From: juvvadi@csgrad.cs.vt.edu (Ramana R. Juvvadi)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Should Indian states need more autonomy?
Date: 2 Sep 92 06:36:48 GMT
Organization: VPI&SU Computer Science Department, Blacksburg, VA

In article <1992Sep1.205513.19366@udel.edu> godura@zeus.cis.udel.edu (Ruchir Godura) writes:


>I am a Punjabi, and I've lived in Delhi for 4 years. I do not know who
>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.

Admittedly, my impression is based on the Sikhs I spoke to in US. If you
say that the Sikhs in India are different I can't argue. However, I would have
had a better basis for evluating your objectivity if I had known you
personally. Are you sure that the people you spoke to were very honest with
you? After all, you seem to take a strong anti-secessionist stance.
If most of the Sikhs really want to be a part of India it is important that
the government drives that point across. That can only be done by allowing
free press in Punjab. I would be far more satisfied if an independent
magazine like India Today or Economist goes to Punjab and comes out with
an opinion poll saying 90% of the Sikhs want to be a part of Indian Union
or some such thing. Any proclamation from PM or non-Sikhs saying 'of course 
Sikhs want to be part of Indian Union' is not going to help.



>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?

Can't we say the same thing about Europe? There is simply no consitency in
arguing for different  countries in Europe ( I am not saying you do) and
one country for India. We will be on a much better ground on deciding
whether Europe becomes one country or not after the referendum in France this
month. Irrespective of the ultimate result we can be sure of one thing.
German will never be declared as the official language of Europe because
they are the majority as we did in Indian Union. Even worse, no one
would face an economic disadvantage because of not knowing German
even if German will be made the official language. Can you imagine
a remote corner in Portugal getting only German TV programs in prime time?

I personally am an atheist and I am extremely wary of declaring India
a Hindu state. Yet I have to admit grudgingly that there is nothing other
than Hinduism common to most of the Indians. AK Gupta says religion can't
be the basis and egalitarian republicanism should be the basis for forming
a country. I am simply not convinced of his explanation. If that is
true there cannot be more than one democratic country in the world.
All the democracies in the world should combine into one mega country.

>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.

I don't support keeping anyone in any country by force. I think we
should conduct a plebiscite and let them go if they want to. But I 
don't support this special treatment for Kashmir. The same applies
to Punjab or Assam or Tamil Nadu. I have a problem with the means the 
militants have chosen to secede though. Part of the problem lies with the 
government also. It has to allow free speech and free talk of secession 
and should not intervene unless they take recourse to any violence. 
That is they surest way of killing any sympathy for terrorists.  
For example, there was a referendum in Quebec in 1980 for secession 
and they lost. Would there have been any terrorism in Quebec if secessionist
talk wasn't allowed? 

>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

I am not saying domino effect is a reason for keeping Kashmir in India. But
if I deny the existence of domino effect I am being very dishonest
with myself. Human mind is very fickle. That nobody thinks of secession
today is no indication that they won't tomorrow. 

As an aside, I remember reading an interesting theory in Economist. 
Most small regions are trying to break away today because of the increased
world trade. They are confident of buying their goods in the world market.
This luxury didn't exist before as they were dependent on their neighbours
for important supplies. How much you believe the theory is up to you.
As for me, I am far more interested in peace and economic prosperity
than protecting the borders. There was a time when I believed that
peace and protection of borders is same. With the increased violence
I am not so sure any more.

As I said before I before I believe more autonomous regions within the
subcontinent is a more stable arrangement than what we have now.
 
>
>Ruchir.