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

Re: seccession 1




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

Friends Responding to Sanjeevs Rejoinder on Secession

>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.

I am no full Prof. and I quite dont know what that has to do with the 
debate anyway :)

Yes we need reasons. Perhaps before even we reason out how we secede it 
would be helpful if you could reason out Why One Needs to Secede. Whats 
the motivation - Are there any rational grounds for secession. If so 
please list them out.

>
>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.
>

Well who is to enforce these rules, who is to act as referee and umpire 
and ensure fair-play ?

>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. 

Well the incompatibility with the Citizen's declaration of sovereignity 
is a fact but that the Citizen's declaration of sovereignity takes 
precedence over the constitution is notion which is wrong.

REASONs:
       - The Citizen's declaration of sovereignity implicitly assmes
          that the citizen's sovereignity is guranteed. 
       - Who is to gurantee this ? God or some external agent ? 
       - Does the DECLARATION gurantee its implementation ?
       - This sovereignity will exist only when it is guranteed by 
       - When there is no gurantee, the laws of the jungle operate and 
         its "Survival of the Fittest".
       - The gurantee for the civil way of life that we are lucky to
         enjoy today is the soceital consensus position on ensuring
         the sustenance and continuation on our way of life.
       - Where this consensus has failed we have seen historically
         the laws of the jungle have operated.
       - The consensus existed because of a common minimum ground
         to which all sections agreed and relinquished some 
         individual freedom.
       - The consensus broke when individuals demanded back those 
         aspects of individual freedom they had earlier relinquished.
         
>A Nation is a place for us to work together for our mutual > 
prosperity.  

I thought a MNC was such a place :), just kidding.

I agree that a nation is such a place. But as I have said before in an 
earlier posting the nation is what its people shape it out be.

>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 
wrong.
>

Well if 2/3rd of adults feel strongly wrong about something, why dont 
they vote and set it right thru the democratic process. A 2/3rd 
endorsement is in effect an absolute majority - a rare event in indian
democracy. 

Where would they secede to and go ?

Why dont they just get what they want from what they have ?

I dont understand the rationale behind a 2/3rd majority wanting to 
secede. Why secede you are the majority just do what u want to and set 
it right. What you can achieve by sheer majority why bother to secede. 

I dont see anything wrong with Nation Before People. If people were to 
be before nation then there would never be any justification for a 
nation to arm its citizens and put them on the frontiers exposing them 
to a very high degree of personal risk. 

So would you say that in a country where people come before the nation 
there cannot be a military or there is no need for a military. How would 
you gurantee the security of such a nation and its way of life. 

Forget external threats how would you guard against internal threats. 
How would you justify at a soceital level deployment of physically 
strong individuals for the security of physically weak individuals at 
the cost of their personal lives.

How would you reconcile the job responsibilities of a security personnel 
against his exercising his right to ensure his physical well-being and 
thus declining to perform his duties.

>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.

Well we are just a functional democracy not a mature democracy. We have 
elections alright but the electoral process has still a long way to go. 
The participants in the electoral process have a long way to go. I think 
we need to focus on getting our act right first before we embark upon a 
mature issue like this which requires emotions to take a backseat and 
pragmatism to move into the drivers seat. 

>
>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. 

This is an interesting way of looking at the issue. I must concede that. 
But I dont remember the last time there has been a serious rational 
debate in India on any issue. Most of the time issues are fudged by 
emotions, prestige/pride, irrational view-points backtracking from which 
would mean a loss of face for the proponents that they would rather be 
irrational about it than put up a rational face and concede defeat. The 
dominant psyche cares a lot about prestige and I havent seen a party or 
faction concede defeat gracefully till date on any debate. 

Bi-Partisanship is just simply absent.

Sanjeev honestly the top priority should be to reform to bring in a 
culture of bi-partisanship where there is respect and tolerance of an 
oppositve veiw-point. The atmosphere in the country is so vitiated and 
partisan that there is no grace left. Extereme forms of exclusivist 
politics are being practised where there is no respect at all for a 
opposite view-point.

That culture is essential before you can have a meaningful debate. The 
Parliamentary and Legislative debates are sham there is no give and take 
or respect for an opposite view, its just 2 factions just hammering  
away there view-points mindlessly.

>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. 

Yes I agree but before you can do that meaningfully you got to work to 
bring in a culture which encourages debate. Offering a referendum for 
secession will so easily be subverted that it would do nothing to bring 
this culture.

>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. 

Sanjeev you seem to be missing a point here. A Nation is just not people 
its Natural Resources too. The prime motivation to draw and redraw 
geographical maps is to own, control natural resources. I agree that in 
a technologically advanced society where citizens have tertiary 
occupations for livelihood you wouldnt care much about natural resources 
because you have the finances to buy them at a price you could demand in 
return for tertiary services rendered.

In the case of India, if i am not wrong, agriculture and 
manufacturing/processing industries are the bulwark. a secession 
impacting access to natural resources can debilitate us irrepairably. A 
policy of secession cannot be blind to these aspects.

REST OF COMMENTS IN NEXT MAIL

regards
Shashi


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