Author: Amulya Ganguli
Publication: The Tribune
Date: September 3, 2008
URL: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2008/20080903/edit.htm#4
Valley cannot be given away
As the only open society which has been surrounded
for prolonged periods by military juntas, monarchies, communist and feudal
regimes, India's uniqueness was reflected not only by its democracy, but also
by its constant engagement with concepts of autonomy to reduce tension in
its more restive regions. New Delhi's negotiations with the Naga rebels, for
instance, dealt with the assertion of the Nagas that they represented a separate
nation while the ULFA militants continue to emphasise Assam's "sovereignty".
Not long ago, the question of distinctive emblems for Kashmir, such as a separate
flag and a more grandiose designation for the Chief Minister, was considered.
The Indian liberal intelligentsia is used,
therefore, to discussing the possibility of separatism for the country's various
parts unlike, say, what their counterparts in Pakistan and China can say -
if they dare to air independent views -- on Balochistan or Tibet. The only
condition that is usually mentioned in India when such delicate issues are
considered is that any conferment of autonomy must be within the parameters
of the Constitution. Yet, when this question came up during a discussion on
the future of one of India's most sensitive regions - Kashmir - none other
than Atal Bihari Vajpayee from the right-wing BJP said that all matters could
be discussed within the parameters of insaniyat (humaneness), underlining
a rare breadth of vision.
It wasn't surprising, therefore, when a small
section of liberals spoke of relinquishing India's hold on Kashmir against
the background of the latest disturbances in the valley. Leading the pack
was the Booker Prize winner and social activist, Arundhati Roy, who had once
declared her own personal secession from India by announcing her status as
an "independent, mobile republic". If she is in a category of her
own, this cannot be said of the columnists associated with mainstream newspapers
who voiced similar views.
If their suggestions to let Kashmiris decide
on their own future seemed hasty and unwarranted, the reason was that a concession
to self-determination to the state should have at least been accompanied,
if not preceded, by a similar gesture to some in the Northeast - Nagaland
and Mizoram, for instance - which have seen insurgencies for a much longer
period. The Kashmir crisis, after all, began only in 1989. It might even be
logical in this context to have started the process by giving "azadi"
to Tamil Nadu, whose leader C.N.Annadurai, the DMK's founder, told the Rajya
Sabha in early 1962: "Dravidians want the right of self-determination
… we want a separate country for southern India."
Later, referring to an observation of S. Radhakrishnan,
the DMK leader commented: "You say India is one country because Raman
and Krishnan are worshipped from Kanyakumari to the Himalayas. Jesus is worshipped
throughout Europe, yet there are many countries in Europe". The call
for Dravida Nadu, which was given up during the Chinese invasion, was followed
by an anti-Hindi movement, which reached a climax in 1964 when six young men
immolated themselves while three others consumed poison. Three years later,
the Congress lost power and has never regained it on its own. It is also worth
remembering that the DMK boycotted the return of the IPKF from Sri Lanka because
the Indian soldiers fought the Tamil separatists whose aim is to set up a
Tamil Eelam stretching across the Palk Straits to Tamil Nadu. Clearly, there
is no dearth of independent, mobile republics in India.
It might be asked, however: why did the liberals
support Kashmir's secession seemingly without much forethought ? Would any
of them have advanced the same argument in a summary fashion in favour of
a Khalistan when militancy was raging in Punjab? If not, is it because the
valley is predominantly Muslim while Punjab has mostly Sikhs and Hindus? Is
it believed that India can survive the loss of Kashmir, but the loss of Punjab
is unthinkable? In any event, as these on-and-off trouble spots show, the
country has faced the outbreaks of separatism for many years. If it has still
remained in one piece, the reason is its vibrant democracy, which gives every
malcontent a chance to blow off steam.
The only occasion when the strains of divisiveness
proved uncontrollable was in the pre-independence period when the Muslim League
had its way with its secessionist demand. Arguably, the rupture could have
been avoided if India was then a free democratic country. But even the 1947
split might not have taken place if the Congress's and the League's acceptance
of the Cabinet Mission's plan was total, as it initially was, and not later
sought to be modified by conditions, notably by Jawaharlal Nehru, thereby
creating mistrust.
However, the outcome of the 1947 Partition
holds a lesson for today's secessionists, for Pakistan did not survive for
long as the putative homeland of the subcontinent's Muslims. Instead, it suffered
its own partition a quarter of a century later. Not only that, Pakistan's
degeneration into a virtual failed state, which is now seen as the epicentre
of Islamic terrorism, shows that such sudden, artificial creations based on
the emotions of the moment can become a burden on the new country itself and
on the rest of the world. While India's multicultural democracy is widely
hailed as a success story, made all the more remarkable by its buoyant economy,
both Pakistan and Bangladesh have been unable to get their acts together,
alternating between democracy and dictatorship to make a sorry spectacle of
themselves.
There is little chance of either country becoming
a stable entity in the foreseeable future. They will remain textbook examples
of what can happen when self-determination is hastily won on insufficient
grounds - in this case, the glue of religion which could not withstand the
fissiparous tendencies induced by language and ethnicity. Since nationhood
comprises many elements, it cannot be conjured out of thin air by highlighting
only one factor. Israel also is a similar artificial creation, which is why
it has had to convert itself into a garrison state, forever scared of being
attacked.
The fate of Pakistan and Afghanistan should
warn the separatists of Kashmir and their intellectual supporters in New Delhi
as to what might happen if India lets Kashmir go its own way. Even if, for
argument's sake, terrorism was not the most dominant feature of life in Pakistan
and Afghanistan, as at present, there still would not have been an independent
Kashmir since the Pakistan Army, which is that country's only durable institution,
would not allow it. A "free" Kashmir would soon be a colony of Pakistan
with the ISI-backed fundamentalists making the region resemble Afghanistan
under the Taliban. Those who believe, therefore, that the departure of "oppressive"
India would enable the Kashmiris to at last live their cherished life of freedom
are sadly mistaken. No one will be greater losers than the Kashmiris themselves.
For India, a Talibanised Kashmir would bring
the terror camps of the Islamists a step closer. It wouldn't mean the end
of democracy, but only more terrorist strikes and a consequent strengthening
of the BJP and the weakening of the secularists. Even for Pakistan, the acquisition
of Kashmir will not mean the completion of the unfinished business of Partition.
Instead, the coveted prize will make the ISI, a state within a state, even
more powerful, thereby posing a threat to the non-military ruling establishment,
if there is any, and to the minuscule group of liberals in the country.
