From: godura@zeus.cis.udel.edu (Ruchir Godura)
Subject: Re: Should Indian states need more autonomy?
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:55:13 GMT

In article <3379@creatures.cs.vt.edu> juvvadi@csgrad.cs.vt.edu (Ramana R. Juvvadi) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.202729.519@udel.edu> godura@mercury.cis.udel.edu (Ruchir Godura) writes:
>
>
>>Ignorance, ignorance. Why should there be a Sikh punjab at all ? Hindus
>>in Punjab are 49 % of the population. For your information, the majority
>>of Sikhs do not want it either. By majority, I mean, at least 90 %.
>                                                               ^^^
>
>Extrapolating from the people I spoke to it looks as if 90% of the Sikhs want
>to secede. I would really believe it if I see lot of Sikhs reiterating your
>statement.

I am a Punjabi, and I've lived in Delhi for 4 years. I do not know who
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		     read: I know a lot of Sikhs.
you spoke to, but I am yet to meet a Sikh who wants to secede.
There are Sikhs who are unhappy with what the centre is doing in Punjab,
and that is natural, but it is a far cry from being secessionist. There
are a lot of such elements in USA and UK, but Sikhs in India, and that
is what counts, are for staying Indian.

>
>>It thus seems reasonable to allow Kashmiris their will. Easier said than
>>done. The fallout on muslims living in India has to be considered. There
>>will NOT be a demand for autonomy from any part of India, save the NE.
>
>Anybody who believes that the domino effect isn't for real is living
>in a fool's paradise. Remember that it was only that months after
>Baltic states left, the whole Soviet Union collapsed. Save the baltic states,
>the Soviet Union is at least 120 years old. ( I may be wrong on this, but
>if my memory serves me right not much territory was added to Russia after 
>1870). By contrast, Indian Union is only 45 years old. Is this entity of
>Indian Union more than a legacy of Second World War? What is the glue that
>is sticking us together? Hinduism? Our common enemy, the British? History
>will decide soon. My personal opinion, for whatever it is worth, is that
>we need to be one country --- India + Pakistan + Sri Lanka + Bangla Desh
>with a large amount of autonomy given to each region, so that no body
>has a reason to secede. Not every country got its constitution right the
>first time. May be it is time we take a fresh look at ours.

I don't think that India can be compared to the former USSR. The Baltic
states were taken over by force and never really integrated into the
Union. The breakup was inevitable. Even as far as the other states are
concerned, it was always military force  ( and the  KGB ) that was holding them together.
I don't think that it is military force holding India together, save
Kashmir, NE, etc. Again, save Kashmir, none of the other trouble spots
are popular uprisings - they are sustained by neighbouring countries.
It is again, silly to say that the Indian union is only 45 years old.
The entire subcontinent has a collective history dating back hundreds of
years. 
More factors unite us than that we fought a common enemy. The basic
culture .. isn't it the same all over? Aren't most Indian languages
derived from Sanskrit. Aren't the same festivals observed in most parts
of the country in one form or the other? Do mores and social customs
vary abruptly from state to state? 
Uncomfortable as the fact may seem, Hinduism is another very important
factor holding us together. Aren't the hindu holy texts part of the
culture of most linguistic communities, translated probably thousands of
years ago? Didn't we get Kashmir only because the ruler was a Hindu?

>
>To sum up, I don't think Kashmir should be treated specially. We need to
>treat all the states equally. I am in favour of autonomy to every state
>including Kashmir.

A very good idea. More autonomy, that is. But Kashmir has to be dealt
with specially, because it is a special case. Have you ever talked to a
common Kashmiri ? Ask him if he is Indian ...  The basic fact is that
were a plebiscite to be held today, the vote would go for secession.
This is definitely not the case in the other states. What are we getting
by spending scarce resources on trying to hold back an alienated people?
Isn't it just a prestige issue now? Is it worth it to have hundreds of
Indian soldiers dying for a cause that seems to have lost meaning? Is it
worth the loss of hundreds of innocent lives?
It is a bad idea to secede on the basis of religion, but if a large body
of people want to do it, it is the correct thing to do. India has learnt
to live with Pakistan and Bangladesh, and she can learn to live with
Kashmir. 
As far as your domino effect goes, there has to be a strong and
widespread resentment simmering beneath the surface to create the ground
for rebellion. Go to a remote village in any state, and ask the common
man if he wants to secede from India.. yes, to Gorkha, Bodo, Punjab and
"Jharkhand" areas too. Ask it of the poor labourer in the streets of
Calcutta, or the rich businessman in Bombay. Chances are, it'll be the
last thing on his mind.
Yes, politicians do cause disaffection, but nothing that more autonomy
to the states cannot solve.
Basically, we Indians have become too sensitive to the idea of
secession, and the knee jerk reaction to any such suggestion is extreme.
If we can learn to give credit to a desire for freedom from a people who
don't want to belong, we can probably build a more peaceful and
prosperous future for our country. And who knows, things like the
reunification of Europe do occur.


>
>>Ruchir.
>
>Ramana

Ruchir.