[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Kashmir: Are We Right?]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Topics under debate]: GOOD GOVERNANCE
___Help make this manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!___
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr Sabhlok

I agree totally with you.

If the fundamental reason, for the the creation of a State, which
imposes
its values on the constituting members, is not agreed on mutual consent
then
neither is such a system normatively desirable keeping in mind the basic

tenets of freedom of individual, nor is it practically possible to
maintain
the existence of such a state in the long run. Using force to smoothen
fundamental differences that exist among different sections of a nation
is
at best a short term remedy.

But there is another angle to be considered. It is possible that an
entity
whether a nation, or any other group is born at a tumultous period and
at
the time of its birth yet unrefined to totally solve its problems within
the
ideal framework which it should have otherwise done. But if it can be
assured that the continuation of this group woulfd in the long run be
beneficial to all its  constituting members, then in my opinion it is
justified to take whatever measures are neessary to ensure the
continuation
of that group.

An ideal democracy where every individual has political, economic and
social
freedom is such a sublime concept, that in my opinion it can be achieved

only through a long process of evolution. No sublime achievement can be
made
without sacrifices.The only qualification that needs to be made is this:

This assertion of denying the right to self determination for the future

welfare of all is open to exploitation at the hands of few who may
proclaim
that their tyrannical actions are aimed with a prosperous future in
mind.
Definitely there is no easy way to distinguish between these two. What
should then be the guiding factor? I am not sure, but I would say that a

quantitative determination of welfare and a rationally stated case based
on
sound economics to prove that the continuation of such a sytem would in
the
future guarantee increased welfare fo all the constituting members,
would be
enough proof to justify the denial of right to self determination to any
of
the constituting members. But of course, it is impossible to carry out
such
a study as also to make deductions from any such study that is deemed
acceptable by all. Faced with this impossibility, we have to turn back
on
our intutive feeling and make the judgement.

In summary what I would like to state to you is that giving the right to

self determination to the constituting members is also not necessarily
the
correct solution to achieve an ideal democracy. The history of Amereica
is
good example, when the Northern States forcefully denied the right to
self
determination to the Southern States. The United States remained as a
state
because of this forceful denial of self determination to some of its
members. And today US is the most economically powerful nation and I am
sure
if a poll is conducted in the Southern States as to whether they wanted
to
seceede from the Union today, I am sure you would agree with me that the

answer would be a definite "no".

                                                        Unni





--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------