The Right Of Nations To Self-Determination, Including Secession

One of the reasons for the chaos, anarchy and threat to the unity of India is that the problem of nations, national minorities and tribal peoples has not been resolved. On the contrary, it has been aggravated by the policies of the central government.

India is a multinational country, and those nations have their own languages, their own cultures and their own historical development. India has been compared to Europe, containing many nations, big and small, each of them an historically developed entity with its territory, language, economy and national psychology. As such, each nation has the right to determine its own destiny and to have a state of its own. They can voluntarily join together in a confederation, but they can­not be joined together by the sword. They cannot be kept together by force.

In multinational societies, wherever the national question is not satisfactorily solved, the societies fall apart. The example of Bangladesh is a case in point. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the leader of the Bengalis, never even asked for a separate state. His party, the Awami League, wanted only more autonomy and more cultural freedom, but the Pakistan government replied with more repression, more cultural and political oppression. Thousands of Bengalis were imprisoned, tortured and killed in fake encounters. But the repres­sion could not succeed, and ultimately Pakistan was divided, with a new country emerging out of the oppression and unjust policies of the Pakistan government.

Jawaharlal Nehru visited the Soviet Union in 1927, and expressed admiration for the way it had dealt with the problem of nations under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin. But regardless of his admiration, Nehru did not follow this policy for his own country.

He writes:

"The Russian Union - the U.S.S.R. ­is a federation of six constituent republics. Some of these republics are themselves federations and have besides many autonomous areas. Thus, each considerable minority inhabiting a particular area has a great deal of autonomy and can' develop its own language and culture. It is the policy of the Central Government not only to leave these republics and autonomous areas to work along their own lines, but to help them actively to develop their resources and cultures. Schools conducted in the local languages are opened; an attempt is made to carry on public activities, work in Soviets etc., in the language of the area; and newspapers are published in these languages:'

Of all the multinational states, only the Soviet Union under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin solved the problem of the nations. In Russia, if the question of nations had not been solved by Comrades Lenin and Stalin, the Central Asian Republics such as Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan, etc. , would not have remained united with Moscow and European Russia. They gave full freedom to the nations in their own spheres. National oppression was ended, and therefore the Soviet Union remained together. No other country has solved this problem.

With the shift of policy in the Soviet Union from the time of Nikita Khrushchev up to Mikhail Gorbachev, national problems have again started to appear in the Soviet Union. This is because Nikita Khrushchev began deviating from the policy of Lenin and Stalin and replacing it with the policy of tsarist Russification. He started inciting Russian chauvinism, as have all the Soviet leaders since Khrushchev.

In India, the nations are not given any freedom.

Rather, the experience of the last 40 years shows that the effort has been to suppress the nations, to liquidate them and destroy their identity in the name of unity and integration.

This had already started with the British, who had constituted Uttar Pradesh by amal­gamating several nations, to give but one example. The British also followed the policy of dismembering nations, as in the case of Bengal in the early part of the 20th century. They had to abandon the dismemberment of Bengal in 1911 because of the opposition of the people, but they finally achieved it in 1947 with the co-operation of Nehru, Gandhi, Jinnah, etc.

From the time of their arrival on the Indian subcon­tinent, the British constantly trampled on the rights of nations and nationalities. Here is a brief chronology of division and re-division of the subcontinent:

After the battle of Plassey in 1757, the British gained control of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. The Mogul Em­peror Shah Alam gave them the right to collect reve­nues in 1765, and they consolidated their position by taking over the civil administration of the entire area. In 1781, Bihar was made a district under a Collector and Judge Magistrate. In 1865, it was subdivided into the districts of Patna and Gaya, and 19 estates were transferred from Patna to Tirhut in 1869. On April 1, 1912, Bihar, Chota Nagpur and Orissa were placed under a Lieutenant Governor in Council, and the new province of Bihar-Orissa was created with its capital at Patna.

The regions of Chota Nagpur, Manbhum, Singh­bhum and Santhal Parganas, which were known as Jharkhand before the British took over, were also amalgamated into the new province. The area known as Jharkhand was never completely subjugated by any­one, including the Moguls or the British. At present, Jharkhand is divided amongst four states - Bihar, Bengal, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa.

In May 1775, the British annexed the districts of Benares, Jaunpur, Gazipur and a portion of Mirzapur This annexation formed the nucleus of the Presidency of Agra which was to be created later on. In 1797 and 1798, Fatehgarh and Allahabad were annexed. In 1801, the British Governor General, Lord Wellesley, forced the ruler of Awadh to disband his army and annexed the territories of Gorakhpur, Deoria, Basti, Azamgarh, the remaining part of Allahabad, Fatehpur, Kanpur, Etawa, Mainpuri, Etah, Farrukhabad (Bangash terri­tory), as well as the territories of Bareilly, Moradabad, Badaun, Pilibhit and Shahjahanpur in Rohilkhand.

In 1803 and 1804, Delhi, parts of Agra and other estates on the east bank of the Yamuna River were annexed. In 1804 the territories of Saharanpur, Muz­zafarnagar, Meerut, Bulandshahar, Aligarh, other parts of Agra, Mathura, Gurgaon, Rohtak, Hissar, Sirsa and Karnal were included in the British territory after the Second Anglo-Maratha War In 1803, parts of Banda, Hamirpur and Jalaun were taken from the Bundelk­hand. In 1805, the ruler of Bharatpur ceded the east­ernmost part of his territory to the British. Under the Treaty of Amritsar of 1809, the chiefs south of the Satluj River (Cis Satluj) were declared to be under the protection of the British, who stationed a garnson at Ludhiana.

After the Anglo-Nepal War of 1816, the King of Nepal ceded the hill districts of Kumaon and Dehra Dun in Garhwal, and a long strip of territory along the lower Himalayas with most of the adjacent forest lands extending from the eastern border of Nepal to the Satluj River. The British also gained control of Simla, Mussoorie, Almora, Ranikhet, Landour and Naini Tal. In 1817 the territory north of the Narmada River was confiscated by the British from the ruler of Nagpur and was called the Sagar and Narmada Territories. In 1825 and 1826, the fort of Bharatpur was destroyed and the Pargana area of Goverdhan was added to the Agra district.

In 1826, by a treaty with the King of Burma, Assam was also added to the British territories. In 1843, after the battle of Maharajpur, the Chanderi areas of Indurki and Duboh were taken and added to Lalitpur district. In 1849, the Raja of Jaitpur in Bundelkhand died and his state "lapsed" into the hands of the British. In 1853 the state of Jhansi also "lapsed" into their hands. In 1856 Awadh was annexed. After the death of Ranjit Singh in 1849, Punjab was also annexed.

In 1833 the Presidency of Bengal was divided in two to simplify the administration of these vast territories. One presidency was known as the Presidency of Fort Williams in Bengal and the other as the Presidency of Agra. In 1877, twelve districts of Awadh were transferred to the Agra Presidency, and in 1902 United Provinces was created by merging Agra and Awadh. After independence in 1947, United Province became the state of Uttar Pradesh.

Similarly, under the Madras Presidency were includ­ed the present states of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. Under the Bombay Presidency were included Sind, some parts of Gujrat and Mysore, and the present state of Maharashtra. At the time of inde­pendence, besides these presidencies, more than 500 princely states existed, such as Jammu and Kashmir, Swat, Baluchistan, Rajputana and Central States, Hyderabad, Mysore, Travancore, Khasi, Tripura, Mani­pur and the Deccan States.

The Cabinet Mission which Britain sent to India in 1946 to negotiate the transfer of state power to an Indian government had:

Suggested the formation of three states along communal lines. There were to be two Moslem states and one Hindu state united in a kind of confederation into one India. It proposed that the central government have three areas of jurisdiction - foreign affairs, defence and communications - with the states retaining the rest of the powers.

This solution was initially accepted by both the Muslim League and the Congress Party, but was later sabotaged by Jawaharlal Nehru, who was president of the Congress Party at that time. At a press conference in Bombay, when asked whether the Constituent Assembly would be bound by the agreement regarding centre-state relations and the division of powers, he answered in the negative.

After that, Mr. Muhamad Ali Jinnah, the leader of the Muslirn League, also rejected the Cabinet Mission Proposal and said that the Congress leaders could not be trusted after the British leave. In this way the Cabinet Mission Proposal led to the partition of India. Even General Wavell, the British commander-in-chief of the colonial army and Viceroy of India, criticized the British government and the leaders of the Congress Party for dividing India.

Maulana Azad, President of the Congress Party at the time of the Cabinet Mission, writes: "The acceptance of the Cabinet Mission Plan by both Congress and Moslem League was a glorious event in the history of the freedom movement in India. It meant that the difficult question of Indian freedom had been settled by negotiation and agreement and not by methods of violence and conflict. It also seemed that the communal difficulties had been finally left behind. Throughout the country there was a sense of jubilation, and all the people were united in their demand for freedom. We rejoiced, but we did not then know that our joy was premature and bitter disappointment awaited us...

"Now happened one of those unfortunate events which changed the course of history. On 10 July, Jawaharlal held a press conference in Bombay in which he made a statement...Some press representatives asked him whether, with the passing of the resolution by the AICC, the Congress had accepted the Plan in to, including the composition of the interim government.

"Jawaharlal stated in reply that Congress would enter the Constituent Assembly `completely unfettered by agreements and free to meet all situations as they arise': Press representatives further asked if this meant that the Cabinet Mission Plan could be modified. Jawaharlal replied emphatically that the Congress had agreed only to participate in the Constituent Assembly and regarded itself free to change or modify the Cabinet Mission Plan as it pleased.

"I must place on record that Jawaharlal's statement was wrong....We had in fact agreed that the Central Government would be federal. There would be the compulsory list of three central subjects while all other subjects remained in the provincial sphere...These matters could not be changed unilaterally by Congress without the consent of other parties to the agreement:"

The leaders of the Congress Party had revealed their plans for the partition of India as early as 1928, when Sir John Simon came to India to negotiate a settlement on behalf of the British government. The Indian National Congress formed a committee under the chairmanship of Motilal Nehru, which in its report advocated the partition of the country into Hindu India and Muslim India.

Professor Puran Singh, who was not a politician but a scientist, wrote an open letter to Sir John Simon and pleaded against the partition of India. He said:

"In conclusion, I would request you not to be so small as to be partial in any way to any community and not to be so large as to give over India into the hands of one powerful community and thus reduce the other minor communities to eternal slavery even under democratic institutions. By cutting up the country into Muslim provinces and Hindu provinces, you would be only introducing a slow eating consumption of civil anarchy which would kill the weaker communities. Where the Hindus prevail, Muslims shall suffer and where the Muslims prevail, the Hindus shall suffer. And as I have already said, virile communities like that of the Sikhs may risk to fight to death to ask for a purely Sikh province... I, therefore, .appeal to you to recommend a non-communal constitution: "

After independence in 1947, the arbitrary division and redivision of India without regard to the national aspirations of the people continued just as in colonial times. Right after independence, on August 15, 1947, Orissa and Chhatisgarh states were merged. In March 1948, the Deccan States were merged with the states of Kolhapur and Gujrat to form the Bombay Presidency. Baroda was also included in it in 1949.

Twenty-one states of Eastern Punjab were consoli­dated into Union of Himachal Pradesh, and Vindhya Pradesh was created by merging Bundelkhand and Bhagelkhand in 1948. The state of Bilaspur in Punjab, the state of Bhopal and the state of Tripura were placed directly under the rule of the central government.

The central government also created several States Unions. Thus, the United States of Kathiwar (Saurashtra) was created in 1948, formed from 22 states and estates. In the same year the United States of Matsya, consisting of Alwar, Bharatpur, the United States of Gwalior, Indor and Madhya Bharat were created. Patiala and East Punjab States Union consisting of Patiala, Nabha, Kapurthala, etc., was also created. The United States of Rajasthan, consisting of Mewar and nine other small states was also formed in 1948. This state was reconstituted in 1949 to include Jaipur, Jodhpur, Jaisalmer and Bikaner. The United States of Travancore-Cochin also came into being in 1949. The principle that was followed in creating and recreating the states was explained in the white paper on the states: "The aim was the integration of all elements in the country in a free, united and democratic India."

In 1948, the Dar Committee was formed to report on the linguistic provinces and their creation. The Dar Committee advised against the creation of linguistic provinces or states. Another committee comprised of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel and Pattabhai Si­taramayya was set up. In 1953, the first linguistic state of Andhra Pradesh was created, and the States Re­organization Commission with Fazl Ali as chairman was established. The Commission submitted its report in 1955, and in 1956 the States Re-organization Act was passed. Under this Act, a new state of Andhra Pradesh was created by adding new territories to the existing state. New territories were also added to the state of Madras. The state of Kerala was created from the old state of Travancore-Cochin. Territories from Hyderabad, Madras, Bombay and Coorg were added to the state of Mysore. A new state of Bombay was created from territories taken from Hyderabad, Madhya Pradesh, Kutch, Bombay and Saurashtra. Ter­ritories from Madhya Pradesh, Vindhya Pradesh, Bhopal and Rajasthan formed the new state of Madhya Pradesh. Ajmer was added to the state of Rajasthan. Patiala and East Punjab States Union was added to Punjab.

In 1960, Maharashtra and Gujrat were created out of Bombay state, and Nagaland was carved out of Assam. In 1966, under the Punjab Re-organization Act, Punjab and Haryana were created out of Punjab, and the hill territories of Punjab were added to Himachal Pradesh. In 1972, Meghalaya was also carved out of Assam. The states of Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura and Arunachal were created later.

The British had created administrative units such as presidencies and provinces which negated the national rights of the peoples, and the central government followed the same policy in its re-organizations.

The states were not organized on the basis of national aspirations of the people.

The States Re-organization Commission said that its guiding principle was the preservation and strengthening of the unity and security of India, but it seems that the negation of the rights of nations and national minorities and tribal peoples was seen as the way to preserve this unity.

In the present circumstances, unless and until the centre-state relations are redrafted and a real confederation emerges, it is difficult to see how the different nations, national minorities and tribal peoples will be kept together.

Under the present constitution, the states have more or less no freedom, no real power. They are like dignified municipal committees. Any elected state government can be dismissed by the central government.

When the constitution was being framed, it was promised that the right to dismiss state governments would not be abused. But it was just after the first general election that the abuse of the provision started.

In Punjab, the central government has not allowed any non-Congress government to function for a full five-year term. In 1952, a non-Congress government was formed in PEPSU (Patiala and Eastern Punjab States Union), most of which now forms part of Punjab and Haryana. It was dismissed by the central gov­ernment after nine months. Similarly, in 1967 a non­Congress government headed by S. Gurnam Singh was dismissed after 10 months. Presidential rule has been imposed eight times in Punjab. Surjit Singh Barnala's government was dismissed by the centre in spite of its co-operation with the centre.

His government was dis­missed on the flimsy pretext that it was unable to curtail violence and killings of the innocent. But the facts show that killings have skyrocketed ever since the declaration of presidential rule in the state. Close to 1,300 people have been killed in the first six months of 1988, whereas 909 people were reported killed in 1987.

The provision was misused, not only in the case of Punjab, but also in the case of other non-Congress governments in other states. The elected government of the Communist Party of India in Kerala was dis­missed in 1959 after two-and-a-half years, although it was still in the majority. So in a real sense the states are at the mercy of the centre, and they have no real powers. The central government even interferes in a most undemocratic manner, and in violation of all party norms, in states where the Congress (I) is in power. For example, Arjun Singh was recently sworn in as the chief minister of Madhaya Pradesh without holding a meeting of the Congress legislative committee. Similarly, the Chief Minister of Manipur was forced to resign by the Prime Minister, even though the majority of MLAs in the house supported him. The chief ministers were imposed in a similar manner in Rajasthan and Bihar. If the centre-state relations are not re-evaluated, and the aspirations of the people belonging to different nations, national minorities and tribal peoples are not fulfilled in the economic, political and cultural sphere - in other words, if freedom and progress is not guaranteed and the people do not become masters of their own affairs - there will not be unity.