>> >> regressive
>> >> >> > Indian attitudes and polarizing influences into Assam society.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > >So, the more important question would be, how does it matter
>> >> who
>> >> >>> wins
>> >> >>> >the elections in Assam to ULFA?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> **** ULFA could very well be interested in that. Even I could be
>> >> :-).
>> >> >>> I certainly would not want to see communal polarizations grow in
>> >> >>> Assam, fanned on by Indian Hindu supremacist
bigots.Would you ? It
>> >> >>> could also bee to discourage political corruption spurred on by
>> >> >>> Indian black-money and vote-banking
>> >> >>> and other nefarious activities. If you were to be an independent
>> >> >>> observer and well-wisher of Assam, would that seem
unreasonable or
>> >> >>> bad for Assam ?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> At 9:00 AM -0500 8/3/05, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>> >> >>> > >Considering that ULFA does not recognize India's rule over
>> >> Assam,
>> >> >>> it
>> >> >>> >>makes all the sense in the world to them to not allow an
>> >> occupying
>> >> >>> >>power to interfere in the elections of its state.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >Huh! So, it now seems that inspite of ULFA NOT
recognizing Indian
>> >> >>> >rule, they are still interested in an election conducted and
>> >> >>> >participated by the Indians.
>> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >So, the more important question would be, how does
it matter who
>> >> wins
>> >> >>> >the elections in Assam to ULFA? Is the ULFA fielding some
>> >> candidates
>> >> >>> >too, and that too an election managed and mandated by the Chief
>> >> >>> >Election Commissioner of India.
>> >> >>> >In the end, the ULFA seems to want to behave like another
>> >> 'political
>> >> >>> >party' in India (albeit an extreme one).
> > >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >On 8/3/05, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> Considering that ULFA does not recognize India's rule over
> > >> Assam,
>> >> >>> it
>> >> >>> >> makes all the sense in the world to them to not allow an
>> >> occupying
>> >> >>> >> power to interfere in the elections of its state.
Would India
>> >> >>> allow
>> >> >>> >> Pakistanis or BDeshis or Americans to come canvass for
>> >> elections
>> >> >>> in
>> >> >>> >> it's territory?
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> The question,at best, demonstrates an absence of ordinary
>> >> >>> inferential
>> >> >>> >> skills, no doubt resulting in absurd questions like:
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> > >Or else, guess what will happen? I wonder what kind of
>> >> >>> >> >a democracy will be there in independent Assam.
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> --- one having little or no connection with the other.
> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> At 10:14 PM -0700 8/1/05, Rajib Das wrote:
>> >> >>> >>
>>
>>>>http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story3%2Etxt&counter_img=3?headline=ULFA~diktat:~No~entry~for~'outside'~vote-seekers
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >Another tactic this time. Not allowing central leaders
>> >> >>> >> >of national parties to campaign in Assam.
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >Or else, guess what will happen? I wonder what kind of
>> >> >>> >> >a democracy will be there in independent Assam.
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >__________________________________
>> >> >>> >> >Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
>> >> >>> >> >Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your
mobile phone.
>> >> >>> >> >http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
>> >> >>> >> >_______________________________________________
>> >> >>> >> >Assam mailing list
>> >> >>> >> >Assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu
>> >> >>> >> >http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >Mailing list FAQ:
>> >> >>> >> >http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
>> >> >>> >> >To unsubscribe or change options:
>> >> >>> >> >http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>> >> Assam mailing list
>> >> >>> >> Assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu
>> >> >>> >> http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> Mailing list FAQ:
>> >> >>> >> http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
>> >> >>> >> To unsubscribe or change options:
>> >> >>> >> http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>> Assam mailing list
>> >> >>> Assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu
>> >> >>> http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Mailing list FAQ:
>> >> >>> http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
>> >> >>> To unsubscribe or change options:
>> >> >>> http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
>> >> >>>
>> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > Assam mailing list
>> >> > Assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu
>> >> > http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
>> >> >
>> >> > Mailing list FAQ:
>> >> > http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
>> >> > To unsubscribe or change options:
>> >> > http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
