Rajnish (Mar 16, 2004 05:37 a.m.):
From
When I had earlier posted that I was hoping Mr Rajneesh Gehlawat would return to the forum to help, I was hoping for a little more of an inclusive approach.
The brusque tone of his post is open for misunderstanding.
Possibly some of the blame for Mr Gehlawat’s wrath on Amit should be directed at me.
I am the one who posed the questions:
Ravi Chaudhary (Mar 06, 2004 09:34 a.m.):
What was the attendance ?
Who were the speakers ?( thanks Amit for telling us you were one of them Well done)
What papers were presented ?
What resolutions were passed ?
What initiatives were set in motion?
Was there a youth wing created ?
These are standard questions, which people would like information on.
**************
Amit was kind enough, though to try and provide information, as he was personally present at this gathering.
His leadership on developing a vision statement for the Jats effort is quite wonderful, to get a discussion going, and for consensus to be developed.
I appreciate his feedback. Others must have also, as no negative comments had been received.
He has no where claimed that he is an “official “ spokesman for this “World Aryan Jat organization.”
I think that Mr Gehlawat has mistaken Amit’s use of the word spokesman, for “ official “ spokesman..
Mr Gehlawat’s post could be misunderstood, and I request Amit and others not to react.
Mr Gehlawat, could I presume that you are the “official “ spokesman for this organization. If you are, please accept my best wishes
Could I expect a response from you in my humble quest for information ?.
I had also sent you a private e mail, March 3, 2004.
Would you be kind enough to respond to that e mail directly to me?
Is there a reason I do not get a reply from you ?
Ravi