[Assam] Fwd: letters to the Editor

Chan Mahanta cmahanta at charter.net
Fri May 25 13:05:27 PDT 2007


Ram:

>That is interesting. It could well be that. But no insurgent would 
>want their own family become targets >of unruly armymen, would they.

*** I might think not. But HOW is one to know who is an ULFA, who is 
merely a relative, or who has nothing to do with them?  Should the 
'common people' know that it does not really matter? That as long as 
Havildar Daulat Ram says so, or as long as an NRA accepts so, it is 
enough to be shot?

And if it does not matter, what difference does it make if one is an 
ULFA or not having anything to do with ULFA? As long as the ARMY says 
so, that is enough, isn't it? Isn't exactly that what AFSPA allows 
them to?



>--- Irate public lynched a suspected ULFA cadre


>In the meantime ULFA has denied their involvement in the killing, 
>stating that the two cadres did not belong >to their group and that 
>the outfit had nothing against the teacher.


*** But what does that have to do with Army killing someone if he/she 
had nothing to do with ULFA?  I won't even go to the issue of HOW 
the Army might know how to decide who is ULFA and who is not.


Accept the scenario laid out so lucidly by Kamal ? Like you do :-)?


*** Such Ram, is the rule of law  of desi-demokrasy , that spawned 
ULFA to begin with. Let us not forget that. And in thirty years or 
so, nothing has changed. Not even for NRA devotees of democracy  and 
believers in the rule of law :-).



c-da









At 1:43 PM -0500 5/25/07, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>Hi C'da,
>
>  >I am glad you corrected that slip of Kamal's Ram, by 
>clarifying >that the 'common people' harbor them out of sheer 
>terror, and >NOT because them 'terrorist' just might be their 
>own--sons, >nephews, friends, in-laws, lovers, what have you :-).
>
>That is interesting. It could well be that. But no insurgent would 
>want their own family become targets of unruly armymen, would they.
>
>It is more than likely, unsurgents would make sure the "action" is 
>not close to their immediate families. So, when they do need to make 
>a run for it, they make probably do so in some other village (not 
>their own).
>
>This news from the AT should perk you right up (as to how close the 
>ULFA insurgents are to the common people - specially when the common 
>folks are free to express themselves and not looking down the barrel 
>of a gun) .
>
>Here the brave ULFA men shot (point blank) this most dangerous 
>school teacher - who probably was a bigwig in this big "Indo-Assam 
>Conflict". Now, that is done, perhaps the ULFA can put down its arms 
>and join the mainstream! :)
>
>--Ram
>___________________________________
>Villagers lynch ULFA cadre
>From Our Correspondent
>  DIBRUGARH, May 24 - Irate public lynched a suspected ULFA cadre at 
>Pengeri and detained his comrade at Hulunggutti village under 
>Kakopathar PS in Tinsukia district after the militants killed the 
>schoolteacher of Kailashpur LP school this morning. Local villagers 
>gave a chase to the militants following the hue and cry of the 
>school students and managed to get hold of Budhe Dhadumia who was 
>later beaten to death by the villagers. The other cadre whose 
>identity has not been confirmed is said to be handed over to the 
>police by the villagers in Hulunggutti.
>
>The two militants who reportedly came over to the school on foot 
>called for the schoolteacher when the school assembly was on. As the 
>schoolteacher Rohini Gogoi approached them, he was shot at from 
>point blank range in full view of the students, according to 
>reliable sources. The teacher died on the spot.
>
>Senior police officials from Tinsukia have rushed to the spot and 
>investigation is on. In the meantime ULFA has denied their 
>involvement in the killing, stating that the two cadres did not 
>belong to their group and that the outfit had nothing against the 
>teacher.
>
>
>
>On 5/25/07, Chan Mahanta 
><<mailto:cmahanta at charter.net>cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
>
>Hi Ram:
>
>
>
>
>Thanks for sharing Kamal's letter to the Sentinel and your thoughts 
>on the subject.
>
>
>I know Kamal  does believe in the rule of law, and am sure he too 
>wants the security forces to be accountable.
>
>
>But he goes to great lengths in trying to explain that 'terrorism' 
>cannot be dealt with gingerly, as if that is what Wasbir wants to 
>do, deal with it 'gingerly'. If one has to draw conclusions from 
>Kamal's note, it would be that Kamal wants to give the 'security' 
>forces free-reign -- as if AFSPA is not enough. In that his
>opening statement sounds  like a mere perfunctory homage to the rule 
>of law, a 'xaliki-snan' .
>
>
>I was also quite curious about :
>
>
>
>>>  >It is a killing field where
>>>>the Army has to fight an invisible enemy, who hides amongst the
>>>
>  >common masses and does not wear uniform.
>
>
>*** So perhaps it is OK to go shoot first and ask questions later. 
>After all there are 'terrorists' out there, and soldiers are only 
>human, unlike them 'masses'  harboring them 'terrorists'. So , let 
>us not make too big a deal of a few of the 'masses'  getting rubbed 
>out, no doubt only accidentally!  Right ?
>
>
>
>
>
>>>  > In order to overcome this disadvantage, a soldier must be
>>>>swift-reacting for which lightening reactions are summoned into
>>>>actions, whenever and wherever there is an iota of doubt. By being
>>>>fast and unpredictable, a soldier garners the ability to alarm the
>>>
>  >terrorist before the latter unnerves him.
>
>
>*** I didn't realize that Kamal, besides being the good daktor he 
>is, is also a military tactician. Perhaps a specialist in 
>'terrorist' fighting ?  In GW Bush country he has a lot to 
>contribute.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>  >Under this
>>>
>  >circumstance, human errors are bound to occur occasionally.
>
>
>*** Of course!  Only people like Wasbir tend to make mountains of 
>such molehills. You never can trust these bleeding heart liberal 
>journalists, can you?
>
>
>
>
>
>>>  >>The Army, in essence, is a well-oiled killing machine, who are
>>>>taught to annihilate the enemy. Its mathematics is simple:
>>>
>  >''anti-national'' means ''you have to eliminate''.
>
>
>*** The immense power of superior logic exuding thru these 
>observations would be lost on the clueless like myself, had it not 
>been for Kamal's pointing it out !  Well-oiled killing machine! So, 
>occasionally it could veer out of course. Only natural--what do you 
>expect?  Are you going to make a federal case out of it? Once the 
>'anti-national' label is placed on the target, it is OPEN SEASON!
>
>
>My only question will be about WHO places that target, the 
>anti-national label? And their QUALIFICATION for that? Authority for 
>that?
>
>
>Ooops! Forgive me. I almost forgot. They have AFSPA.  Don't need any.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>  >Ideally, the Army
>>>
>  >is not a force to be unleashed in civilian space.
>
>
>*** Oh the idealist Kamal! He is all heart, isn't he? Tell you what? 
>If it were for me, I would say ideals schmideals! It is for them 
>bleeding hearts.  Real patriots , not to mention real men, don't 
>need that sappy garbage.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>  >>Since the terrorist almost always hides amongst the common people,
>>>>the security forces must treat everyone with suspicion and that
>>>
>  >keeps the soldiers on their toes.
>
>
>
>
>*** Now he is talking. The gloves finally came off, didn't they? I 
>knew we could count on Kamal to say it like it is.
>
>
>"--- terrorist almost always hides amongst the common people,"
>
>
>Wait a minute here! Is Kamal suggesting that the 'common people' AID 
>and ABET them 'terrorists" ?  Very interesting indeed.  But if that 
>is true, how are they 'terrorists', if the common people are not 
>even terrified of them?
>
>
>I am glad you corrected that slip of Kamal's Ram, by clarifying that 
>the 'common people' harbor them out of sheer terror, and NOT because 
>them 'terrorist' just might be their own--sons, nephews, friends, 
>in-laws, lovers, what have you :-).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>  >the security forces must treat everyone with suspicion and that
>>>
>>  >keeps the soldiers on their toes. This may cause harassment to the
>>
>>  >public, but it is the price one has to pay when the security forces
>>
>  >are fighting an invisible enemy.
>
>
>
>
>*** Glad someone put things in perspective.  These common masses 
>need to be told in uncertain terms that they are SUSPECT! After all 
>they are the ones causing trouble for the uncommon ELITEs like Kamal 
>and his kind, keeping soldiers in their service on their toes.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>  >This is precisely why we get to
>>>>read the news of innocent civilians being killed mistakenly by the
>>>
>  >Army.
>
>
>
>
>*** Now we know!
>
>
>
>
>
>>>  >But then, these cases are exceptions rather than rule.
>>>>It would be worthwhile to keep in mind that the terrorists are
>>>>certainly not normal human beings who harbour sentiments such as
>>>
>  >compassion and love.
>
>
>
>
>*** Didn't know that. Honest! Call me a fool, but I was under the 
>mistaken idea that 'terrorist' is just a CONVENIENT label to place 
>on other humans who are causing trouble for the good folks, like 
>placing a bulls-eye target on their backs for the well-oiled killing 
>machine to zero in on the kills. Didn't know they are not humans at 
>all.  Must be another bunch of 'killing machines' but without the 
>grease and short on fuel.
>
>
>
>
>  >>The fact remains that brutes only understand brute force.
>
>
>*** Of course! And if the common masses harbor them, they too ought 
>to be treated brutally. And since it is so hard to tell one from the 
>other, what do you expect?
>
>
>It's all clear now . Thanks to Kamal.
>
>
>c-da :-)
>
>
>
>
>PS:
>
>
>
>>  >I hope you are not trying to show that insurgents are  innocent and
>>
>have played no part.
>
>
>*** How did you guess that Ram? I was trying to slide that in 
>sideways. But you catch me every time .
>Let me 'fess up here: I was not only trying to shield them 
>'terrorists', I even had a soft spot for them common masses who 
>harbor them as well.  I am another one of those who didn't realize 
>that once they hob-nob with 'terrorists' their innocence go up in 
>smoke and they become fair game.
>
>
>That, after all is the essence of desi-demokrasy!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 9:06 PM -0500 5/24/07, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>
>>C'da
>>Iam at a slight disadvt.-out of town and on a small keybrd. But will try.
>>I think kjd does make salient pts.Assigning blame to the army is very
>>easy.If one has to it has to be the policy makers, maybe the
>>commanders etc. The usual jawan is probably shipped out of Andhra or
>>Bihar with a very limited knowledge of the local populace. When they
>>get imbroiled in a fracas, innocents get killed or hurt.
>>Yesterday, I wrote how insurgents go hide among the villagers. The
>>poor people, often have little or no option but to give shelter to
>>insurgents, thus inviting the army.
>>
>The insurgents don't wear uniforms, look and dress like the locals
>
>(Assam or Kashmir)and they take full advantage of such situations and
>
>their sympathizers are ready to pounce on the army if things go awry.
>When civilians pay the price, it might be prudent to look into the
>role also of the insurgents.
>
>I hope you are not trying to show that insurgents are  innocent and
>
>have played no part.
>And thats about as much I can type on this tiny keybrd. More tomorrow:)
>BTW KJD just asked I fwd it-he is not a subscriber I think.
>
>--Ram
>
>
>On 5/24/07, Chan Mahanta 
><<mailto:cmahanta at charter.net>cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
>
>>Any comments on it on your part ,Ram :-)?
>>
>>c-da
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>At 6:15 PM -0500 5/24/07, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>>>Of Army 'Excess'
>>>One of the remarks made by Mr Wasbir Hussain in his column entitled
>>>"Men with weapons must have accountability" (The Sentinel, May 19,
>>>2007) could not help but catch my eye. A direct quote, perhaps,
>>>would carry the right flavour: "The action of the Army, police or
>>>the paramilitary in eliminating any innocent civilian... is
>>>unacceptable." True, checks and balances are necessary, and
>>>accountability on the part of the security forces must be
>>>established and responsibility fixed. However, one must understand
>>>that the problem of terrorism cannot be tackled gingerly, nor can it
>>>be equated with the delicate act of delivering babies.
>>>The counter-insurgency operations are a lethal game that entails
>>
>  >quickness and keenness of perception. It is a killing field where
>>the Army has to fight an invisible enemy, who hides amongst the
>
>  >common masses and does not wear uniform. It is the terrorist who
>>decides when, where and how, while the soldier is at the receiving
>
>  >end. In order to overcome this disadvantage, a soldier must be
>>swift-reacting for which lightening reactions are summoned into
>  >actions, whenever and wherever there is an iota of doubt. By being
>>fast and unpredictable, a soldier garners the ability to alarm the
>
>  >terrorist before the latter unnerves him. Time is not on the side of
>
>  >the soldier, and he lives only if he reacts swiftly. Under this
>
>  >circumstance, human errors are bound to occur occasionally.
>
>  >The Army, in essence, is a well-oiled killing machine, who are
>>taught to annihilate the enemy. Its mathematics is simple:
>
>  >''anti-national'' means ''you have to eliminate''. Ideally, the Army
>
>  >is not a force to be unleashed in civilian space. When they are
>>marshalled into a troubled spot to help civil administration to curb
>>violence, a soldier does not differentiate between a foreign enemy
>>and a home-grown separatist. His only objective is to erase the foe.
>
>  >Since the terrorist almost always hides amongst the common people,
>
>  >the security forces must treat everyone with suspicion and that
>
>  >keeps the soldiers on their toes. This may cause harassment to the
>>public, but it is the price one has to pay when the security forces
>
>  >are fighting an invisible enemy. This is precisely why we get to
>>read the news of innocent civilians being killed mistakenly by the
>
>  >Army. But then, these cases are exceptions rather than rule.
>>It would be worthwhile to keep in mind that the terrorists are
>>certainly not normal human beings who harbour sentiments such as
>
>  >compassion and love. Had they been so, they would not have been able
>>to stand to shoot at another human being's head point-blank - that
>>too, that of a non-combatant civilian. And this speaks volumes of
>>their mental make-up.
>
>  >The fact remains that brutes only understand brute force.
>>Kamaljit Deka,
>>Sugarland, Texas.
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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/20070525/11d0f04e/attachment.htm>


More information about the Assam mailing list