"Biju Chacko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> That is not the reason that India is moving forward. "Subservience" >> never advances anything other than the interests of the rulers, who >> are inevitably most interested in themselves and not in the >> people. What is moving India forward is an increase in freedom, that >> is, the very opposite of subservience. Every time someone opens up a >> company, that is an act of independence, not an act of >> subservience. Whenever anyone buys a truck to take vegetables to >> market, or writes a newspaper editorial, or wires up an illegal cable >> television network in a neighborhood, those are acts of independence, >> acts of self determination, and not acts of subservience. > > And if someone sets up a closed compound where polygamy and child > marriage are the norm, is that too an act of independence? Or is it > merely criminal? At what point does a group bucking the will of the > majority stop being criminals and start being freedom fighters?
I'd draw the line here: if people are engaging in acts in which all the participants are completely willing, then I see no reason the majority should interfere. If people are forcing their will on unwilling participants, then there is a cause of action. Some, but not all, polygamy probably counts as voluntary, though most forms of marriage involving 10 year olds almost certainly do not count as voluntary. Slavery clearly is not a voluntary relationship, but giving up all your worldly goods and serving a religion as a celibate priest usually is even if one might regard the religion as bizarre or a cult. Buying and injecting heroin into your own body is largely an act that only involves voluntary action, forcibly injecting it into someone else is not. > The point is, there is some amount of legitimacy on both sides of > the Kashmiri problem. Doubtless. There is a significant issue of displaced persons, for example. > While it is easy to pass judgment on the Kashmir issue as "Islamic > terrorists" or "Indian Colonialism", reality is a nasty blob of gray > somewhere in between. There are no easy solutions. Life rarely has easy solutions. I would not call giving up Kashmir an easy solution, by the way. It only seems like the means most likely to reduce rather than increase the problem. > It is difficult to predict all the repercussions of a Kashmiri > secession -- particularly on the stability of India as a nation. I'm > no rabid nationalist -- but I see the Indian Union as something to be > preserved. > > Conversely, if the average Kashmiri doesn't consider himself Indian, > how can anyone compel him to be one? > > For what it's worth, in my opinion the average Kashmiri doesn't really > give a damn about politics. As long as he's got a full belly and he > thinks he's got a say in how he's governed (but isn't forced to > actually say anything) he'll be happy. The solution to the Kashmiri > problem is to get him to that happy place. Most people around the world don't want to be involved in politics. I think generally they just want to be left alone in peace. As you note, the problem arises when their bellies are not full and they are not left alone to live as they will. -- Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
