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


Postings not related to the writing of the Manifesto or policy chapters
are likely to be summarily rejected. Thanks for your understanding. IPI
I believe objections have been raised to my proposal. Before dumping it,
without analysis, let me say (and I will go by the general view once the
issue is debated, as usual)

1. I am not looking for "yes" or "no" opinions. What I am looking for
are reasons, and if you happen to be a full Professor then  please apply
your mind to the problem, rather than your emotion.

2. This proposal has been designed (first draft ) to prevent an easy
secession.  Particularly, the favorite tool of secessionists, namely,
violence, has been strictly ruled out. ANY violence would have to be
firmly crushed. The draft can be made tighter to exclude any possible
foreign involvement in the process. Also,  2 proximate states would need
to VOTE (note the difference) with 2/3 rd majority to enable the
referendum to come into effect.

3. Only by having such a statement in our Constitution can we claim to a
be a democracy: By the People, FOR the People, OF the People.  Also, it
is the only position compatible with the Citizens' declaration of
sovereignty, where People are bigger and more important than a Nation. A
Nation is a place for us to work together for our mutual prosperity.  
If 2/3rd of adults voluntarily feel that they do not want to be a part
of the existing nation and we do not allow them to secede, then we are
in effect saying: Nation first, People later.  That, I believe, is

4.  If at all we in India ever place such a statement in our
Constitution, we would perhaps not be the first nation to have it. I
believe that Canada is already debating such referenda, and at least
some other nations possess similar clauses. This is an inevitable
landmark as the word moves toward greater democracy.

5.  Remember, if any State ever gives support to commence debate on a
referendum proposal, it will then be time for you and me to go into our
act. We will need to go that place and debate in favor of India and show
why we offer them a better deal. I am very clear that if you and I had
the ability to debate openly with ULFA in Assam, for example, we could
easily show their idea of a separate Assam to be preposterous and
hurtful to their own people.  That way, we would save our good citizens
from monumental agony. And, believe me, if we were not able to show them
that their being part of the India was beneficial to them, then we
should show our goodwill toward our own people and brothers and sisters,
and let them go. Nations will come and go, but each human life is
precious. Being human is more important than being Indian, strange as
this idea may sound to some.

If you and I simply ask the Indian Army (which is for external defence
and not for attacking our own brothers and sisters) to go in whenever
the slightest demand (even peaceful) for secession arises, then  I
believe we are supporting murder of our fellow human beings and not
setting the standards for democracy that we need to be setting as the
world's largest democracy.

Anyway, what are we afraid of in the proposal that I have suggested?
That we can't trust our citizens to decide wisely for their own future?
What then gives us the right to decide for them? They are the same flesh
and blood as ours.

By the way, a proposal like this would be the most fatal blow to
terrorist organizations that we as a nation can deliver. If
organizations like ULFA do not debate but use the gun, we as a nation
would have a very clean conscience in crushing such terrorists with all
our power. Fish out the violent scum; expose their shoddy thinking
through open debate.

I have seen unimaginable damage caused by the arrogance of majorities
who are willing to use the gun at the slightest pretext against our own
brothers without hearing them out.  Using openly televised debate is the
best antidote to this nation's bloody sores and our primitive urge to
kill our own people.

If someone really feels that India has not been taking care of their
interest then I would like to offer them only the following choices 

i )	Try to change things like we and trying to do on IPI
ii)	Try to debate openly and arrange secession as per procedure 
iii)	Leave India permanently 
iv) 	Commit suicide 

I do not wish to offer the option to such people to shoot you or me
simply because their ideology permits them to do so. If they fail in a
procedural seccession and do not wish to leave India, then they should
much rather commit suicide, for all I care. But I would not let them use
the guise of ideology to terrorize and threaten and kill good Indians.

I do realize that our emotion tends to seriously cloud our responses to
such issues, but I do believe that I am offering a very superior,
humane, democratic, effective, efficient and otherwise desirable

I can also assure you, paradoxically, that with this provision, India
will survive unharmed for millions of years. Without it, it might easily
split into smithereens as we foolishly send in our Army to do the work
that we as civilian democrats had been assigned to do, as per our
Constitution. Even a USA cannot control Vietnam by force. Keep that in
mind, fellow friends and Indians. Let us grow up as a democracy.

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