Partha Chatterjee's likening of Kashmir and Tripura with Israel is hardly rational.
The non-Muslims of other parts of India did not consider Kashmir anything like a 'promised land' to settle in, the way the Zionists of the world did to Palestine. In fact, there is an Indian law that prevents non-Kashmiris to buy land there. If the Kashmiri religious majority had an opportunity, that land most likely would have been something like a Pakistan or Bangladesh today, with the non-Muslims of that land totally expelled/marginalized. Even with all the Indian military presence there, the Muslim majority there have driven out the minority Hindu Pandits from the Kashmir valley. The Muslims of that land have all the power there, except for making that land an Islamic nation of injustice and atrocity. The Muslims of Kashmir certainly have a lot more sovereignty than what the Arabs have in Israel.
Similarly, Tripura was not considered a 'promised land' by the settlers from East Bengal (today's Bangladesh). The persecuted Hindus of East Bengal went to India, including Tripura, for shelter, not for ruling, not for subjugating the local population. Being more educated, they had an advantage over the local population of Tripura. Being too many in number from the densely populated East Bengal, they also became a majority in the land that had been sparsely populated. But their intent was never like what the Zionists wanted to do to the Palestinians. As Mr. Chatterjee has also observed, the Bengali dominated government has been trying to build bridges between the Tribal and the Bengali populations. There is no policy of settling more Bengalis from other parts of the world in Tripura; quite unlike what is going on in Israel.
See the article here: http://savageminds.org/2015/09/09/partha-chatterjee-why-i-support-the-boycott-of-israeli-institutions/
__._,_.___
