[Reader-list] Manmohan singh and elections.?

[anupam chakravartty]

dear rakesh,

frankly, i dont give a damn. since, there have been so much talk about
calling a spade, a spade. I just did that. it is from my presence in the
field (meaning the exact location) that i speak what i speak. it is only
when you sit in cushy room full of books stinking knowledge and all such
things, you would care about who is to be accused or who is to be spared. it
is called arm chair intellectualism in a common man's parlance. all i can
say is that Congress over the past five years in assam has brought much good
to its people than what it did previously. it was a realisation and it is
communally a very conducive atmosphere for religions to grow and flourish.
so please leave the north east. these concerns are fake. no one gives two
hoots to what a bangladeshi immigrant goes through while crossing the
borders in boat full of pineaaples bribing the BSF and BDR officials. how
several people take advantage of his situation. my experience, again is from
the field not from some book.

thank you. i wish to speak no more on this.
anupam


On 4/13/09, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Anupam  ji
>
> Accusing an administration for its' alleged mishandling of the blasts (or
> even carrying out themselves) can't tantamount to openly supporting one's
> own party workers to indulge in mayhem and violence. It is certainly
> possible that Advani may have known that after his speech violence would
> take place. It is also possible that he may have asked for it privately, and
> then the plot may have been put in practice.
>
> However, since there is no proof for either of this, it certainly can't be
> said legally that Advani exhorted his workers to indulge in violence, unless
> there is any of his statement in public which means so, or there is any of
> his actions in private (caught by someone and made public), which resulted
> in the violence you are talking about.
>
> I certainly don't have any great regard for Mr. Advani (except that he did
> highlight appeasement, but its meaning as he points out is very wrong). But
> to accuse him like this is stretching the story too far.
>
> Regards
>
> Rakesh
>