From: godura@mercury.cis.udel.edu (Ruchir Godura)
Subject: Re: Should Indian states need more autonomy?
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:27:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.215614.28498@cs.wayne.edu> uds@wsu-eng.eng.wayne.edu (Seetamraju Udaybhaskar) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.182424.28759@csc.ti.com> krishnan@ra.csc.ti.com (Srinivasan Krishnan) writes:
>>
>>If Kashmir gets more autonomy, then will NOT the Nationalists (?)
>>in other states ask for more autonomy?  What about Punjab, 
>
>Rather than use upamA alankArams, I say that giving autonomy to
>kashmir, will increase thedemand for more state autonomy.
>Except for the Hindi (or cow belt), everyone hates delhi, and
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What utter, worthless drivel. Would you care to explain what exactly u
mean by everyone ? Delhi is the capital. It belongs equally to ALL
Indians. Is that an expression of some kind of inferiority complex, or
is it some regional chauvinism surfacing in your comments ?

>north indian dominance over the polity of the whole country. Leaving

Again, crap. PVN is the prime minister, approx. 1/2 the cabinet is from
South India, the ruling party depends on its allies in TN to stay in
power... I could go on ..

>that aside, I see autonomies to the following states (IN THAT ORDER)
>though these might take time...
>
>*. GorkhaLand
>*. Assam and or Bodo land
>*  Jharkand State (It should be forming soon).

The autonomy these groups are demanding is fundamentally different from
what is being demanded by Kashmiris. They were, and are firmly for
staying within India, save a few stray elements.

>*. Punjab (The sikhs might never get it because of
>	the immense power and influence that punjabi hindus have
>	in the corridors of delhi.  They cannot stand a sikh punjab).

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 %.

>*. Nagaland.
>*. TamilNadu.

Why have you placed last on the list what you were very obviously
driving at ? Be honest at least, in your chauvinism.

>*. (immedietly followed by other south indian states).

WHY IN THE WORLD ? Aren't u getting a bit carried away ? What grouse
should South India ( a sweeping generalisation on your part ) have
against the rest of India ? Don't give me that Hindi shit.

>(A clarification : autonomy gained may not be complete, it might just
>be greater freedom from central control)...
>
>>PVN sending a message to other potential militants that one could
>>use violence to seceede (sp?) from India?
>
>No question about this.  But I expect to see militancy only
>in northeastern states, where the people grouses are (not just
>genuine) but also very reasonable...
>
>But south india, will take the path of complete non-cooperation.

Man, u are imaginative. How about posting to alt.fantasy in future ?

>quelling protests using CRPF in south india, is a dream of only
>lunatics...  But lets see whether people of SI decide
>that an active participation for autonomous federation
>is necessary, or that time will bring happiness...

??????!!!!!!??????????????!????? whaaaaaaaat ?

>
>>If states get more autonomy, then would the ethnic clashes and 
>>problems between states intensify?  I think PVN is opening a
>>Pandora's box.  I am sure parties like BJP would certainly intensify
>
>Pandora's box had something unpleasant to who-ever didnt like
>it.   But here the word pandora is inappropriate.  The demand for
>autonomy from a central dictator is not blasphemy for many states.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The "central dictator" happens to be a democratically elected prime
minister; an election in which south Indian states have a vote in
proportion to their population, which is sizable.

>It is blasphemy only for the `socialists' and `secularists' and
>self-proclaimed `indians'.
>
>Maybe a couple of more decades, will slowly make autonomy
>a `fashionable' and `the-right-thing-to-do' for these secularists
>and `indians', now that the western countries HAVE JUST realized that
>its not bad.  ((clearly, it will take time for the westerners to `teach'

Yeah ? And probably the reunification of Europe is just another fairy
tale.

>the `indians' and for these `indiand' to declare it is the right thing to do))

Are you trying to say that most Indians don't want to live peacefully with each
other ? Remember that you speak only for yourself, or, maybe a couple of
other nuts.

>
>>their campaign against PVN and would fight for a "Unified Hindhu 
>>homeland". A very interesting as well as a turbulent period ahead?
>>Any comments?
>>Krishnan
>
>
>Seetamraju Udaya Bhaskar Sarma
>(email : seetam @ ece7 . eng . wayne . edu)

There is a basic difference between the Kashmiris and the rest of India.
They have never really felt part of India. This is an undeniable fact,
notwithstanding the various elections etc. that have taken place there.
Everyone ( a generalisation, I know, but sadly true ) knows that were a
referendum to be held in Kashmir, the vote would be in favour of
secession. Is it really worth 10 crores of rupees a day ( I don't
remember the exact figures quoted on the net) to hold on to an alienated
people ? Why should the rest of India pay this heavy price ?
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.
In such a situation, the best that PVN can do is give as much autonomy
to Kashmir as can be given, and he deserves support from all Indians.
There will always be people to criticise moves that try to solve
problems, but VERY FEW to offer constructive suggestions.

It's time we awoke to the situation, and acted pragmatically. 

Ruchir.

done.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian