Udhay Shankar N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ss wrote, [on 8/18/2008 2:40 PM]: > >> To me Vir sanghvi's capitulation sounds eerily like Ayub Khan's insight. >> >> Anyhow - unless India gets the cojones to hold on to what it wants, >> it isn't going to get any better, "Indian shining" and "back office >> of the world notwithstanding" > > Yes, but that's begging the question I raised, which is, for > reference, "Do we actually *want* Kashmir?"
As a disinterested outsider, let me note that nationalism is generally a disease, not a quality to be aspired to. I think the world would be happier without large countries, and with goods and people freely moving between small polities that were more responsive to the needs of the local citizenry. The desire to govern a piece of territory is ultimately a desire for aggrandizement and empire, neither of which make the rulers happy and neither of which make the ruled happy. If people don't want to be part of a country, I see no reason they should not be allowed to go, and I see no shame in letting them go. Holding on merely because someone else you don't like thinks this would humiliate you is as foolish as jumping into traffic because someone dares you to and taunts you when you refuse. And yes, I think North America would be a happier place if it was made up of smaller units. Perry
