[Assam] Nations within nation States

Mon Oct 17 19:22:54 EDT 2005

1) Puerto Rico is not a state, it's a commonwealth, a different 
arrangement of allegiance to the US than a state. I am not sure of the 
exact Constitutional arrangement, but it is supposedly self-governing 
although it sends representatives to the Congress. It has its own 
Constitution, but a relationship with the US which is partly 
independent, partly state-like. Puerto Rico sends teams to the 
Olympics. 2) Guam is a "territory" of the US. 3) Texas' relationship 
with the US is different from that of other states. 4) In Hawaii, the 
current Senators and the Governor and others are asking for "nation" 
representation for the native Hawaiians as of this day, due to a recent 
US Supreme Court ruling on the activities of certain educational 
foundation started by a former queen. 5) The US has various tribal 
nations with many powers given to them. So, the lesson to be learned 
 from the US is not that everything has to be a state and everything has 
to be uniform, but that there are various gradations of 
federalism/association with the Central/Federal Government. Even the 
states in the US are quite powerful compared to the Federal Government 
although the Supreme Court and the Congress have been "usurping" state 
powers for more than 50 years, for reasons good and bad, reasonable and 
absurd.

During the Soviet period, the Baltics: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia 
had seats in the UN, even though they were part of the Soviet Union.

Hong Kong is a part of China that is semi-independent. Taiwan is a 
"part" of China that is completely independent.

So, there are various arrangements possible between a country and its 
constituents. Not, just a state/territory relationship in a centralized 
manner.

Jugal

-----Original Message-----
From: umesh sharma <jaipurschool at yahoo.com>
To: jkk2020 at aim.com; rajibdas at yahoo.com; kjdeka at houston.rr.com; 
assam at assamnet.org
Sent: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:00:18 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: [Assam] Nations within nation States

   I wonder why? Is it because of lack of attention to their (NE, 
Kashmir) development. If we look at USA's example - they have 
assimilated Hawaii islands (it had a King till 1860s atleast-and 
married with Chinese and Japanese rather than main land Ameircans), 
Peurto Rico, Eskimos of Alaska etc.

 Can we learn from US example?

 Umesh

 Jugal-da wrote:

 "India's central parts (North India/Hindi speakers and in the South)
people have whole-heartedly accepted the idea of Indian nationhood, I
think. But, the concept has not taken a firm room in the North
(Kashmir, parts of Punjab) and the Northeast, as far, as I can tell."

jkk2020 at aim.com wrote:
 How do you know that? If the idea of gaining sovereignty within India
(say) is discussed freely over the next five or ten or fifteen years
without any coercion this way or that way, only then you will know how
people truly feel. Not after 150 years of British rule and 50 years of
Indian rule, you can ask people today and get a true impression of how
they feel. Most people will be too scared to say what they believe.
So, let there be free uncoerced discussions for 5-10-15 years and then
have a secret ballot on the issue of sovereignty? India's centralized
structure has not solved India's problems for 50 years, and why some
educated people like you keep on clinging to what hasn't worked? Why
not learn from past experience to experiment with what may actually
work? Why are you closing your mind?

What do you think the Kashmiris think? What do you think the Nagas feel
about this idea?

India's central parts (North India/Hindi speakers and in the South)
people have whole-heartedly accepted the idea of Indian nationhood, I
think. But, the concept has not taken a firm room in the North
(Kashmir, parts of Punjab) and the Northeast, as far, as I can tell.

A middle ground, where there is a 1) centralized India comprised of
Hindi speaking regions and possibly South India, and a 2) bunch of
semi-autonomous areas in Kashmir, Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, etc., may
actually solve the problems. I think the British had a system like that
when they ruled India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Burma as British India. Why
not be open to such a solution? Why be blind and keep on believing the
current structure will work when it hasn't worked for 50+ years?

Jugal

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajib Das
To: jkk2020 at aim.com; kjdeka at houston.rr.com; assam at assamnet.org
Sent: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Assam] Nations within nation States

If only it was as easy to put buckets of nations
within nations for most countries around the world.

Perhaps if India consisted of let's say one part
Punjabi, one part Chechen, one part Hungarian gypsies
and one part one Andamanese tribe ONLY we could be a
multi-national state comprised of many nations that
have no interlinkages with each other.

Since the case is clearly not no - that there are
tangible links between regions in the country that
span hundreds and thousands of years - it is not a
multi-national state. Which is perhaps why most
respected commentators don't buy this idea.

As in the case of Assam, very, very, very few people
buy the idea of Assam being a separate "nation". The
general public as well discards it (the idea of a
separate Assamese nation) as a quixotic one even as
there would be quite a few that would agree on the
utility of militant groups in different contexts.

The US does indeed have the idea of nation states
within the nation - in fact most of the Indian groups
are supposedly treated as such. But then in the
context of nations, nation states and multi-national
states, they are caricatures. They don't impact the
lives of beyond the handlful that live in
reservations.

--- jkk2020 at aim.com wrote:

> What's the problem in accepting that Kashmir is a
> country within a
> country if that solves this curious problem of
> nations within nations
> (sic!, should be multi-national) states?
>
> India, as it exists now, is a multi-national state,
> not a nation state?
> I have requested Sanjib da several times to think
> seriously about
> calling India a nation state, because it is not.
> Similarly, Russia or
> Nigeria or Chad or Iraq is not a nation state. What
> is the "nation" in
> these countries? They are trying to be nations, but
> the real nations
> lie within these countries. Either these countries
> should be allowed to
> evolve into a bunch of nation states, or these
> countries should
> realize, for their own benefits, that they are a
> conglomeration of
> nations put together due to colonial forces of the
> past few centuries.
> And, colonization is not the force of the day any
> more.
>
> In other words, the idea of nations within nation
> states should be
> understood better, not denied by these countries but
> accepted
> whole-heartedly and the structures of these
> countries appropriately
> updated without imposition of undue external force.
>
> Centralized India or centralized Iraq or centralized
> Russia is not the
> solution or never will be. Centralization is the
> "old solution" that
> has failed in all these countries and will continue
> to fail.
>
> I think it would be nice if people grow up and
> realize that! Then, it's
> possible to have peace and progress.
>
> Jugal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kjdeka at houston.rr.com
> To: assam at assamnet.org
> Sent: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:01:51 -0700
> Subject: [Assam] Nations within nation States
>
> I glanced over Prof.Sanjib Baruah's short essay
> titled ' Nations
> within nation States'. He wrote " all elements of
> this special autonomy
> were taken away and Kashmir became like any other
> state". This is as
> flawed as the belief that one needs a key to open an
> already opened
> lock. Suffice to say,all the special provisions via
> Article 371,granted
> to 10 other States,if put together,are nowhere near
> as sweeping and
> centrifugal in effect as Article 370,which has made
> J&K virtually a
> country within a nation.Add two more ounces to
> it---it will make J&K a
> separate independent country!!!. He also mentioned
> about Quebec
> referendum,held in 1995. As a matter of fact,Quebec
> had witnessed two
> such referendums ( 1980 and 1995).After loosing on
> both the counts,the
> Parti Quebecos(PQ) now says that it intends to hold
> referendums until
> it wins and no more to be held after that!!!
>
> KJD
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> assam mailing list
> assam at assamnet.org
>
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
> Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of
> storage and
> industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> assam mailing list
> assam at assamnet.org
>
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>

__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam at assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org

--------
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for 
FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos

________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and 
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.