Re: Autonomy in India - Good or Bad ?

["Indian Rediff" <>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the day:   Nationwide hotel reservations with deep discounts
            http://www.mumbai-central.com/hotel_reservation.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Ram,

Nice to hear yet another interesting topic being throw open. I have debated about this many a time. Unfortunately the only person I could debate this with was - myself :-)

Without further ado - here goes. Please forgive me for my rambling. But this is a subject close to my heart.

Having seen the US from close quarters for a long time, and having been an Indian for at least the previous 24 odd years, and, having developed an interest in matters such as politics, finance and the like, I think I can comment on this.

I have come to the simple conclusion that the US and India are fundamentally different entities. Not everything that is applicable in the US can be applied to India. And the vice-versa also holds true equally.  The superficial facts - that we are democracies; that we have multiple cultures engulfed within our borders - are indeed that - superficial. Once you scratch the surface you realise that the differences are very stark indeed.

The 'States' in USA are more a relic of the expansionist and imperialistic designs that the Pilgrim fathers professed to be running away from - and yet was so deeply ingrained in them that they continued Westward Ho! Bit by bit, piece by piece, war by war (Texas), land-grab by land-grab, massacre by massacre, purchase by purchase (Louisiana) the settlers into North America expanded their frontiers without any regard to the localpopulace. The erstwhile Red Indians have been subdued and given their own regions or territories or reservations (dare I label them as Zoos for the white Americans?)  - and their territory now stands as state after state of the US. Thus - their unity was never in question. if at all anything could be questioned - it is the ability of the original 13 colonies to stay United. The only serious threat to the Unity of the US came from the Civil War - and that was more about Civil Rights and Slavery - than about anything cultural. (People from South of the Mason Dixon line - or from texas would angrily say that this isn't so- but the fact is there really is nothing cultural about wanting to have slaves - or ill treating blacks).

Contrast this with India. In the Indian context MOST of the original residents of the various States are still pretty much right where they have been for the past thousands of years. The Indian Government DID blackmail some of the Kings (the Nizam of Hyderabad would definitely claim so) into becoming part of India. One land grab was Goa. People wishing to stretch it would probably argue that Sikkim was also an annexation. But - have the original residents of the land ANYWHERE been displaced in their entirety in a manner comparable to the erstwhile Red Indians of USA? Not even CLOSE!

Thus our background for unity is entirely different from the need for Unity among the States of the US. Churchill was of the (IMHO arrogant) opinion that "India is merely a geographical term - it is no more a united Nation than the Equator." This was in 1931. Now that we have another 70 years' worth of hindsight - how many more qould argue as vehemently as the fire-in-the-blood freedom fighters did, that India is a reality? (I'd wager that Dr Gupta and maybe even Dr. Kaikobad of this list will condemn me in the strongest possible terms - but that is HIS or THEIR opinion - and he/they is/are surely as entitled to his/their's as I am to mine). 

Ram - you have outlined a few secessionist campaigns that are outwardly and overtly militant and can be termed as uprisings. I would go further - there are 100's more such uprisings in India that are taking place even as we speak. We have already witnessed the departure from this list of two such radical militants who think of their state as being sovereign - and over and above the concept of India.

My conclusion is as follows: it does not matter whether the states in India are given autonomy or not. India is slowly going to be Balkanised. Beign such a large country this will happen slowly. India as a concept has NEVER been a country - except for the post independence era. ANYONE that cares to look at history will see clearly that India has always been a collection of kingdoms and principalities that have constantly fought among themselves. The few attempts at uniting India have been usually ended with the death of either the founder or the ruler following him. Even at its height, the Mughals never ruled the deep South. Nor did the Mauryas. Nor did Ashoka. Nor did anyone else. Churchile, unfortunately, was, is and will always be right. India is destined to break down. The process is happening as we speak. Witness the creation of three new states. These are just a beginning. Rather - I should say this is the process of the unwinding of India - continuing. it began with the creation of Pakistan. Then we created Bangladesh. It will continue. I cannot see anyone bringing this to a halt. 

To answer your question - paradoxically - if we were to grant the states more autonomy - we might actually be able to slow down this process. And maybe even reverse it. But first we MUST agree that at least one state will have the right to make a determination of its own destiny - namely Jammu and Kashmir. Then we have to come to some further understandings about a cleaner division of governance between the states and the centre. Maybe each state should have its OWN constitution. We should become an EU in reverse. Just a common curency and army keep us united. Everything else is left to the states. In this fashion I would wager that India will remain a United front. And the progressive states will go forward. While the backward ones will slowly dig their own graves. We will also have to worry about cross border terrorism WITHIN India! Imagine how much fun that would be!

I shudder at the thought of an India in pieces. But that does not mean it will not happen. I pray that India remains united and grows from strength to strength. But I am not so sure that there is a God Almighty up there listening to me. I am not so sure that He will grant me my prayer.


A pessimistic Indian

-----Original Message-----
From: Ram Narayanan <ramn2k@yahoo.com>
Date: 6 Sep 2001 17:12:13 -0000
Subject: Autonomy in India - Good or Bad ?
>    Would autonomy for states be good for India,
> especially in the Indian context. Given the fact that
> there are secessionist campaigns in Jammu Kashmir,
> Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura and previously in
> the Punjab, this might seem a bit far fetched. But
> it's worth checking out what people's views are on the
> subject.
>   So then, the question would be - Would a Federation
> of States be suitable for India, like in the US ?
> 
>  Views, comments... anyone ?


-- 

_______________________________________________
FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Talk More, Pay Less with Net2Phone Direct(R), up to 1500 minutes free!
http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?143



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Subscribe [Unsubscribe] send a blank message to 
        nukkad-list-request@mumbai-central.com 
with the word 'subscribe' ['unsubscribe'] (without quotes) in the Subject 
of your message.
The list is archived at  http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html