Follow us on Twitter!

    follow me on Twitter


    Blog powered by Typepad

    « Why So Many Organizations Struggle for Success in Virtual Worlds | Main | Liberalizing and Stabilizing Developing Nations Through Broadband Accessibility »



    Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

    This really is a fascinating subject. Why do countries require physical borders? Web 2.0 social media has shown that people can efficiently organize across political boundaries, whether for flash-mobs or to elect a US President. Is there any technical reason say, 100,000 Second Life folks couldn't join together and declare themselves a nation? Perhaps their geography is still controlled by Linden Lab, but what if Linden Lab joined?

    Regardless of political borders, online communities, as evidenced by the election of the current most-powerful-person-in-the-world position of US President, are forces to be reckoned with and courted. At the very least, they still resemble a political party. There's no reason to think this trend won't continue.

    You might want to look into the landless "nationalist" movement of the Rroma (gypsy) people, who have even petitioned the UN for recognition of their landless state as a member nation. A lot of this organizing is also done online. (pretty radical for a people who were actively anti-literate a couple generations back)

    A very interesting read, but some of the conclusions are premature. The Khalistan movement was declared defeated in 1993 /1994. The internet did not come into mass usage until about roughly 2000. For nearly 6 to 7 years the ideology was able to survive without the virtual world. Within those years of no internet and no movement, anyone who associated themselves with the movement was is great danger, yet people still held onto the belief, why?

    Recently the state of Punjab has requested 5 additional battalions be created for security reasons within Punjab. Last month, Sikhs protesting the killing of a fellow Sikh started yelling slogans of Khalistan in front of Punjab Police, an act unthinkable 10 years ago (Youtube video available). And as the days go by, the Indian government adds more and more Western Sikhs to their Black List (those Sikhs not allowed into India), and continuously complaints to Western governments about Sikh activities. Within the past few months, anti-Khalistan videos have started to appear on Youtube. These videos are done in a very professional manner, with narration and interviews. It is clear that this “virtual threat” is indeed being perceived as a real threat by the nation of India and rightfully so.

    To understand the true nature, strength and justification for Khalistan, one must first understand the root causes for and the methods used to end the last Khalistan movement. It is clear that no mainstream paper will be able to address these issues as it will simply add more fuel to fire. How can well respected author write that the Indian government used horrific methods to subdue a movement that was rooted in justifiable arguments? It is because of these facts that the movement is now reviving across the world.

    Revolutions are not easy to categorize and label. To attempt to do so will only limit the writers and readers understanding of that movement. Soviet Russia may never have come into existence had it not been for WW1 and the help of German government, yet a global war and the assistance of foreign governments is not a mandatory requirements for revolution. Cuba embraced its revolution, yet Bolivia failed.

    A revolution is like a virus to the host nation. Each virus has its own methods of infecting the host and spreading. Some may show extreme sign while others may lay dormant. To say one can analyze and conclude the end result of a host infected with Ebola with the knowledge and expectations of HIV is indeed shortsighted.


    The comments to this entry are closed.