Consensual versus contested secession

The right to secede or the right not to secede is what is deliberated upon in the book under review.

Neera Chandoke has dealt with the issue at a theoretical level and analysed in detail the case of the Indian side of Jammu and Kashmir, where a separatist movement has been on for the past 20 years.

She engages with political theorists regarding the concepts of democracy, self-determination, universal rights and the right to secession.

While the beginning of the 20th century witnessed anti-colonial struggles and nation-building by the newly independent States, the end of that century and the beginning of the current one are the focus of attention for secessionist movements.

Most often, these movements are based on primordial affiliations. In particular, the sequel to the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s has been a spate of secessionist movements globally.

As opposed to the nationalist movements, which were predicated upon an emancipatory agenda, secessionist movements are ethno-religious or ethno-cultural.

In this context, Chandoke asks, what kind of a right is the right to secede. How should it be dealt with if the right to secede is contested from within? Most often, the discourse on secession is on the basis of communitarian affiliations, thus relegating any egalitarian debate to the backburner. Thus, issues of gender equality or equal rights of minorities are not a part of the discourse in secessionist struggles.

As the current historical juncture seems to be overtaken by identity politics and the emancipatory discourse marginalised, secessionist movements — violent and non-violent — have captured the imagination of the oppressed.

While the elite lead the secessionist movements, the poor and the marginalised provide the numbers for the final resolution of the struggle.

Though the right to secede may be theoretically considered a moral right, it may not be accepted by significant sections of the populace, which could be adversely impacted by secession. As the discourse in these secessionist movements is determined by the powerful social and economic elite, there could be dissensions within.

Further, in plural societies, the implications for minorities or for women remain uncertain in a movement that does not shake up the traditional power structures.

In this context, Chandoke makes a distinction between consensual secession and contested secession. If the idea of secession is contested from within, a lot more thought needs to be given to the varied point of views.

The author argues that the right to secession can be justified only in the case of institutionalised injustice or the denial of access to State institutions for the redressal of violation of rights. In formal democracies, however, ‘the victims of rights violations have a number of options ranging from sympathetic judiciary to solidarity networks in civil society. In such circumstances, we get a weak right of secession, which is rendered still weaker by moral considerations that have a bearing upon the right.' (p. 119)

separatist movement

The book engages with the separatist movement in Kashmir, which flared up in the early 1990s.

The current political drama in J&K started in 1947 when the Maharaja asked for military help to drive away marauding tribals from across the border. The dramatis personae consisted of India, Pakistan and the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Pakistan has argued that the State should have acceded to that country as per the natural logic of Partition, based on the religious majority.

Chandoke points out that before October 1947, the state of Jammu and Kashmir ‘was an independent princely State. After the accession, the State became a constituent unit of the Indian federal system and was brought into a specific relationship with both the Indian people and the Indian government.' (p.103).

The accession thus implied that ‘[c]ertain powers held by the government of the State were transferred to the Government of India in return for political stability and protection. In return, the Government of India guaranteed in the Constitution and through a number of agreements that J& K would hold a special status in the Indian federal system.

It follows that if these conditions have been wilfully violated, the people of the State have been wronged.' (p.103) Chandoke emphasises that the Government of India has over a period of time diluted the special status allotted to the State at the time of accession. (p.102). This, she says, constitutes a case of institutionalised injustice. Rights' violation by the security forces and the imposition of Armed Forces Special Powers Act leads to denial of access to institutions of redressal.

Most often, the pace of justice is slow and delayed. As a result, the oppressed Kashmiris feel that secession from the Indian union is the best alternative. But there is a catch here.

The demand for separation or secession is not equally endorsed by all parts of J&K. For example, Ladakh wants to be a Union territory directly governed by the Central Government and Jammu does not endorse the separatist agenda.

The irony is that the separatist movement is not homogenous either. A section of the separatists endorse their union with Pakistan, while the rest endorse a separate nationhood.

It thus implies that the secessionist movement is contested within the State. Further, the secessionist struggle does not engage with universal rights of economic and social equality. With intense (also violent during the decade of 1990s) campaigns for freedom, the population of Kashmir region has undergone traumatic experiences for nearly two decades.

The resultant displacement of the minority communities and the secular Muslims bring to the fore the tragedy of movements based on ethno-religious priorities.

Contemporary

The book has delved into an area which is becoming widespread in contemporary times and should lead to more such studies. There is need to historicise the concept of secession. Fragmentation of nations is happening in some parts of the globe, as another part is centralising even further.

Various types of ethno-cultural and ethno-nationalist movements are raging in Somalia, Libya, Iraq and Pakistan. While poor nations are witnessing outbreaks of secessionist movements based on primordial identities, advanced capitalist countries are able to pacify such movements with peaceful gestures like referendums.

The European Union is striving towards a stronger union, even as countries like Spain and Belgium are facing escalating challenges to their unity.

(The writer is Professor, Centre for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies, Noam Chomsky Complex, Jamia Milia Islamia, Delhi)

COMMENT NOW