In response to popular demand (one person asked), I'm elucidating my stand on the 4 wannabe states viz Kashmir, Tibet, Palestine and Eelam. In supporting a movement, three things are important to me.
1. Demonstrable injustice in the status quo.
2. Presence of an inclusive democratic political leadership, which can control the armed wing if one exists.
3. The economic/democratic viability of the wannabe nation state.
Kashmir: Independence. (3/3)
Injustice: This is straight forward. India and Pakistan invaded an independent nation in 1948. Neither the King nor the people of Kashmir wanted to be part of either states. India signed a dubious accession agreement with a King who demostrably had no support among his subjects. Even that agreement was conditional on a plebiscite. India never came good on that commitment.
Leadership: Hurriyat has consistently lead the people with a visible control over its armed element Hizbul Mujhahideen. Even the mainstream parties, National Conference and PDP have demanded a very high degree of autonomy. In Mirwaiz Farooq, Yaseen Malik, Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti, the new nation will be in very capable hands.
Viability: Democracy in this new state is likely to be exceptional. Tourism, trans-asia trade, agriculture and hydro-electric power can sustain this economy.
Tibet: Independence. (2.5/3)
Injustice: A barbaric movement called 'Communism' invaded this independent nation and subjected its people to the control of an external race, the Hans. Considering the Chinese state will (and has tried to) destroy every symbol of Tibetan nationhood namely religion, language and its unique culture, the question of rapprochement with China does not arise.
Leadership: Although Dalai Lama is an apostle of peace and non-violence and the Tibetan movement presently has no armed resistance, the leadership is a bit weak. The Tibetan prime minister in exile is just a lackey of the Dalai Lama. Besides Dalai Lama represents a feudal system where monks lorded over unfortunate but willing commoners. Dalai Lama should relinquish the political role he still plays.
Viability: When independent, Tibet will be one of the largest countries of the world with an abundance of natural resources. The new state is very likely to be a Democracy and probably one of the most peaceful states on earth.
Palestine: One state solution, meaning no Palestinian state. (1/3)
Injustice: The Zionist movement flooded this land of the Arabs and made them second class citizens in their own land. While Jews have always lived in Palestine and some level of Jewish immigration would have been acceptable, what Arabs got was a raw deal. Why should Arabs pay for the crimes of the socialists and communists in Europe?
Leadership: Palestinian movement has been plagued by poor leadership throughout its existence. Even the few reasonable leaders it got like Yasser Arafat were terrorists. Besides Palestinians were stupid enough to be cheated by their Arab neighbors and rejected every reasonable solution put forth by the Jews. Presently there is no credible Palestinian leadership.
Viability: An independent Palestine will start and forever remain a third-world state of squalor and poverty. Joining a unified secular state will instantly make them first-world citizens with every opportunity at their disposal. After-all some 1.5 million Arabs already live peacefully inside Israel. Besides any solution short of the unified state will deny both Arabs and Jews, legitimate and complete access to the land of their forefathers.
Eelam: Total Annihilation of LTTE (0/3)
Injustice: None. Even at the height of Sinhalese majoritarianism from the 1950s thru 83, an independent Eelam state was an unjustifiable demand. The Srilankan Tamil struggle should have been on the lines of the US Civil rights movement and the South African anti-apartheid struggle.
Whatever legitimate demands the Tamils had, were satisfactorily met in the 13th amendment of the Srilankan constitution. Additional demands (if any) can easily be made and suitable justice sought in a vibrant democracy like Srilanka.
Leadership: When Tamils needed a Martin Luther King Jr or a Nelson Mandela, they got a scoundrel in Prabhakaran. I wonder if there has ever been a tyrant in the history of the world, who sought a socialist authoritarian regime with zero democracy, even before his wannabe state was born! The rest of the Tamil leaders have had very little credibility or have been eliminated by the Tamils themselves.
Viability: Imagine a country full of racists!! These people who refuse to live peacefully with their Sinhalese co-nationalists, are not capable of forming and governing their own nation state. Agriculture, Fishing and smuggling can sustain this economy but such a nation, born out of hatred, will forever remain a pariah state.