|
[home]>[publications]>working
papers
The Peace Question in Baluchistan;
Peace Audit Report III
INTRODUCTION
Foreword
I
This is the report of the third peace audit exercise conducted by SAFHR.
In the last four years we have tried to “audit” or “evaluate” the
efficacy of state sponsored official peace processes in four situations
of armed conflicts between the states and sections of their own citizens
in South Asia, viz., the Naga National Movement in India’s Northeast,
the Indigenous Peoples Struggle for Self-determination in the Chittagong
Hill Tracts of Bangladesh, the Tamil Nationalist Movement in Sri Lanka
and the Baloch National movement in Pakistan. It is fashionable to call
them “ethnic” or “ethno-nationalist” movements. It is important to note
that none of these peoples, the Nagas, the Jumma people of Chittagong
Hill Tracts, the Tamils of Sri Lanka and the Balochs of Pakistan see
themselves as “ethnic” communities. Nor do they define themselves as a
“minority”. Each of them claims to be a “nation” and they want their own
states.
Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka as postcolonial nation states
inherited territories, which are homes of many nationalities and ethnic
communities. Religious, caste and ethnic identities were already highly
politicised in this region during the colonial period. The anti-colonial
movement in the thirties and forties witnessed the emergence of
competing nationalist/religious/ethnic interests. Also, the period
witnessed the failure of attempts to resolve the differences between
these competing interests. The elite of each competing group began to
see itself as a “nation”, aspiring to form a sovereign nation state by
driving out the foreign ruler. These competing “nationalists movements”
during the colonial period worked at two levels – one, to wage a freedom
struggle against the foreign ruler, and two, to build a cohesive
“national identity”. After attaining independence all the states of the
region got engaged in the task of “nation building”.
In the context of existing international law, these movements may be
seen as internal problems of relatively new states, that is, the
postcolonial nation states - caused essentially by the shortcomings of
their nation building process. In a broader political context these
struggles represent a challenge to the postcolonial state formation
process in South Asia. While the South Asian states call them
secessionist movements, the protagonists of these struggles claim that
they are engaged in “national self-determination movements”. These
protracted struggles, over the years have produced fairly well defined
identities of “nations”. There is evidence that the supporters of these
“national self-determination” movements have come to believe that their
claims to nationhood is as legitimate as that of the nation state, which
is currently exercising sovereignty over them.
The claim of the states that these struggles are secessionist and
therefore illegal, may be legally valid. Yet, illegal as these struggles
may be, the very nature of these struggles and the manner in which the
states have dealt with them as well as the current international order
which upholds the system of nation states, raise basic questions about
the very foundations of the theory of nation states and the doctrine of
the rights of citizens. It also raises questions about the relationship
between law and justice. Can law do justice?
II
“Nation” is both a historical as well as a political concept. The
historic notion of nation is a softer identity as compared to the
political nation. The historic nation is an evolutionary concept. It is
composed of tradition, culture, customs, language, religion and
territory. The “territory” in the context of a historically evolved
nation is both physical and metaphysical. The historic nation can and
does survive as an extra territorial entity as it can carry the memory
of a “terrain” as its original home, the cradle of its culture and
valour. The “political nation”, unlike the historic nation, is a hard or
inflexible concept as it cannot survive without its territory. A
political nation for all practical purposes is synonymous to state. It
represents power – power over people and territory.
History shows us, the “state” predates “nation”. It was the long
struggle of the “subjects” of the “empires” that led to the break up of
the “territorial states” and the creation of “nation states”. In the
nation states the power to rule was transferred from the divine ordained
ruler to the people, who asserted their right to rule themselves by
declaring themselves free. These “free people” staked claims over chunks
of territories and formed “nation states”. However, once the compact to
form a nation state was sealed, the “free people” became “citizens” and
“freedom” got converted into “rights”. And, through the instrument of
“law”, the states began to administer, regulate and protect the “rights”
of citizens.
In the world of nation states only citizens have rights. She who is not
a citizen has no rights. This is the irony of law perpetrated by the
fiction of a “compact” between the free members of a nation who came
together to form a nation state. What is even more ironic is that this
mythical compact cannot be undone. The “membership” or citizenship of a
state is involuntary. In a world divided into states, and defined by
national and international legal systems every individual has to belong
to a state. But the states have the power to reject people, deny or
withdraw citizenship, expel them from their territory – all these are
“legal” actions in the exercise of the sovereign powers vested in the
state. Even the “stateless” must seek the “protection” of one state or
another for their survival.
III
The audit exercises reveal that while the genesis of these movements
might be traced back to the colonial history of the region, the failure
of the postcolonial states to recognise the multi-national and
multi-ethnic characteristics of their citizenry and to develop a polity
that treat different sections of people in a just and fair manner is
mainly responsible for the emergence of these struggles. These audit
exercises have also shown us that these struggles are mainly victims’
response to the process of marginalisation and discrimination practised
by the majoritarian polities of the South Asia. Even today the
protagonists of these struggles continue to present their “case” in the
language of “rights”, which would indicate an acceptance of the state as
the guarantor of rights of citizens. It is the failure of the states to
deliver justice and the constant invocation of the constitution and
other laws to justify this denial of justice, which has brought about a
transformation in the character of these movements. Law has lost its
legitimacy and the constitution seen as an obstacle to the fulfilment of
their aspirations.
Though the states have dealt with these struggles essentially through
military measures, in their enlightened moments the South Asian states
accept that these struggles are caused by the flaws in their “nation
building” processes. As a result their responses have oscillated between
military oppression to offers of dialogues with the insurgents. As
ruthless suppression of these struggles is a common practice in this
region, similarly “peace agreements” between the states and the once
“outlawed” secessionists have also become a regular feature of
statecraft. On their part, faced with the massive repressive power of
the states and a hostile international order, which is loath to
recognise new nation states, the insurgents have also accepted these
“agreements”, which offer a range of political concessions in the forms
of “regional autonomy”.
It will be fallacious to argue that regional autonomy can work as a
panacea in this context. The received wisdom says that federalism albeit
with some innovations is capable of providing solutions to most of these
problems. However, the recent history of South Asian polities and the
prevailing international political order raises doubts about whether
regional autonomy and federalism can work in this region unless the
majoritarian character of these polities are fundamentally transformed.
South Asian states, like all states are votaries of the doctrine of
national sovereignty. Their failure to provide economic, social and
political justice to their own people and their inability to develop and
strengthen the institutions of democracy has made them extra conscious
about “national security”. In fact it would not be an exaggeration to
call them national security states. In the era of the so-called “global
war” against “terrorism” and unilateral military intervention by United
States and its allies, the South Asian states are learning to redefine
their claim to sovereignty by aligning with the United Sates. The
current international situation has put the doctrine of rights in
general and international human rights law under enormous pressure
particularly as human rights are being violated in the name of promoting
human rights. It is moot question whether the states can protect the
rights of their own citizens.
What is needed is a shift in the paradigm of the nation state. We need
to begin re-examining the premises of the theory of nation state, which
have created majoritarian political structures. Moreover, under pressure
of economic globalisation and the free market regime, economic hardship
has increased. The states have drastically reduced their social
spending. As a result the minimal social safety net that was available
to the poor in these countries has virtually vanished. Ironically,
public anger today is directed against the liberal humanist secular
political parties that promoted the policies of social security. More
and more people are joining the ranks of the New Right, which is mainly
responsible for the economic policies that have increased the hardship
of the common people. The audit exercises show that the pressure on the
victims of marginalisation has increased enormously.
The ongoing peace dialogues, be it between the Indian state and the Naga
nationalists, the Sri Lankan Government and the Tamil nationalists or
concerning the political process in Pakistan to solve the Baloch
national question, are all trapped in the intractable situation of
“finding a solution within the legal system of states”. It is clear that
the agreements that would be reached within these parameters will not
address the issue of justice. And as the “agreement” between the Jumma
people of the Chittagong hill tracts and Bangladesh shows, even these
limited agreements cannot be implemented. The reports bring out, that
our attempts to extricate human rights and peace politics from the
closed circle have to be perched on the principle of justice that does
not limit itself to constitutional confines laid down by the
nation-state system in this region.
|
