The departure of the British from South Asia in mid-twentieth century has, by and large, seemingly signalled the “end of colonialism” in the sub-continent. In turn, this has further fostered the impression that hereafter natives are able to enjoy their right to self-determination (to form their own political lives). But this impression is at odds with the ground realities. Voices within the sub-continent pitching for political aspirations that did not fit into the political arrangements between the colonial rulers and leaders of major nationalist movements were summarily denied. While the two-nation theory based on religion led to the creation of India and Pakistan, several princely kingdoms (Hyderabad, Jamnagar, Manipur, etc.) were merged into India against their wishes. At yet another level, other regions and peoples who also voiced similar aspirations (Nagas and Kashmiris) were peremptorily snubbed. A democratic discourse to promote choice to integrate with or secede from the new nation states, even though conceded in principle, was not tried out.
The armed opposition movements in Kashmir and parts of Northeast India can thus be seen as the outcome of the failure to democratically engage with the dissenting political voices. In fact, all these movements initially started peacefully engaging in democratic practices. Today, the intelligent-sia have unfortunately tended to take the armed movements on their face value. There is thus a crying need to go into the roots to understand how each of these movements has started and reached the present state of full-blown political conflict. Enough democratic engagement has not, perhaps, been tried out by the states in power.

Read more...