| Biswo |
Posted
on 22-Sep-02 07:41 PM
For some reason, I couldn't post my second part of response in the original. So,
I am posting it here.
---
>Anyway, overall this is a grim picture. This shows how deep the sankat of our country
>is in. There is one more worrisome scenario. When we compare the strength of Maoists
>and the government, the same rule does not apply to both. Maoists win by not losing
>the battle but the government can win only by winning it. The strength of the
>government is those who support the government, the strength of Maoists is those
>who support the Maoists plus those who do not support the government.
Not necessarily true.
The strenght of the government (or the warring side against RNA if you mean this) is
DEMOCRACY and the system it is fighting for.
The strengh of the rebels stems from the coercion, the fear generated by reckless
murders,and of course the suppression of the tract they have managed to isolate
from the mainland.
When you said the strength of Maoists is 'those who don't support government'
(although you provided two groups,they are essentially one and this), I remember
the press release of one communist leader who claimed that since about 62%
voted in 2048 election, their party had support of 38% of people.How untrue!
>The bottom line is that we can not defeat the Maoists with a government which does
>not enjoy the massive popular support. Does our government enjoy the massive
>popular support ? No. So what should we do to make people support the government
>massively ? This is the prime question of the moment. If we are serious about
>defeating Maoists, this is where we should ponder.
I agree with you here.
>but I am really surprised to see Biswoji and so many other friends mad at the poster
>who posted that picture of the army patrol. There is nothing that insults the army in
>the caption Nor I could see the picture itself any objectionable. It is a very common
>picture you see every now and then in foreign media when they cover the places of
>conflict.
Oh, come on, Nepeji. Let's not pretend. This picture tries to portray the RNA as a
force that vulgarly exercise its authority over some benign photographer. Yes,
we see this everyday, but will you please tell me in which one of such pictures
published 'everyday' in international media you sympathized with the army ?
And about Bichalit Bartaman:
Despite your impression, I was a minor contributor to the program. I supported
program because it signalled what our future should be: a free country with
free artists, a creative group of people trying to spread awareness , trying to
provide diverse opinions for the masses.
Bichalit Bartaman was an attempt at that:it was an attempt at preserving our
rights safeguarded BY our constitution of 2047. No supporter of that program
was presumed to be the supporter of 'every photos' posted in the website.It
was a noble cause for all of us to support.
----------
Sitaraji,
Ke bhanne khai. While I understand your position, I find it very amusing when you
jump to glorify everyone who agrees with your position and villify others as those
who are 'eager' to lynch people like you who are so eager to express truth. Since
you are a human right activist, I understand your pain though:-)
Anyway, When I disagree with someone, it DOESN'T MEAN I am objecting his right
to 'write' something. OK? Let's be clear here.
When I disagree with someone, I am exercizing my right to express my opinion on
his opinion.
I am not lynching someone here. If expressing my opinion about someone's action
is lynching, then I wonder what your position is about 'discussions' and how do
you think forums like this should be.
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 24-Sep-02 06:09 AM
Biswo ji;
The first posting was aimed at you with the pure analysis of the semantics you have used in a very sensationalist way. It is definitely a very provocative method you have applied if that was your purpose.
The second posting was more or of an explanation of the virtue of "tolerance" and "critical" thought. In all the discussions, brain storming and conferences I have attended in my profession (I can't even begin to count), there have been very few I have met who have made sweeping generalizations without critical thought. But we can always choose to have an "educated" argument or Not...hoina?
As for "villifying" I work with the very semantics that have been hurled into the thread, nothing more nothing less.
And yes, you are "entitled" to your opinions, just be prepared to take a defiant (...not defensive) stance....and if that is what you want...you got it!!!!!!
|
