i luuuurve this title, e.

it would be hypocritical for india to support independence for tibet and oppose self-determination in kashmir and nagaland.

Zo's logic: "it would be hypocritical for America to both bomb Afghanistan and oppose secession by the South."

As Sesame Street said, one of these things is not like the other...

it would be hypocritical for india to support independence for tibet and oppose self-determination in kashmir and nagaland.

I'm not sure I agree with this. In the case of Kashmir there is a legal case to be made for the sovereign king handing over Kashmir to India. In the case of both there's a case to be made for being "an integral part of India" i.e. where India is a historical idea or a cultural set. Our whole usage of the word desh and desi applies easily to people from both of those states. There are ragged edges to that idea. . .Sikkim in particular, and much of what is now Pakistan, which of course was deliberately divided out. (Though the two people I've met from Sikkim seem to be very proud of the fact that they're Indian too.) I don't think Kashmir and Nagaland fall into the set of states with those ragged edges. Tibet, on the other hand, has a much stronger history of being culturally independant from China. This is all debatable, but that's exactly the point. It's not a conclusion that can be set in stone. International policy shouldn't be be based on tossed-off one liners of cheaply formulated conventional wisdom.

More the point, however, I'm also not sure to what extent this is that disappointing to the Tibetan refugees. Maybe very much so to the ones in Dharamsala. But I've read at least one article (the New Yorker?) profiling young Tibetan-Indians who consider themselves exactly that and aren't particularly interested in going back or getting independance. They speak Hindi best, they watch Bollywood movies, and they've build lives for themselves as far south as Bangalore. It's possible that their loss of interest has sapped India of the political momentum to keep championing Tibet. They're Indian citizens and they're not lobbying for a Free Tibet. That's kind of sad for the old generation and for the traditions of Tibet, but if that's the way they choose to go, that's their choice, and maybe the fight is over. In which case this is better news. I'm not too crazy about the PRC, and I really hope India doesn't get sucked into an American-style trade deficit entirely dependent on cheap Chinese goods--I've already griped about the Indian pillow made in China, the kind of thing which will leave India's poor behind in the dust. All that said, trade is good for real peace, and peace is good for development, which is good for real peace, etc. So this might be good. And as an American who is concerned about Taiwan and human rights, I'm happy to see China engaged with another Democracy. One hopes that the more the PRC engages with Democracies and true Republics, the more reforms will seep in as the just-sub-ruling-class begins to smell the freedom.

I'm not sure I agree with this. In the case of Kashmir there is a legal case to be made for the sovereign king handing over Kashmir to India. In the case of both there's a case to be made for being "an integral part of India" i.e. where India is a historical idea or a cultural set. Our whole usage of the word desh and desi applies easily to people from both of those states. There are ragged edges to that idea. . .Sikkim in particular, and much of what is now Pakistan, which of course was deliberately divided out. (Though the two people I've met from Sikkim seem to be very proud of the fact that they're Indian too.) I don't think Kashmir and Nagaland fall into the set of states with those ragged edges.

There's a difference between "India" as a "cultural set" and "historical idea" and the modern state of India; mixing up the two is the nationalist project, which doesn't seem all that helpful in India. Cultural and ethnic identities are fluid and change across regions gradually when artificial political creations like states with borders enforced by armies don't hamper them, and most of the time even when they do.

As for developing more constructive rather than divisive national identities: denying the local character of communities actually undermines recognizing the shared "cultural set" and embracing the "historical" idea of unity because the approach is hegemonizing. It's also demeaning, because the "nation" is presented as natural when it's primarily constructed for the benefit of the dominant subculture. It makes people like me (West Bengali descent) feel like we're being forced into an artificial union with some (Indians) but not others (Bangladeshis) for no particular reason that benefits us culturally. A more conciliatory approach that recognizes difference and celebrates it might help lead to embracing commonalites--because it's predicated on mutual respect.

Of course there is a difference. But in the cases of both India and China, ignoring the historical constructs' relationship to the modern nation, or pretending there is no relationship between the two, is as unrealistic and impractical as basing borders on it exclusively. We can talk about two concepts, and make a case based on their properties, without merely "mixing them up." Nothing I said had anything to do with "denying local character" and there is no a priori necessity for assuming that being an Indian state necessitates such a denial. The Indian constitution readily deals with unity in diversity, preserving local language and culture. While the Indian government may very well not implement those abstract ideals well at all times, at least they are fundamentally there. The PRC's official one nation, one language, no-religion worldview may also be modified with ad-hoc patches to deal with Tibet's very different culture, but they are not fundamental. My point was that the two situations are not truly parallel and that there is plenty of room for debate without immediately calling "paradox! hypocrite!".

It makes people like me (West Bengali descent) feel like
Speak for yourself, dada :-) I'm also Bengali (partly Eastern on one side), and I don't feel demeaned or forced. More relevantly, I'm pretty sure my extended Indian family doesn't either. We'll make common cause with my fellow Bangla-speakers across the border when appropraite--that doesn't prevent us from enjoy cultural and sociopolitical unity with the rest of India. I just don't see how the nation is constructed for the benefit of the dominant subculture. I'm not even sure if you can definitely say what the dominant subculture is. I mean, the national anthem is written by Tagore. :-)

I'm actually not sure I understand what you're saying, but I certainly don't think West Bengal is looking to leave the Republic any time soon.

Of course there is a difference. But in the cases of both India and China, ignoring the historical constructs' relationship to the modern nation, or pretending there is no relationship between the two, is as unrealistic and impractical as basing borders on it exclusively. We can talk about two concepts, and make a case based on their properties, without merely "mixing them up."

To claim that Kashmir is closer to a constructed history of India than Tibet is to an - equally imaginary- constructed history of China is frfankly dubious. The only question that is really relevant is to what degree the central administrations of India and China permit local character to express itself in self-government. In the case of the India, an increasing amount; in the case of China, practically nothing. So it isnt hypocritical of India to talk about Tibet while imposing a restrictive martial law on Nagaland- but for the quite absurd reason that Nagas look Desi.

Speak for yourself, dada :-) I'm also Bengali ...We'll make common cause with my fellow Bangla-speakers across the border when appropraite--that doesn't prevent us from enjoy cultural and sociopolitical unity with the rest of India.
I grew up in Calcutta, and am part East Bengali myself. And I certainly would resist any kind of 'cultural unity' with the rest of India, and so would every single person I grew up with. And when have we ever been permitted to make 'common cause' with people across the border? The culture of suspicion is such that the families of friends in Delhi have to explain journeys to Dhaka to their neiighbours by talking vaguely about ilish.

I'm not even sure if you can definitely say what the dominant subculture is.

And the dominant subculture is definitely Punjab. I dont see the rest of India eating mangsher jhol and dancing to music with a baul beat.

I mean, the national anthem is written by Tagore. :-)

In Sanskrit.

To sum up: it is not hypocritical for India to demand that other countries provide their subcultures with the rights inherent -if occasionally ignored - in the largely federal Indian Consitution; and none of this should be framed in an absurd and invented cultural unity argument, otherwise we open the door to people in Nagaland wondering why they arent part of Burma and Sikkim, Nepal.

it would be hypocritical for india to support independence for tibet and oppose self-determination in kashmir and nagaland.

As a Tibetan, I have read this kind of argument many times. I have also read of comparisions made to Hawaii, saying US will never let it free. I am not an expert on Kashmir or Nagaland. So I will not comment about it. My only response here is - Two wrongs doesn't make one right'

Tibet as a nation, we have a written history of over 2000 years. Yes, there were times in our history when we were under the control of outside powers. There were times when Tibetans marched upto the ancient Chinese capital and installed our puppet ruler there. And there are times when Tibetans were defeated, soundly by the then British rulers of India and the Gorkhas of Nepal.

Yet, Tibet was never totally under China for even a day before 1959. The International Commission of Jurist in their report said that Tibet enjoyed de facto independence before the Chinese invasion.

During the II World War, Tibet refused permission to the Allied forces to transport guns and ammunations through Tibet. Tibet wanted to keep neutral and the allied countries respected it.

Someone has writen above about Culture and sub-culture. Culturally we are closer to India then China. Tibetan Buddhism came from India.

I understand that ultimately our fight is our fight. We cannot expect someone to come and help us. India has her interest and needs. And she will follow what is best for her. Tibetans have not given up.

Yes I like Bollywood movies. I speak Hindi as fluently as my mother tougue Tibetan. I read and write in English too. That doesn't make me a less Tibetan as it doesn't make anyone less human to use a computer to send mails or phones to talk.

Every human being has atleast one centre of reality. Exiles like Tibetans have more than one - the reality that they came from. and the reality of the land that they are exiled to.

Why don’t we set aside tired clichéd textbook theory, and just look at on the ground reality? The fact is Bengalis are far better off in a multi-ethnic, federal India than an ethnically homogeneous Bangladesh. This is the opinion of Bangladeshis in the Chicago area anyway. They are not saying they wish to be Indian, but they argue that because India is composed of so many groups, they negative aspects of any one group are kept in check. In the case of Bengalis, it is the tendency to argue endlessly. Bangladesh has been debating for over five years whether it should sell natural gas to India. That Bangladeshi political parties would rather impoverish their citizens rather than sell gas to India does not speak too highly of Bangladeshi democracy, even by the low standards of the subcontinent.

While riding the L a few months ago, I was talking with a Bangladeshi motel owner from Virginia, and he said whenever his relatives back in Bangladesh needed medical treatment, they would head straight for Calcutta, as the facilities in Dhaka were abysmal. A Bangladeshi friend of my uncle’s, who came by at the end of Ramadan to deliver some sweets, said that the Bangladeshi government treats the people like subjects, instead of citizens. The advantage India offers is that if a person wishes to wear whatever identity they want on their sleeve (language, religion, caste) they are free to do so. If they would rather not, they are equally free to do so.

For all the criticism of the nation-state, it is a far bettor guarantor of individual rights than other “natural” social setups, such as tribes, clans, or castes.