Why Autonomy Demands Are Valuable Opportunities
 
 

The Jammu and Kashmir legislature’s adoption last month of an Autonomy Resolution has evoked strong reactions. The government has deemed a devolution debate acceptable but not a discussion on autonomy. The Congress opposed the idea altogether. The Left parties have responded by saying that autonomy and devolution should not be confused. while Devolution, they said, concerned all the states of the Union but since Jammu and Kashmir’s original autonomy had been eroded, this resolution should be considered in that context. The idea of regional autonomy, it would seem, is not merely regrettable but somehow dangerous.

This is not true for several reasons. First, given a situation, such as the one in Kashmir, where the loudest political demand in the last decade has been for independence, autonomy is a mild demand. There is a continuum in the relationship between a state and the groups and communities that live within its borders and jurisdiction. At one end of that continuum is the unattainable ideal of perfect integration and perfect allegiance. At the other end, is complete disaffection and alienation, and the unilateral decision to secede. Autonomy demands fall far short of this end. Made within the context of the existing polity, they require a re-structuring of institutions and power relations, but they do not challenge two important physical components of the state—the people and places it includes. Movement along the integration-alienation continuum is not linear or unidirectional, but the backtracking from secession to autonomy is hard. Hence, when even part of the political leadership of such a region or community mentions autonomy in place of secession, it is worth considering seriously.

Second, autonomy unlike secessionist movements and unilateral declarations of independence involve negotiation. It is true that even if the leadership of a group or region unilaterally declare their independence from an existing state, it takes international recognition to make that declaration real. Further, until the state from which they have seceded acknowledges their independence, it can remain a contested issue rather than a fact. In spite of this, unilateral declarations of independence are powerful political gestures and as such, can mobilize a degree of support and hence, credibility. Autonomy, by definition, requires negotiation. It takes two parties (at minimum) and is essentially a conversation between them about who should have how much power and how much freedom to act. Autonomy discussions are discussions about little details like appointments, transfers, roads, taxes and channels of communication that portend dramatic alterations in power-sharing and insulate the region from central interference. Therefore, the demand for autonomy is an invitation to converse, a point made repeatedly by C.N. Annadurai in his speeches on secessionism in the Rajya Sabha.

Anxiety about Jammu and Kashmir being a frontier province and the role of Pakistan in this situation might limit public willingness to consider the virtues of autonomy or dialogue. However, opening this dialogue may in fact strengthen the legitimacy of the Indian state’s position on Kashmir. In addition, based on historical experience in Europe and elsewhere, it may be argued that while fortifying the frontier is critical at a very early stage in the state-building process (soon after independence, for instance), there comes a time when fortification must be supplemented by the building of institutions. Institutions, and particularly autonomous institutions, are a hallmark of the core of a polity. Where they peter off and force and arbitrary intervention replace them, you have peripheral, buffer zones and these are not integral parts of a polity. The fact that weak democratic processes and institutions are a key grievance for Kashmiris underlines the conflict resolution potential of autonomy negotiations.

Third, politics is an ongoing conversation between the various groups that make up a polity and between those groups and the agents of the state in which they live. The demand for autonomy is a part and parcel of that conversation. Particularly in the context of democratic politics, autonomy is to territorially based groups and communities as civil rights are to individuals. The further democracy takes root in a society, the greater the number of claimants for rights and for power. To take pride in democracy but guard those rights and powers jealously and fearfully is to choke to death the very thing of which we are proud.

Indians should be confident that autonomy for the states of the Indian Union is the best guarantor of that Union. History bears this out. Take Tamil Nadu: In the thirty-odd years since the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam dropped the demand for a separate state, the two Dravida parties have spear-headed every move and participated in every caucus for state autonomy. Even as they have done so, their integration into the Indian political mainstream has been steady and appears at present to be irrevocable. Tamil Nadu is no more autonomous than any other Indian state that is not covered by special provisions in the Constitution. Its integration has been facilitated by a couple of things, however. First, in an era of coalition governments, Tamil Nadu MPs as a block have been important coalition partners. Second, although their support for autonomy has made state governments vulnerable to President’s Rule, the Dravida parties have not been banned and their leadership has not been ostracized politically. Changing political norms with regard to the imposition of President’s Rule may be credited largely to their persistence. Third, the story of the Dravidanadu secessionist movement is unmarked by the gratuitous use of force, on either side. Finally, there has been a quiet integration of Tamil Nadu into the Indian cultural and economic mainstream. This has all happened over three decades in which DMK governments have made serious contributions to the discussions on Centre-State relations in India.

Fourth, history shows that acknowledgment of smaller demands allays bigger ones. Every secessionist movement in history begins with small demands. To illustrate: The demand for the right to wear distinctive head-gear to school when denied may be replaced by the demand to establish separate schools. Language rights may join this political lexicon if there is a perception that the government does not care and down the line, these may take on a territorial cast as the demand for a separate district or state. The specific demands, their timing and the provocation for each set of demands may vary, but the basic process is the same: it is a dialogue of the deaf, where a particular group’s needs and grievances are either ignored, suppressed or trivialized by the government. In this spiral of demands, autonomy is a smaller demand than the movement for a separate state because it does not challenge the most basic markers of statehood as the latter does.

The Indian state made more accommodations to the grievances of linguistic, ethno-territorial groups in the Nehru period than it has since. Nevertheless, in the political vocabulary of elite Indians, regionalism conjures up the synonyms ‘fissiparous tendencies’ and ‘the Balkanization of India’—meanings bequeathed by the rhetoric of this early post-Partition period. The idea of regional autonomy is therefore perceived to be a risky one and it is easy to suggest that ‘giving in’ on this demand will simply open the floodgates to others, ultimately rendering the Indian polity insecure from within. The moment one associates a particular issue or change with state insecurity, it becomes harder to sustain a real discussion on the subject. Dissent seems treacherous or ‘seditious’—a word that has appeared in one or two newspaper discussions of this autonomy resolution. At this stage in the debate, it does not matter whether or not autonomy in fact endangers Indian security—it simply becomes harder and harder to advocate consideration of the idea.

Regional autonomy does not however make a nation-state insecure. The Spanish polity has learnt this lesson. For almost thirty years, they have been devolving power and creating autonomous regions within their state. The creation of the Scottish Parliament is also a step in this direction. Conversely, one could argue that excessive centralization was one of the causes of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Closer to home, the failure to secure minority rights and to agree upon a scheme of devolution has created greater security problems for Sri Lanka than devolution could. Those pan-Indian or supra-regional Indian polities that lasted longest were also built on either decentralized administrative structures or arrangements that secured the day-to-day autonomy of local rulers while ensuring their tributary status.

What does render a state insecure is excessive centralization and a refusal to consider autonomy demands. Such a refusal creates the very conditions of disaffection and alienation that drive groups in this age to the use of arms. Once violence enters the vocabulary of a conflict, it gets harder and harder for the state to appear accommodating or for the leadership of the dissenting group to back-track to less dramatic demands than independence. The Jammu and Kashmir autonomy resolution creates an opportunity for political engagement that can be invaluable.

There are two valid questions that must be posed even as one divests ‘autonomy’ of its threatening aura. The first one pertains to the credibility of those who have passed this resolution. While it is true that no one section of a political elite may speak for the population as a whole, it is important to consider how representative are the legislators who passed this resolution. Also, will they be able to implement the changes they seek? The answer to this is really quite simple. This is a point of departure—hopefully about state autonomy in a broader context than that of Jammu and Kashmir. At minimum, the willingness, both within and outside official circles to discuss this serves as a sign that there is concern for the people of the region. Talk is cheap, and that may be the very best reason to at least talk openly and without reservation about autonomy! Furthermore, being responsive and being seen as responsive are both important in a situation when the actions of the central government are usually seen with suspicion. Finally, what are the options? A glance at the other end of the sub-continent illustrates this. The Sri Lankan government can neither wait indefinitely for the LTTE to agree to a negotiation nor can it negotiate a peace without them. In the meanwhile, the only option it has is to work with those Tamil parties and leaders that are willing to participate in the political process. It is not the solution, but it is a place to start.

The second concern is that of the rights of minorities within the region that seeks autonomy. The Ladakhi quest for autonomy within an autonomous Jammu and Kashmir illustrates this. This is a real issue but not insurmountable. Given recent Indian history, we tend to be very anxious about disintegration. The other way to look at the chain reaction of autonomy demands is in terms of democratization. The Indian state is now established enough to regard devolution and autonomy movements in terms of democratization and the creation of local institutions that will only strengthen its democratic culture. The proliferation of demands and the experience of negotiation create able actors who sustain a democratic system.

The lesson of history is that perfect integration is impossible. What is possible, indeed desirable, is a constant re-negotiation of the social contract. Viewing a polity in these terms makes it easier for us to respond to each others’ grievances and concerns attentively and flexibly. Ironically, this receptivity takes us closer to ‘almost’ perfect integration than do intransigence and insensitivity. Autonomy demands are not a threat but an invitation, and a positive invitation because, at bottom, what they say is: Come, talk to us, because we would like to stick around with you if we can change a couple of the rules that really inconvenience us. It is in this spirit that official and public discussion of autonomy needs to be conducted.

Swarna Rajagopalan
7-20-2000, East Lansing

return to My two-paisa bit