Home

Follow Countercurrents on Twitter 

Google+ 

Support Us

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

CounterSolutions

CounterImages

CounterVideos

Editor's Picks

Press Releases

Action Alert

Feed Burner

Read CC In Your
Own Language

Bradley Manning

India Burning

Mumbai Terror

Financial Crisis

Iraq

AfPak War

Peak Oil

Globalisation

Localism

Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

About Us

Disclaimer

Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Search Our Archive

 



Our Site

Web

Subscribe To Our
News Letter

Name: E-mail:

 

Printer Friendly Version

In Defence Of Kashmir's Self Determination

By Younus Farooq

20 march, 2013
Countercurrents.org

The long drawn out struggle for self determination in Jammu and
Kashmir is not for a plot of land but it is based on the legitimate
historical grievances-the group which was previously invaded or annexed
illegally or under extraordinary circumstances.

Historical grievances and threats, invasion, economic negligence
represents real injustice. They can be amended by the enhancement of
democracy. Who suffers the threat or grievance? The answer to this
must be the group that desires self-government.

When the people of a region suffer injustice or threats, the case of
self determination gains more legal weight and justification. Any
threat to personal life is a direct assault on the democratic
institutions –freedom to travel, freedom to worship freely and freedom
of press.
Any group with a particular identity that desires a separate
government is entitled to a prima facie right to self determination.
The united nations international covenant on civil and political
rights (1966) as well as the international covenant on economic,
social and cultural rights, states,” all peoples have the right of
self determination .By virtue of that right they freely determine
their political status ,and freely pursue their economic ,social and
cultural development.”
Self determination is a distinctive kind of democratic institution, a
legal arrangement that promotes participation and representation, the
political activities of an autonomous person. Other
institutions-elections, a free press, the right to assemble, and many
others-of course also promote democracy. But self determination is
unique in the respect that it promotes democracy for a group whose
member’s first claim to share an identity for political purposes, and
second seek a separate government as opposed to a larger portion of
representatives in their current states programme.

The perplexing dilemma that constraint the realization of dream of
self determination can be understood in terms of political, economical
or cultural dimensions. Under the context of self determination, the
larger state no longer have any voice in determining the
regions(group demanding seccession) economic, political or educational
or language policies, some of which may affect their state. Perhaps the people of
larger state (India) will no longer travel, emigrate or hold a job in
the separatists region.

By creating more states, especially adjacent distinct states,
secession brings Balkanized conflicts. It must also be remembered that
grievances and threats can strongly make a case for self-determination
and it may invite iniquity consequences in case it is deferred. The
Bosnian Muslims were persecuted in a Yugoslavia dominated by Serbs;
the Iraqi Kurds were ravished by Saddam Husain.

A steady democratic solution always need not be a majoritian one. The
several democracies of world (e.g., Belgium and Switzerland) have
achieved stability by the virtue of special provisions and privileges.
These provisions provide more space for better representation directly
and guard their interests as well as rule the entire state.

Unfortunately self determination is being pushed into remote
corners by powerful nations of the world, for the legitimate people
self determination is waiting for enlightenment. Unfortunately
marginalizing the role of UN hardly diminishes its appeal.

The member of territorial communities, the members of which are
conscious of themselves as members of a community, and wish to
maintain the identity of their community, is a nation. The nagging
concern for me is why a region cannot or tiny group be self
determining: Singapore and Hong Kong are all doing just fine.

A separate state or federal autonomy may enhance independence or set
democracy –the people of Kashmir (I am concerned with Kashmir) may
govern exclusively affairs that are truly its own, but in matters
which affect the larger state (India), it may retain outside
obligation. A commune of Kurds surrounded by Sunnis, or protestants
surrounded by Catholics or Kashmir Muslim surrounded by Hindus may
fully govern fully its cultural and religious matters, if the legal
arrangement of self determination affects the interests of larger
state (India) or economic interdependence by erecting trade barriers
or it may impoverish the larger state, then economic decisions may be
shared or resources may be utilized mutually or some other kind legal
arrangement may be made.

The obvious fact is that people in Kashmir want to spread their
language more frequently or widely among their people, educate their
children into their own customs. The people want to keep alive their
religion. They believe their culture is in peril, or maybe they face
persecution, attack or economic constraints. They want to recover
their independence.

At the very least, we must demand that any regime, whatever its form
,must protect basic human rights, including fundamental political and
civil liberties-the right to life, freedom from torture and coercion
of belief, the right to speak and worship and vote and participate
freely and the right to basic food requirements.

The right to self determination claim is legally entitled to a group
with a particular identity. Take the case of Lithuania who suffered
injustice when Stalin annexed its land and this crime enhanced its
secessionist claim in 1990.Self determination is not a legal fight for
a piece of land but it is a struggle for a space in which the people
in question have lived out their common life, developed their
historical identity, and above all, want to govern themselves.

Sharing an identity for political purposes means not that their
political identity is only their identity but they must be tied by a
developed sense of common identity and shared history or descent. The
nation state is one in which the majority of its citizens, and not
only its rulers, share a common sense of identity forged through
struggles, through the actions of leaders and the common people.

To have common glories in the past, to have a common will in the
present, to have performed great deeds together, to wish to perform
still more, these are essential conditions of being a people. Nation
is therefore large scale solidarity. A nation never has any real
interest in annexing or holding on to a country against its will.

Self determination inherently provides a self governing principal.
While democratic institutions promote freedom essential for the
development of an individual, e.g., should protect freedom-meaning the
negative liberty. Right to free expression, free worship and a free
pr, and the basic human rights to life and free movement. Such rights
are inviolable. They should not be sacrificed for any dream of
positive liberty.

Strengthening international law and wisely supported by most
powerful states, legalized self determination could contribute to
order and stability.

Younus Farooq is a kashmir based journalist

 

 




 

 


Comments are moderated