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

Re: Secession & System




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

> Now an aside on Kashmir. I understand the issue is
quite sensitive. But
> I would like to be _corrected_ if I am making any
mistake. One of the
> instruments by which the Indian claim over Kashmir
is based is the
> accession deed signed by the then Maharaja of
Kashmir, the late Hari
> Singh. A hindu ruler in a muslim majority province.
This, of course,
> impiles that the Kashmiris had the option to go the
other way. Secondly,

True. How does it matter now. On joining India, the
issue was closed.
The question of Muslim majority does not arise. The
partition document did not mention that Kashmir would
go to Pakistan. The fact is that the Muslims who
wanted to leave our fold got more than a fair share of
the land. Kashmir was supposed to join one of the
two countries.
We could go into history here and discuss Junagadh and
Hyderabad too but it would be a pointless exercise. We
should learn to accept realities instead of indulging
in esoteric discussions. The reality is that ONLY
violence creates new states except where certain
states came together with the precondition that they
would have a right to secede. If you want policy
documents to take care of this issue in future, you
must also look back and question why various countries
are shaped as they are and reject their existence
in their current form.

> India had accepted the UN resolution on
plebicite(we now oppose it
> because the Pakistanis have failed to implement the
UN resolution over
> Kashmir.) Nevertheless, the bottom line seems to be
that if Pakistan
> followed or follows the UN resolution, then
plebicite would be

Upto 1972, this argument was valid. The agreement
signed in Simla in 1972 clearly states that no third
party will be involved. So UN has no role to play.

> acceptable. Finally, do we fear a plebicite because
we have so
> mismanaged affairs of Kashmir, and alienated a
large section of people

Yes. Every election in Kashmir has been rigged.

> there that we fear a plebicite will go against
India?? The late Minoo
> Masani, one of the members of the constituent
assembly, and a very
> prominent parliamentarian and at one time the
leader of the opposition,
> was of the view that we should not fear plebicite,
because if we really
> trusted Kashmiris, and treated them well, and did
not look at Kashmir as
> a prime real estate sans its people, then there is
no reason to think
> that Kashmiris will vote against a democratic and
free India.

He was correct but this does not answer my question -
why statewise plebicite? Why not districtwise,
villagewise or even individualwise plebicite?

-Arvind



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