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

Re: secession




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Postings not related to the writing of the Manifesto or policy chapters
are likely to be summarily rejected. Thanks for your understanding. IPI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends

>I was working on a proposal that would enhance democracy and rational
>debate in India over issues relating to secession from the country. The

>following paragraph may be inserted at the appropriate place in the
>manifesto, as a first step to this long-needed debate.
>

I am of the opinion that there cannot be any rational debate on
secession. The reason
   - The concept of Secession as with the concept of a nation is more
    often than not based on - sentiment, beliefs and emotions which do
    not submit themselves to a rational analysis. There cannot be a
    rational consensus on secession - at best it would be a bloody and
    emotional consensus.

I think by trying to be overly liberal and open-minded and rational we
are falling into a trap here.

The concept of a Nation is not rational but is a heady mixture of
emotions, shared values and History all mixed up to conjure up an image
of monolithic geographical piece of land.

The present national boundaries world-wide are not a result of a
rational act but are the result of wars. Its war that has built and
felled nations. One interesting development of the 21st century though
is the Economic Union of Nations. A rational act redefining the
definition of a nation. It remains to be seen what national dynamics are

going to be in play and how long the Economic Union experiment in Europe

would last. If the History of the Balkans is any indication this might
not be too long.


>"A group of people interested in seceding from India would need a
>proposal signed by 5% of the adult population of the concerned area
>(usually at least a state) for a referendum to take place. They will be

>permitted one year of campaigning during which only peaceful methods
and
>debate will be permitted. At the end of the period, if 2/3rd of the
>adult population of the area approves the proposal, the state would be
>permitted to secede from India. Any use of violence would cancel the
>process."

I think Sanjeevs trying to be far too generous to all those who want to
secede. Rationalism has its place but one cant ignore common-sense.

No Nation ever will vote to disintegrate itself peacefully with a
consensus. No Nation - for the simple fact that in the first place to
define a nation you would have to conjure up a monolithic image which
obsucres inherent differences. By acknowledging differences and giving
constitutional sanctity to them you would end up denting that monolith
so badly that within no time it would crumble to pieces.

My view is simply this. A Nation is a monolith. The constitution must
regard it as thus. A secession thus would require the constitution to be

inavlidated and made infructuous which would only be possible by
overthrowing the system in place and carving out a new system. That
shall be possible only by an armed struggle.

Perhaps it may worthwhile to consider Economic Autonomy as an option to
political secession and ponder how that may be provided for on the lines

of the European Union.

cheers
shashi





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