kashmir (was Re: [lbo-talk] Al-Qaeda agents...)

[ravi]

Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> 
> "how can you say that the original expression of the local population is
> irrelevant today? if it is true that the kashmiri people wish to be rid
> of indian oppression, and we are afraid that the result will be a US
> protectorate, then our duty is not to deny the former, but to fight the
> latter, isn't it?"
> 
> WS:  
> By your own logic, how do you determine what the "original expression of the
> local population?"  You start the thread on pen-l by questioning Ulhas's
> contentionthat 70 % of terrorists are outsiders, correctly pointing out that
> the figure depends who is counting.  
> 
> By the same logic, "the original expression of the population" also depends
> on who's counting, no?
>

sure. but what i questioned (or implied) was: the *validity* of the
figure depends on who is counting. there are no certainties of course,
but there can still be an ordering by validity, and any count by the
indian govt would/should be ranked pretty low w.r.t credibility.


> Saying that the people want this or that is even more absurd that saying
> that x% of terrorists come from abroad.  The latter may be true or false,
> but at least it is testable.  The former means anything any speaker wants it
> to mean - which is tantamount to having no particular meaning at all.

this is a very broad statement/issue. if i understand you correctly, you
are questioning the possibility of democracy. i am working under the
assumption that it is indeed possible to ascertain the desires of a
group of people. the process will have various defeciencies, but if it
follows a finite set of rules, the result will still have greater
validity and moral standing than the imposition of the indian govt.


> However, I have very little sympathy toward separatist claims and movements
> in general - mainly because I prefer universalism to nationalism and
> jingoism.

isn't it jingoism that motivates a decent part of the indian population
in their insistence that kashmir stay a part of india? if a set of
existing nations can somehow move from nationalism to universalism, why
not a slightly larger set of nations?

also, separatist claims may not arise from "nationalism" but as a result
of oppression. india, for example, is a land of many cultures and
languages. the imposition of hindi as the national language sparked
riots in the non-hindi speaking sections of the south. if such
imposition by the north turns systematic, why not separatism?

uvj at vsnl.com wrote:
> ravi wrote:
>
>>take for instance kashmir: i believe that the people of kashmir have a
>>right to some strong form of autonomy, and perhaps also
>>self-determination.
>
> How the self-determination is to be achieved?
>

i wish there was an easy answer that i could sum up in a mailing list
post. in truth, i am not even qualified to answer that. but i think (at
a meta level) it is a finitely solvable problem. do you see fundamental
problems with a referendum that includes certain provisions (to disallow
foreign elements) and protections (to enforce these provisions and to
prevent fraud by the indian govt)?

	--ravi