From: banerjee@phad.hsc.usc.edu (Samit Banerjee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: BM-RJB issue (more developments)
Date: 13 Oct 1992 14:03:40 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: phad.hsc.usc.edu

In article <1992Oct13.184703.29503@csrd.uiuc.edu> ghosh@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sanjoy Ghosh) writes:

>No, as you made quite clear in this post, no communication gap.  But to
>repeat my earlier question, who or what gives anybody the right to divide
>any group of people up, homogeneously or otherwise.  How would Bengos like
>being distributed all over South India, simply because they are segregated
>in West Bengal.  Quite possible the Naxal problem would never have arisen
>if that had been done.  I know it does not take a God to do that.  A Hitler
>is enough.
>


The Naxal problem is very much alive in Andhra Pradesh today and has nothing
to do with the Bongs being there. On a related note, Tripura and Assam have
sizeable Bengali populations but no Naxalite movements. 

The point is, dont try and blame the Naxal problem on the Bengali people as
a whole. This was a movement patronised by a small coeteie of people with 
grand visions of assuming power through an armed struggle and they found and 
used certain misguided youth to carry it out. Incidentally, the same kind of 
people are in power in Bengal today although I would suspect, all illusions 
of a revolution have long since been abandoned.




>>     After the independence people from outside Kashmir were not allowed to
>> buy land there. If it has been allowed, population would be more homogeneous
>>there, and hopefully this would have thwarted an attempt of muslim extremists
>>to secede. 
>
>Nobody likes being swamped bOBy outsiders, and made to feel like second 
>class citizens in their land.  And that is exactly what would have
>hsppened in Kashmir if the gates had been opened.  Been true in Bombay,
>Calcutta, and Shillong at least.  

"outsiders"....since when am I considered an outsider in my own country?
Incidentally an average Indian's right to own property in any part of the 
country is violated by the so called "second class citizens" paranoia that
you have voiced.

Creating small enclaves for ethnic/religious and/or linguistic minoritites
prevents their overall integration into the national mainstream and this hurts
rather than helps them in the long run. And even from a rational or logical
point of view, I dont see why this should be done. 





>Kashmiris being such a small population
>they would have gone the way of the aborigines in no time.  Don't see how
>that could be avoided.

A threat to the survival of the Kashmiri people was not the reason why the 
state  has been kept off limits to most Indians. And if what you say is
true, it's better than trying to preserve them in reservations like the
native Indians here in the US.  



>>After all, if Kashmir is a part of our country, then why it should
>> not be just like  any other  part    of India, why it should have a 
>>special status?      
>
>How many Kashmiris have said they are a part of India?  And how many 
>have said they would unconditionally be part of India?

Yes and that is the whole point. That is what needs to be changed. And a
changed demographic situation can do that.


>The point here is that when exploitation gets (or might get) to the
>point of extinction then it becomes very much part of a discussion
>such as this.


Pure socialistic crap!!! 


Exploitation may lead to extinction but that is the law of nature.
Darwin called it "survival of the fittest".  And that is why socialism has
been exposed as such a farce!!!

Samit




>
>Sanjoy Ghosh

















The enzymes (RR) from the E.coli and mammalian cells have been shown to consist
of two nonidentical components