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

Re: rules




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Postings not related to the writing of the Manifesto or policy chapters
are likely to be summarily rejected. Thanks for your understanding. IPI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sanjeev, there is too much logic here.  We are very happy worshiping
stones and rain Gods.  Please leave us alone!!

    oooohhhmmm....jai.....shree...poor me, maybe my next life would be
better!  You see, I have even invented reincarnation to take care of the
problems in my present life.  This is so easy.  Please be one of us -
resistance is futile!!!

Sincerely,
Vamsi M.

Sanjeev Sabhlok wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Postings not related to the writing of the Manifesto or policy chapters
> are likely to be summarily rejected. Thanks for your understanding. IPI
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ref:
>
> http://www.indiapolicy.org/lists/india_policy/1999/Mar/msg00051.html
>
> bhuwan said:
>
> "Who is to enforce the rule you proposed that if any armed struggle is
> involved all bets are off. Show me one place in the world where any
> secessionist movement has agreed to this. This rule is unenforceable."
>
> One place: Canada, which voted against seccession in 1995. Peacefully,
> with much debate. E.g., read
>
> http://www.seattle-times.com/news/nation-world/html98/qbec_082198.html
>
> http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/1997/int/970317/canada.rules.html
>
> http://www.total.net/~hex/Art0220.htm and many other places.
>
> In our rules it can be stated that armed rebellion will set back the
> next referendum process by 25 years or something like that.
>
> We CAN design rules which are reasonable and enforceable. The penalty
> against doing this clear thinking is perennial violence in many parts of
> India and the growing likelihood of army rule, as we the civilian
> population fail to design our institutions to resolve our differences
> amicably. The choice is yours. You want to face ramdom bombs and
> kidnappings of your children (as our fellow citizens in Assam do; one of
> my colleagues in the IAS was bombed in 1982, another was kidnapped for
> months in 1992 (I think), another's son was kidnapped and I don't think
> ever came back), or you wish to operate as civilized human beings.
> Before secessionists become terrorists, there is a point at which we can
> encourage them to talk. Once they have begun the use of the gun we have
> no choice but to pin them down. At that time, all of us suffer. My wife
> is an Assamese IAS officer and she shudders at the thought of going back
> to Assam; she fears for our children; today there is no wise leader in
> India who can talk to our misguided younger brothers any more. Only
> guns. Only the Army. We are NOT a civil society. Believe me.
>
> Assam has burnt for at least 17 years now with secessionist terrorist
> violence. All these losses of lives were futile. They could have been
> prevented by insisting on open debate. The foolish arguments of the ULFA
> would have put off everyone in Assam and these guys would have become
> the ordinary, good citizens that they deserved to be. They could NEVER
> muster suppport for secession. Many other states of the NE have burnt
> for 40, 45 years. Give democracy and debate a chance. The people at
> large are wiser that you think.
>
> I've said enough. If you don't want such a para in the manifesto, forget
> it. It clearly was not the most important thing and we can revert to
> this after 100 years. We Indians can surely pummel our own people with
> our Army for another 100 years and survive as one nation. After all, the
> Nation is our God in the modern world. People are needed only as
> worshippers. They don't count, intrinsically. My children - and yours -
> are cattle-feed for this great Nation God of ours.
>
> I move to drop the paragraph that I proposed since we are not ready to
> discuss such fundamental issues yet, in India.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
> Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Sincerely,
Vamsi M.



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