Author: Sumit Ganguly
Publication: The Times of India
Date: September 8, 2008
URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Editorial/LEADER_ARTICLE_Secession_Is_No_Solution/articleshow/3456179.cms
Introduction: Despite flaws, India's policy
in Kashmir hasn't been genocidal
Though the situation in Kashmir remains fraught,
the immediate crisis has subsided. Amidst calls from otherwise thoughtful
and responsible commentators about granting Kashmir the right of self-determination
one needs to carefully examine the meaning and the case for self-determination.
To begin with, international law does not
equate self-determination with secession. The requirements of self-determination
may be met through the broad provisions of democracy and federalism. More
specifically, ethnic groups may be granted varying degrees of linguistic and
cultural rights and programmes of positive discrimination. Their demands may
also be satisfied through particular mechanisms for political autonomy and
devolution.
On specific occasions, the Indian state has
depicted a remarkable capacity for fashioning such arrangements ranging from
the creation of linguistically-based states to that of local district councils.
These arrangements could be forged because those making the demands were willing
to abandon the secessionist agenda and take part in a democratic process of
negotiation and compromise.
Apart from the tendency of many to conflate
secession with self-determination it is important to recognise that international
law does not provide explicit guidance on the conditions under which ethnic
groups may demand the right to secede. Given the ambiguity surrounding the
subject it may be useful to sketch out some general conditions under which
the international community may recognise the need for secession.
Having done so, it may then be useful to apply
these general principles to India's past record and present circumstances
in Kashmir.
Despite the lack of clear-cut, widely accepted
principles under international law which might allow secession, it's possible
to spell out some guidelines that should secure wide international acceptance.
An ethnic group threatened with the imminent prospect of genocide may well
claim the right of secession to forestall its occurrence.
Similarly, they may also demand that right
when a state pursues genocidal policies. Indeed such was the claim of the
Bengali population of East Pakistan in the wake of the brutal Pakistani military
crackdown on March 26, 1971.
Ethnic groups can also advance a similar claim
when a majority ethnic group seeks to systematically dispossess them of their
ancestral lands through a policy of what a noted scholar and commentator,
Kanti Bajpai, has termed "ethnic flooding".
In many ways, China's policies in Tibet over
an extended period of time meet that standard. China has not only systematically
repressed the Tibetan population but has also sought through the pursuit of
a policy of population transfer to alter the demography of Tibet.
Over time, Tibet may well become a Han-dominated
region if China continues to encourage internal migration with a view towards
changing the demography of the area.
There is no gainsaying the errors and follies
that the Indian state, regardless of regime, has engaged in Jammu and Kashmir.
It would be easy to provide any such catalogue of political mismanagement
and skulduggery. That said none of the flawed policy choices of the Indian
state come close to meeting the standards spelled out above.
There is little question that the Indian state
has used harsh and even cruel counter-insurgency tactics in dealing with the
rebellion that broke out in the state in December 1989. However, these policies
and tactics have been hardly uniform and have not relied solely on a "mailed
fist" strategy.
Instead, on a number of occasions, it has
also offered a "velvet glove" to those who have evinced any interest
in negotiations short of secession. Consequently, despite the florid prose
of many polemicists and apologists for Pakistan, the actions of the Indian
state, while worthy of criticism, do not even approach the standard of a genocidal
policy.
Has the Indian state sought to pursue a policy
of "ethnic flooding"? Once again, the evidence simply does not stand
up to scrutiny. Despite much clamour from the right-wing spectrum of Indian
politics, all governments have refused to abolish Article 370 which confers
certain unique provisions on Jammu and Kashmir. It is most unlikely that any
future government would tamper with this critical constitutional provision.
Consequently, the charge that the Indian state
harbours sinister designs to change the ethnic composition of the state is
simply a chimerical claim.
Finally, those demanding secession from the
Indian state have to answer a simple but compelling question. Are they prepared
to grant the same rights and privileges that they have hitherto enjoyed, however
fitfully, from the Indian state to the minorities in their midst? Even a careful
reading of their statements, not to mention their actions, suggests otherwise.
On the contrary, the viciousness of the insurgents
and the political rhetoric of the Hurriyat makes clear that "nested minorities"
- minorities within minorities - would have few, if any, rights in the seceding
state. Under these circumstances the Indian state simply cannot afford to
abnegate its constitutional duties towards these hapless minorities.
Instead, it has every obligation to protect
them from a potentially disastrous fate.
The recent wave of protests and the substantial
deployment of Indian security forces in the state designed to contain and
quell them at considerable human and material costs has led insightful and
mainstream commentators to suggest that India simply allow the disaffected
population of Kashmir to go their own way. Their arguments, though well-meaning,
nevertheless fail to address the questions that need to be answered before
one equates self-determination with secession.
- The writer is director of the India Studies
Program at Indiana University, Bloomington.
