IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
Hi Bapuji,
I think that from an international socialist point of view partitioning
political entities on the basis of ethnic, national or religious
identity is a retrogression with often serious social costs. Socialists
ought to be struggling for political integration and citizenship based
on universal principles.
The challenge is to defuse real or potential ethnic, national and
religious conflicts by granting each identity equal rights under a
secular-democratic state. Thus a wider collective identification has to
win over a narrow one. This ideological struggle across the globe seems
to have gone in the wrong direction during the last 50 years or so, as
the number of states kept on increasing.
However, there is a point to have regional divisions in so far they
corresponds to real linguistic differences which may complicate
political dialogue and mass participation.
//Dave Z
on 2008-03-21 12:31 B.R.Bapuji wrote:
> While appreciating Paul Bullock's and Jerry's observations, let me
> specify a concrete example.
> In the province of Andhra Pradesh, India, there is a region called
> Telangana and there has been a 'movement' led by one section of the
> ruling class [composed of landlords, capitalists of all kinds] but
> supported by certain sections of the 'people': who demand 'fair' share
> in governmental employment, educational opportunities, river waters
> for irrigation. The demand is for a separate 'state' [= province]
> within the union of India. In fact a separate 'state' will not solve
> the problem of unemployment and other forms of inequality among the
> regions but it is like a temporary relief from some problems. But the
> leaders of the movement assure permanent solution for the regional
> imbalance and backwardness etc.
> Due to unevenness of development and many other aspects of bourgeois
> rule, there have been contradictions between the people [certain
> sections of the people] of Telangana region and other 'relatively'
> more 'developed' regions in the spheres of governmental employment,
> education and irrigation facilities etc. The leaders of both the
> leaders whip up regional chavenism and making all sorts of false
> promises.
> In this context, a Maoist group is supporting the demand for a
> separate state, while the Communist Party of India: Marxist [popularly
> called CPM] opposing it on the grounds of unity of Telugu speaking
> people of the entire state. Another parliamentary party CPI is in
> dilemma whether to support or oppose: its leaders are split in to two
> opinions.
> For more information about Telangana movement, one may visit google
> search engine.
> Bapuji
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
_______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
- RE: [OPE] England and Ireland, (continued)
- RE: [OPE] England and Ireland, GERALD LEVY Mon 17 Mar 2008, 18:47 GMT
- Re: [OPE] England and Ireland, paul bullock Thu 20 Mar 2008, 12:06 GMT
- Re: [OPE] England and Ireland, B.R.Bapuji Fri 21 Mar 2008, 11:19 GMT
- Re: [OPE] England and Ireland, Dave Zachariah Fri 21 Mar 2008, 13:11 GMT
- Re: [OPE] England and Ireland, B.R.Bapuji Sat 22 Mar 2008, 01:48 GMT
- Re: [OPE] England and Ireland, glevy Fri 21 Mar 2008, 13:19 GMT
- Re: [OPE] England and Ireland, B.R.Bapuji Sat 22 Mar 2008, 01:45 GMT
- [OPE] Chinese edition of ?Capital and Technology: Marx and Heidegger?, Michael Eldred Sun 16 Mar 2008, 17:45 GMT
- [OPE] The Paris Commune - in 26 parts, glevy Sun 16 Mar 2008, 16:19 GMT