[Assam] Ulfa Wives

Chan Mahanta cmahanta at charter.net
Fri May 11 08:29:52 PDT 2007


Ram:


>Huh! I must have been sleeping - Wasn't that the excercise 'get 
>info' regarding their husbands. The >other steps would come later - 
>once they know what happened.


*** From WHOM ? From the same people who would not tell them what 
they did to their husbands?
Lets get real here Ram.

>Curious - why haven't they asked the Bhutanese Govt. too.

*** I don't know they did not. Do you? And what if Bhutan told them 
that it was Indian forces that handled all that? Would that be hard 
to believe?

But most importantly, WHAT does India gain by NOT telling these women 
and their children what they did to their husbands and fathers? I 
mean other that the slow torture?

Some strategic advantage perhaps? Or it is just another play of 
Indian-humanity towards whom they never cease to call their own, just 
misguided?


>  Is that WHY, their sad situation was taken advantage of?

***  What would be a more selfless, un-exploitative way to help them? 
Would you like to suggest some alternatives? I will be pleased to 
pass it on , I promise . Better late than never. I won't mention the 
' wide berth' again that you gave earlier :-).

All the rest of the arguments are of little use other than for NRAs 
sitting pretty in their comfortable perches shedding crocodile tears 
about the plight of these women.  It is merely trying to look humane, 
while making arguments that support GoI ploys.


>I think they were. I understand, C'da, that when you fwded it, you 
>probably did not look at it closely ( I >could easily do things like 
>that:))


*** You are right about that. But it does change the fact that I was 
responding to 'asom' posts in response to the assamwatch  post. And I 
explained the EXPLOITATION  to Dilip that you read.

I will eagerly await that UN-EXPLOITATIVE  plea that I hope you will 
draft up for us :-).

c-da







At 9:00 AM -0600 5/11/07, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>C'da,
>
>That the wives were being "used" by certain quarters was abundantly clear.
>
>The question in my mind was 'Did they really want some resolution 
>for these unfortunate women or were they played like pawns?'
>
>I think they were. I understand, C'da, that when you fwded it, you 
>probably did not look at it closely ( I could easily do things like 
>that:))
>
>But look at it -
>
>(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;
>
>Was it "infamous" from India's or Bhutan's view point?
>
>
>(b)      peaceful resolution to the Indo-Assam conflict; and
>
>If  someone has signed on - it would automatically mean that they 
>consider Assam as a different country from India for starters.
>
>(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. 
>
>And how does this help these women in any way? If there was 
>unconditional release and there was no news still of their husbands? 
>would that help?
>
>And that is why people in the Net gave it a wide berth. In fact, 
>there were very few signatures even otherwise. Which tells me, that 
>the crafty crafters of the petition were really not bothered about 
>the plight of these ladies or the other. They just used this as a 
>'platform' to get their views out.
>
>  In fact, if you had followed up their plight, the newspapers also 
>reported that the women gave up their hunger strike upon the urging 
>of the CM, and THEN these women made statements that in effect  took 
>umbrage with the PCPIA, PCG (I think they were the groups that took 
>up "their" cause) and the Govt. for playing with their emotions and 
>naviety. When they were on hunger strike, everybody and his uncle 
>were there - I am guessing get some mileage out of it.
>
>That unfortunately is their story.
>
>To answer your question, you are right, these women would NOT have 
>been able to articulate their demands and write. Is that WHY, their 
>sad situation was taken advantage of? Is there no one in Assam who 
>could that simple thing for them?
>
>  >*** Secondly, getting the information on the missing 
>husbands >DOES NOT solve the problem for their families. Or does it?
>
>Huh! I must have been sleeping - Wasn't that the excercise 'get 
>info' regarding their husbands. The other steps would come later - 
>once they know what happened.
>
>Curious - why haven't they asked the Bhutanese Govt. too. The 
>Bhutanese said, 'they handed the cadres to India" and they are off 
>the hook?
>
>--Ram
>
>
>
>
>On 5/11/07, Chan Mahanta 
><<mailto:cmahanta at charter.net>cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
>
>  >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 <<mailto:cmahanta at charter.net>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
><mailto:assam at assamnet.org>assam at assamnet.org
><http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_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/f24c4f60/attachment.htm>


More information about the Assam mailing list