[Assam] Pre-emptive defense!

Chan Mahanta cmahanta at charter.net
Wed May 23 09:01:30 PDT 2007


At 11:19 AM -0600 5/22/07, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>In this age of pre-emptive this and pre-emptive that, this quote by 
>C'da is precious.
>
>  >*** I do have sympathy for ALL victims of discrimination. But NOT 
>all such victims' miseries  are equal. >Therefore I CHOOSE who to 
>raise my voice for or against, since I cannot be a defender of  ALL 
>victims >that need help.
>
>While, it is true, that we can and often do try and defend victims 
>that need help and whose interests often mesh with our own, there 
>are some situations where in some of the posts we are egged on to 
>support a victim here and a victim there.


*** Perhaps that is not a credo of the fair and balanced crowd , but 
if we go cry over all the wrongs of the world, what are the chances 
anyone will be listening? I have not seen any of the fair and the 
balanced crowd shedding tears over Darfur or East Timor or Kashmir or 
Kakopothar .



>  >Some good examples we recently came across:
>Netters were exhorted (forget the petition part ) to lend support to 
>the ULFA wives in search of their >husbands.


*** In a forum whose entire being is to foster discussions about 
Assam, one might think it is an issue worth bringing up. Of course we 
know how the fair and the balanced would respond.  But that is no 
reason NOT to. Because there are those who DO care.


>  >
Essentially "taking sides". Is taking sides all that bad?

*** Is it?



>The other question that percolates to the mind is whatever happened 
>to 'fairplay' ?

*** Judged 'fair' according to who?


>Whether some attrocity is perpetrated on ULFA cadres or the army or 
>police or the general public, >shouldn't there rise above all the 
>din, a sense of fairplay?

*** I don't know that anyone is prohibited from doing so. But there 
IS a difference between the immensely powerful  army of the worlds 
largest 'democracy' , armed with AFSPA, terrorizing defenseless 
villagers and meting out summary justice at will and a rag-tag band 
of insurgents fighting
a for freedom from that power.

So ALL violence are NOT EQUAL.

>Should we bother about such clutters, and just take sides based on 
>our socio-political beliefs? Would >that suffice?

*** Isn't that what we see here in assamnet? Have we ever seen any 
different? And WHY should *I* abandon MY own sense of what is right 
in Assam's conflicts.  Or for that matter Ram? We should try to 
explain, WHY our individual views are the right ones.  That educates 
the uninformed and the fence-sitters.  But again, declaring GoI will 
never accept this or that, or wishing ULFA away by calling it names 
doers not do that.  The able amongst us ought to try and rise above 
that.

I asked GoI supporters, a number of times  WHY   Assam should remain 
a subservient colony to be exploited by Indian interests, or WHY it 
is good for India to  hold on to Assam or for that matter Kashmir?

I don't recall any explanation that camer from the GoI supporters 
here. Was it hard ? I know it is a lot easier to say GoI won't 
accepot this or that. But what about those supporters' PERSONAL 
views? What do THEY recommend?

On my part, when asked by Sandip, I did not beat around the bush and 
gave my answer.







>Some good examples we recently came across:
>Netters were exhorted (forget the petition part ) to lend support to 
>the ULFA wives in search of their husbands.
>Or enquired why the Indian army was given a pass (for its 
>attrocities) while the ulfa was condemned roundly.
>Why netters were not upset over the Bhutan raid on Ulfa?
>Or some states like Assam called to question for its performance, 
>while others were let off.
>
>There were also examples of other netters doing the same things (but 
>opposite) -
>Why ulfa supporters were not condemning frequent ulfa bombings?
>Asked why the killings of the Dhemaji children were Not condemned by all?
>Condemn the ulfa, but not the army or the GOI in cherry-picked situations.
>
>Essentially "taking sides". Is taking sides all that bad?
>
>Now, a statement like C'da's above comes in really handy in tight 
>situations. All one has to do is say - well I understand, etc etc, 
>but I have already lent support this or that cause - can't 
>support/defend all the people all the time.
>
>The other question that percolates to the mind is whatever happened 
>to 'fairplay' ? Whether some attrocity is perpetrated on ULFA cadres 
>or the army or police or the general public, shouldn't there rise 
>above all the din, a sense of fairplay? Should we bother about such 
>clutters, and just take sides based on our socio-political beliefs? 
>Would that suffice?
>
>Lastly, I just want to clear this up. I took C'da's quote ONLY as an 
>example and 'test case'. I have on occassion taken these same 
>'pre-emptive' avenues (even though, I haven't articulated as such). 
>Other netters have too. :)
>
>Just meandering thoughts!
>
>--Ram
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.assamnet.org/pipermail/assam-assamnet.org/attachments/20070523/d587f528/attachment.htm>


More information about the Assam mailing list