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

RE: On Kashmir solution..



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Karthik, my comments are marked with my name, Yesho.
regards,
Yesho.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	ramachan [SMTP:ramachan@grinnell.edu]
> Sent:	Sunday, April 02, 2000 8:53 PM
> To:	debate@indiapolicy.org
> Subject:	RE: On Kashmir solution..
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for your comments. I agree that Article 370 was partially
> introduced
> to allay the fears of the international community. However, it seems highly
> unlikely that there's going to be even a trickle, much less a flood, of
> investment from non-Kashmiri indians if Article 370 is eliminated, simply
> because of the security threat.
	[Yesho]  Certainly, it will happen only slowly. But, it will surely
	happen, and it will make a clear difference, both economically and
	politically.

> Eliminating Article 370 would raise some difficult questions:
>
> 1. To what extent would investment be allowed? Seeing that internationally
> Kashmir is still disputed territory, would it be right to allow
non-Kashmiri
> indians to take advantage of the Kashmiri economy at the expense of the
> KAshmiris?
	[Yesho]  Taking advantage? How can free trade be considered 'taking
	advantage of the Kashmiri economy at the expense of Kashmiris'? One
	can use the same argument for not allowing non-Telugu investment into
	Andhra Pradesh. And, the reason for removal of article 370 is far more
	compelling than just economics! How about fairness? Today, a foreigner
	can buy land in Bangalore. But, an Indian cannot buy land in Kashmir!

> For all practical purposes, we must accept that the money is going to come
> from other parts of the country, and the greater part of the money is not
> going to go to the Kashmiris.
	[Yesho]  If it were more general, you would be making an anti-free trade
	argument! If I build a house (never mind a factory) in Kashmir, who will
	the labourers be, you think? Who will most of the employees be? Where
will
	the employees live? Whom will they pay rent? Whose fields and hotels
will
	feed those employees?

> 2. If indeed there is disillusionment with the indian govt., and by
> extension,
> to indians in general, how will such investment be accepted in the valley?
	[Yesho]  Don't worry about this one! Everyone needs money to feed their
	wives and children. Remember Pakistan, that implacably hostile country?
	Well, they smuggle in Indian tires. why? - because they are a bargain!
	That is all there is to people.

> 3. Finally, is Article 370 the root cause of kashmir's underdevelopment?
Will
> its elimination really bring the desired effect?
	[Yesho]  My entire argument so far is that it will. But, suppose it
	doesn't. There is still the issue of discrimination.

	There have been arguments on this site earlier about the Uniform Civil
	Code and the No-Reservation issue. One of the arguments against them is
	that they might not be the ROOT CAUSE of under-development.

	So what? The fact is that IT IS UNFAIR. Why should anyone be
discriminated
	against even if that doesn't affect the country's progress?


> Look forward to hearing your thoughts.
>
> Kartik Ramachandran
> >Your comment:
> >> It is still my view that Article 370 has a particular purpose
> >
> >What purpose does it have any more? I think, even during Nehru's
> >time, it was a pretty misplaced proposal. It could have served
> >only to calm the fears of the UN General Assembly. I believe
> >it was only a gratuitous concession. Nobody was helped by it.
> >
> >> To do away with Article 370 would exacerbate the conflict in the valley.
> >
> >  I don't see how the conflict would be 'exacerbated' any more than it
> >  already is. In any case, it should be a matter of principle. India should
> >  be willing to face conflict than discriminate among its citizens.
> >
> >> it would be catastrophic to do so any time in the future.
> >
> >  We can hardly remove it from our past! :-) I think words like
> 'catastrophic'
> >  are really unwarranted. Article 370 would bring progress to Kashmir. I
> think
> >  most of its politicians and vested interests would certainly find
progress
> >  catastrophic.
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
> Rules, Procedures, Archives:            ../debate/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------


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