COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
ELECTIONS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

Recently, The Times of India carried an article by Dipankar Gupta (September 16, 1999) which is rather confusing. Gupta starts of by making a rather superficial difference between jingoism and patriotism, saying that while the former is love of the land, the latter involves love of the land and the people. He then goes on to make a plea for retaining Kashmir on the basis of patriotism, but strangely speaks of the territory of Kashmir (jingoistic, as per his own definition) rather than the sentiments of the Kashmiris.

One agrees that should ever Kashmir secede from India, hell might break loose. The worse sufferers will be the Indian Muslims, who have had a besieged mentality ever since Pakistan was created 52 years ago, and India might well become a Hindu Republic.

It is also true that should Kashmir go, there will be immense pressure in other parts such as Nagaland (whose struggle against India is just as long though less publicised) and other parts of northeast India. Will southern India then stay on? Then what happens to India as we know it today? The very thought is frightening.

Yet, to say that India’s tricolour must flutter over Kashmir to prevent India's breakup is to place territory before people. It is worth asking what is it about India that 52 years after Independence there remain vast segments of Indians who would rather live separate lives. Certainly part of that answer lies in the fact that New Delhi and the Indian ruling establishment placed territory before people. In the bargain, we lost the people and the territory has been under threat.

After all these years of fighting to retain Kashmir, Nagaland and many other regions, it is one of India’s greatest tragedies that we are no closer to winning the people in those regions than we were decades ago. The reasons are plentiful and the details can be availed – corruption, indifference and neglect, and so on. Yet, year after year, promises are made to improve the situation but on the ground, little seems to change.

If neglected people do not seek a separate destiny, what else will they desire? And it is worth asking how long can India tolerate such a situation of keeping with it people who have no desire to be part of it simply through overwhelming force. Personally, I do not know how many years, but I know it cannot be forever.

There are many factors that create a sense of nationhood among the people, and it is invariably a combination of these factors rather than a single one. Few factors alone and on their own make different people into a nation, and in India, its sheer diversity make it even more difficult. Not religion, not language, not history, not even a booming economy, though the latter is one good reason for people to want to be part of a particular nation (few want to secede from the continent-sized United States, and some do want to be the 51st state of the US).

Indian nationhood was born during the British rule. While the Mughals and other rulers would merge into India, the British were ethnically different and could never be part and parcel of India. From this racial difference and from economic exploitation was born a movement against Britain and Indian nationhood.

The sense of Indian nationhood initially was strongest among the regions that first took on the British empire, and the earliest struggle was in the then Bombay, Bengal and Madras provinces. In their common struggle against the British, the elites from these regions submerged their respective nationalism into Indian nationalism. And later, when the centre of gravity of the freedom struggle moved north, these three regions remained bound to the cause through their legacy. In the late 1950s and 1960, the movement for a separate Dravidastan remained stillborn because of this deep legacy of India nationalism. Similarly, never have the regions of Maharashtra or West Bengal ever shown any real sentiment to create a separate nation-state.

But some regions, mostly the periphery of India, were less involved in the Freedom Struggle. And after Independence, the elites from these regions found themselves cutoff from the spoils of power and policy-making, which was shared by those regions and people whom history gave a chance for a more active role. Neglect was born, and festered easily since the size of the spoils’ cake to be divided remained extremely small. There are other reasons also, all of which have been much written about.

It can be argued that today, throughout the world, there are ethnic groups seeking their own nation-state. The best example is the case of East Timor, who recently voted for Independence in their referendum. Comparisons have been drawn between East Timor and Kashmir, which New Delhi has played down even as some in Islamabad have sought to play up. East Timor secessionism per se is not a threat to Kashmir, because East Timor became a part of Indonesia only in 1975 and has a very different history.

In United Kingdom, the Scots held a referendum to install their own parliament (note, it is a parliament and not just an assembly as was given to Wales) and the day may not be too far off when the Scots hold a referendum on whether to secede or not.

Hence, what should worry New Delhi is that the idea of holding referendums has won a fresh lease of life. Someone once declared that no army can stop an idea whose time has come and with all due respect to the mighty Indian armed forces, the fact is they too cannot.

Strangely, many Indians support the cause of Tibet and Eelam, but refuse to hear any argument for Kashmir. The reasons and histories certainly are different, making comparisons odious, but in all three the idea is the same: that the people are seeking control over their own destiny. It should not surprise anyone that a fearful New Delhi categorically supports the “national integrity” of both China and Sri Lanka. The reason is fear about Kashmir, Nagaland and other regions.

All such countries speak about national sovereignty, and the country’s unity and integrity. In the bargain they forget the unity and integrity of the people they govern. By placing territory over people, such capitals have only lost the trust and respect of the peoples who then support the secessionist cause.

As we enter the new millennium, let us place the value of humans over any notion of borders and territories. Let the people themselves vote to be a part of the nation, rather than be forced to be part of a nation. It is difficult but not impossible.

One cannot and should not seek to keep Kashmir only because we fear the break up of India or of trouble breaking out. Such an argument is wrong (morally and even on the basis of realpolitik) and only means that Indian nationhood is extremely fragile, something many will disagree with. There are many people today who see themselves as Indians first and Indians last, even if such people are in a minority in the regions of Kashmir, Nagaland, etc. But let us also remember that the idea of secessionism can spread if the rulers fail the people.

To keep the country united, we Indians have to strengthen the nationhood among our people, not just station soldiers in troubled regions. Because armies do not make a nation!

Amberish K Diwanji