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

Re: how?

Postings not related to the writing of the Manifesto or policy chapters
are likely to be summarily rejected. Thanks for your understanding. IPI
It is no doubt that there are a number of dimensions to the issue of
secession or, for that matter, of the notion of nation states.

What I am interested (and worried about) is the economic aspects of
secession. As a rule of thumb-- competition brings progress in a strong
system and cooperation brings progress in a weak system. If you look at
the first world, when they talk about competition, they also have a
strong system to fall back on-- one can live alone, pursuing the fine
arts with a reasonable life style in the US, but in India, there are
still many regions where one cannot afford to take risks like that, and
still hope to have one square meal a day.

With secession, we are actually creating more competition, and less
(cooperative) security. At least, the way I see it, when some faction
demands secession, it is more likely to be the problem symptom, than the

problem itself. It would be their conjencture that a secession would
solve their problems-- should we not be thinking about policy matters
regarding how well problems of individual factions are being handled and

what were the real causes behind any rebellion?

By debating secession as an end in itself, we probably would be stuck on

issues which appear on the surface and potentially neglecting the (more
important) undercurrents which have caused such issues.

Those were just my thoughts. I know it is a very sensitive issue and has

been the source of personal anguish to some of the members here. All I
can only say is that, please let us go slowly on this issue-- don't make

any hasty decisions on such an issue on the manifesto. Also, while we
agree not to be emotional on this issue, let us not be emotional on the
issue of free speech or democracy too. I find the definitions of free
speech and democracy very subjective. If we say "we should have freedom
of speech and hence should not water down ideas by others", are we in
effect not curtailing the freedom of the person who disagrees with the
idea by saying that s/he is "watering down" the idea? If we are a free
country, does it mean that we have the freedom to kill? Or make any
decisions that would cause bloodshed among people?

Sorry, if I hurt any feelings; all I wanted to say was-- please, let's
go slow on this sensitive issue. Secession is not an end in itself-- it
is just a symptom. It would be better if we first debated on the notion
of nation states, human communities, the role of diversity in community
and nation states, the economic repercussions of nation states and
diversity, the notion of a constitution, the interdependency between
economics, social welfare and politics. In fact, I would say we can
probably devote a chapter in the electronic townhall to discuss the
above issues and encourage researchers to put forward their theses.

Warm Wishes

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