You know better than that. The fact that they were arrested merely for making speeches in support of Khalistan and raising a flag says that in fact, regardless of what is written, tehy do not hav eth efreedom to do that.
If you are so intent on the country breaking up, pray, what of the American Civil War?
Glad you asked. (The War Between the States, BTW.) If the South wanted to secede, I see no reason why they shouldn't hve been sent on their way peacefully. As Senator (later Confederate President) Jefferson Davis said, "All we ask is to be left alone."
When the government consistently overrides all the limits on its power set by the Constitution and impinges greatly on powers that belong to the states and to individuals, the ultimate enforcement mechanism (when all else fails) is to withdraw, to secede. That should be a last resort, but it cannot be prohibited in a free society.
Based on your lines, I'm sure you'll be jumping in with the thugs who want the south-western parts of the US joined with Mexico.
Absolutely a different thing, as you well know. Mexico attacked Texas to suppress a legitimate freedom movement (you should be on their side) and we intervened to support the Texans. We beat them so convincingly that we held 2/3 of their country, a large chunk of which we gave back to them.
Furthermore, the Aztlan movement is a Communist-inspired (you know, India's long-time allies), racist movement designed to take from America states that show no desier to leave.
They are a majority in most populated places there, presently.
Well, in parts, but not in any of the states involved. But it's not solely ethnic differences. In Punjab, for example, they are ethnically, culturally, religiously, linguistically different. It's a somewhat different culture and nationality. Thus, they should be able to exercise the right to be independent if they so choose, not have it violently suppressed.
When acts of violence are committed or when you catch them being planned, then punish those, but that is not an excuse to suppress an entire people by force.
Kashmir was promised a plebiscite on its status, which has never occurred. Demographics were altered by Pakistan.
So it's Pakistan's fault that India can't keep its democratic promises? Riiiiiiiight, that makes a whole lot of sense . Come on, the fact is that Kashmir was given to India by its Hindu maharajah despite a Muslim majority population and promised a vote that has never occurred. But Hyderabad, with a majority Hindu population and a Muslim maharajah, was brought into India when the Indian army moved in. Real commitment to democracy there.
The people were promised a vote. They never got it and now any effort to have one is forcibly suppressed. In a country that so loudly proclaims its commitment to democracy, what would be wrong with a vote?
Or are you worried that L.K. Advani was right when he said, "If Kashmir goes, India goes"?
Punjab was to become independent at the tim of independence, but stuck with India on false promises from Nehru and Patel. Oh, so since Texas and other states in the Union were won through force from Mexico, you'd want them gone back to Mexico, I'd reckon.
As I said before, entirely different issue. They asked to be part of the United States. It was Mexico that initiated force. We annexed the Kingdom of Hawaii too. They asked, we accepted. The people of Punjab have never been asekd if they want to be independent. Neither have hte people of Kashmir, nor the people of Nagaland, nor teh others who have freedom movements. If India is the democracy it claimsto be, what would be the problem with a free and fair vote on the matter?
We gie Puerto Rico periodic votes on statehood. The Canadians have had periodic votes on Quebec independence. That is how democratc, free countries do it. But India refuses to allow the people to vote, claiming that "it woudl confuse them," then arrests the leaders of teh independence movement for making speeches, while all the time bleating loudly about how democratic they are.
I guess that is why there are tens of thousands of political prisoners there, right?
As opposed to the complete homogeneity of the other states in India! [SARC. ALERT!]
Puhleeze... your BS has been too tiring to reply to. I hope others do, though.