[Assam] Fwd: [asom] Re: Press Release on 'Fast unto Death'

Chan Mahanta cmahanta at charter.net
Fri May 11 06:44:12 PDT 2007


>So, go figure who is using these poor victims as a front.

*** First off, one should ask if these women are able to articulate 
their demands  and write a piece, as was done?

One might think they are not. So , they needed help.  Somebody DID 
put that help forward, put the write-up together and forwarded it to 
various people. I received it from someone who shares my views on 
such matters.

*** Secondly, getting the information on the missing husbands DOES 
NOT solve the problem for their families. Or does it? What would 
Dilip Deka do if he were in the position of the ULFA wives? Once he 
got that info, he would heave a sigh of relief and move on?

So a dose of ordinary REALITY is useful therefore in determining WHAT NEXT.

One might think , therefore, that UNLESS the entire PROBLEM is 
resolved, the ULFA wives' /families' plight would NOT END.

Therefore a reasonable person might wonder  HOW to bring the conflict 
to an end.

*** To end the conflict, there is ONLY ONE credible means, as has 
been abundantly clear for decades.
That is thru a political settlement.

Oh I know there are those who would WISH ULFA away.

And those who would settle for nothing less than an Indian military victory.

But the thinking person can ignore those alternatives.

*** How to achieve such a settlement?  Can that happen WITHOUT a 
ULFA/GoI dialogue?

Take a wild guess.

*** How could that be brought about?

Again take a wild guess. Failing which,  consider the suggestion laid 
out in that petition, obviously crafted by the EXPLOITATIVE entities 
that riles our friends so.














At 6:20 AM -0700 5/11/07, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote:
>From the email below - "Incidentally, the April 6 forwarded appeal 
>was neither from MASS nor from Assamwatch UK, as far as  I can tell. 
>It was an appeal from/or on behalf of the fasting ladies."
>
>"On behalf of" is what bothers me. Who made the appeal on behalf of 
>the ladies? Looks to me either ULFA or an ULFA affiliated group 
>inserted the "release of the leaders" in the appeal.
>If the wives of the missing ULFA men are only in search of the 
>whereabouts of their men, and if they prepared the appeal 
>themselves, there would be no reason to include other demands in 
>their appeal.
>So, go figure who is using these poor victims as a front.
>Dilip Deka
>=============================================================
>
>Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
>
>Ram:
>
>It was my bad . You are right about what I forwarded on April 6.
>
>But THAT was not what I have been responding to during the last 
>three days or so. It was about the post from assamwatch UK, which 
>was taken issue with by 'asom' list members. I don't recall seeing 
>either MASS( brought into the equation by Dilip with his acronym) 
>or assamwatch uk, both HR orgs., mixing up the two issues.
>
>And on the April 6 post, I made the following, specific introduction:
>
>"I would like to think, assamnetters would support the struggle of 
>these ladies who are seeking information on their husbands' 
>whereabouts, if they are dead or alive; regardless of whether they 
>support or sympathize with ULFA ?
>
>It will also be interesting to hear how netters feel about the GoI's 
>refusal to submit to the High Court's orders on the matter."
>
>If I remember correctly netters gave the request a WIDE BERTH :-).
>
>Incidentally, the April 6 forwarded appeal was neither from MASS nor 
>from Assamwatch UK, as far as  I can tell. It was an appeal from/or 
>on behalf of the fasting ladies.
>
>c-da
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 3:14 PM -0600 5/10/07, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>
>>C'da
>>
>
>
>
>I will take this one portion of your response right now. For the 
>rest, I will have to respond later.
>
>
>
>
>Me: >>The best thing to do (for those who are really interested in 
>helping these ulfa wives) is NOT to bring in
>
>  >>unrelated demands like bring ulfa to the table for tals, or 
>release so & so >from jail etc.
>
>
>
>
>You:
>
>*** That is an entirely different issue. Neither Assamwatch nor MASS 
>have attempted to mix the two.
>
>At least I don't recall seeing any such thing. It is of your making. 
>And of those who were railing against
>
>assamwatch's efforts to shame India in front of the civilized world 
>by publicizing GoIs despicable stonewalling on the matter.
>
>It was the making of those who were questioning why these women 
>should be given that info. or questioning
>
>their judgement and/or motives in marrying ULFA cadres in the most 
>infantile manner one can imagine.
>
>I have seen some pretty despicable things from our fellow men.
>
>
>
>
>But speculating on these women's motives as to WHY they married the 
>men they did was about
>
>one of the lowest I have seen thus far.
>
>_______________________________________________________
>
>Below is a relevant portion of what you forwarded on April 6th
>
>
>
>
>They demanded that:
>
>
>(a)     the custodial disappearances of their husbands and others 
>following the infamous 'Operation All-Clear' in December 2003 be 
>addressed by the highest authorities of the land;
>
>
>(b)      peaceful resolution to the Indo-Assam conflict; and
>
>
>(c)     the unconditional release of the ULFA leaders in jail, which 
>remains a key to ensuring a just resolution to the impasse in the 
>possibility of talks between the government of India and the armed 
>opposition group. 
>
>These three demands simply reiterate the basic tenets of democracy 
>and justice in the quest for a peaceful resolution to armed 
>conflict. The protesting women are demanding answers from India's 
>political classes who tend to forget that their celebrated democracy 
>does not extend to the people of Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura 
>and other states of the so-called Northeast. 
>
>_____________________________________________
>
>
>
>So, all signatories (that you appealed to) would be effectively 
>signing for (b) & (c) above EVEN if they may have agreed to some 
>portions of (a) above.
>
>IMHO, (b) & (c) and portions of (a) have nothing to do with any 
>resolutions that these women seek regarding their husbands' 
>whereabouts.
>
>
>
>So, it is no figment of my imagination and nor did I make it up as 
>you indicate.
>
>
>
>
>  >But speculating on these women's motives as to WHY they married 
>the men they did was about
>
>  >one of the lowest I have seen thus far.
>
>
>I DID NOT make any such statement. Don't know who did.
>
>
>
>--Ram
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>assam mailing list
>assam at assamnet.org
>http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.assamnet.org/pipermail/assam-assamnet.org/attachments/20070511/6c7a2af9/attachment.htm>


More information about the Assam mailing list