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

Fwd: Re: Mr. Sabhlok has no business promoting secession




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Postings not related to the writing of the Manifesto or policy chapters
are likely to be summarily rejected. Thanks for your understanding. IPI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Forwarded for the purpose of involving a greater
number of people in the debate.

-Arvind


---Nirvikar Singh <boxjenk@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> CONFIDENTIAL:   Posting to the Management Team of
IndiaPolicy Institute
> Please DO NOT distribute this message.
http://www.indiapolicy.org/office/
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Hi Suby:
>
> Do you think that any debate (even academic debate)
about possible terms of
> secession is treasonous?!
>
> Best,
> Nirvikar
>
>
> At 09:23 AM 3/4/99 +0530, you wrote:
> >
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >CONFIDENTIAL:   Posting to the Management Team of
IndiaPolicy Institute
> >Please DO NOT distribute this message.
http://www.indiapolicy.org/office/
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >>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.
> >>
> >>"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."
> >>
> >>
> >Please realise that only a duly elected
Constituent Assembly of India is
> >authorized to talk about the terms of secession.
Mr. Sabhlok has gone
> >completely overboard with this.
> >
> >Subroto Roy.
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Sanjeev Sabhlok <sabhlok@almaak.usc.edu>
> >To: debate@indiapolicy.org <debate@indiapolicy.org>
> >Date: Thursday, March 04, 1999 04:56
> >Subject: secession
> >
> >
> >>
>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

> >>
> >>
>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

> >>
> >
> >
> Nirvikar Singh
> Department of Economics
> Social Sciences 1
> University of California
> Santa Cruz, CA 95064
>  Voice      (831) 459-4093
> Fax           (831) 459-5900
> Web          http://econ.ucsc.edu/~boxjenk/




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