As the people in Scotland vote "Yes" or "No" today in an independence referendum, others with similar aspirations in different parts of the world would be watching closely. Those evincing keen interest, say media reports, are Catalonia in Spain, Bavaria in Germany, Flanders in Belgium and West Papua in Indonesia. Even though the Kashmiris are not mentioned, they too must be enthused by the event. The interested outsiders share history of separateness and hopes of independence.
Scotland entered into a political union with England in 1707 by dint of a treaty endorsed by parliaments of both countries, though the start was marked by widespread expressions of public resentment through protests and riots. Time does not always change how people think of their identities despite centuries of being part of a bigger country. Through the 307 years of union, the Scots retained their own cultural, religious and national identity. Unequal economic progress, aggravated by recession and slow growth during the recent years, rekindled pro-independence sentiments leading to today's event.
Referendums have been held before in different parts of the world. Just last March Crimea organised a status referendum to break away from Ukraine. The Catalonians have called a vote on the independence question for November 9. Crimea's vote generated a huge uproar in Europe because of Russia's role in it. The one scheduled in the Catalan region has been roundly rejected by the Spanish government as being illegal. Hence, even if majority vote favours independence it would have little practical value. Fifteen new countries emerged from the 1991 disintegration of the erstwhile Soviet Union to go back to assume their original identities. They formed an 'integral part' first of the Czarist Russian Empire and then Soviet Union. No one could have imagined them gaining independence from Moscow. Yet they did, as the result of a major upheaval, however.
What is special about the Scottish independence referendum is that it comes from a civilised agreement between Scotland and the Union. And the credit belongs to strong democratic traditions prevalent in most Western countries. For Britain, it is the second time, after Ireland, that a people get to determine their future through peaceful means. Canada gave its French-speaking Quebec province two chances to decide whether to stay or leave to form an independent state, the second one in 1995, which the separatists lost by a narrow margin getting 49.42 percent of the "Yes" votes against 50.58 percent "No" votes. England is not happy to let the Scots go away. In fact, London has been campaigning hard to prevent the "No" vote. The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister as well as the leader of the opposition have been trying to persuade the Scots that their economic and political interests would be best served within the Union, offering them several incentives for staying in and disincentives for opting out such as dislocating a major bank and other businesses. Yet an amicable divorce is acceptable. Spain, on the other hand, remains averse to the idea of letting Catalonia break away because of its weak democratic traditions. Notably, the country emerged from 36 years of Franco dictatorship in 1975, when he died. For similar reasons, Germany is in no mood to consider Bavaria's case.
Needless to say, no two situations are exactly alike. The Kashmiri people have as strong a case as can be for an independence referendum. Notwithstanding Pakistan's claims over Jammu and Kashmir as part of the unfinished agenda of Partition, even Article 370 of the Indian constitution recognises J&K's status as being different from the rest of the country. More importantly, a 1948 UN resolution promises the Kashmiris self-determination right through a plebiscite. India may be the world's largest democracy, but its ruling elites are still at unease in following democratic practices. A centrist streak has always been dominant in New Delhi from the time of its most popular leader Jawaharlal Nehru. He went back on his commitment to implement the UN mandated plebiscite. The country is now ruled by a far right party with a religious fanatic, Narendra Modi, occupying the prime minister's office. True to his credentials, he is all set to crush the Kashmir people's aspirations. He has started by trying to change even the special status the country's constitution gives the state. Reports also say that efforts are on to bring in Hindus from other areas to be settled in J&K to change the state's demography.
Irrespective of its outcome, today's Scottish referendum holds a lot of significance. It shows that giving the choice of independence to a people does not in any way diminish a self-confident democracy's national pride. A union should last as long as it is acceptable to its members having historically different national identities. They must not be forced to stay against their will. Those watching in India need to ponder this: is it fair to insist on declaring Kashmir "an integral part" of India and "core of Indian nationalism' despite the Kashmiri people's UN recognised right to self-determination, and the fact that they have been fighting for independence at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and suffering unspeakable atrocities? The world's largest democracy should have no qualms about letting the Kashmiris decide their future in accordance with the best democratic traditions. The reality though is that Indian democracy is still a project in progress. Now that Modi has happened to the project, it will take a while for the country to reach the point where "Indian nationalism" is defined by progress and prosperity rather than an ability to suppress the Kashmiris people's aspirations for freedom.
[email protected]
Comments
Comments are closed.