Nowhere Near Collapse

The partition of the Indian sub-continent on religious grounds on August 14, 1947 was a lesson for New Delhi not to let further fragmentation of India on religious or any other ground. The Indian leadership led by its Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was wise enough not to suppress lingual and ethnic forces but it also made sure not to compromise on its territorial integrity. However, unlike Pakistan which lost almost half of its country because of the separation of its eastern wing on December 16, 1971 and the loss of parts of Siachen Glacier and Kashmir, India has not lost an inch of its territory. On the contrary it has gained in territorial terms by absorbing the princely states of Hyderabad, Junagarh, Jammu and Kashmir and also Goa.

India allowed the emergence of new states on ethnic and lingual grounds as the process began by carving out the state of Punjab into the states of Haryana and Hamachal. Lately, states of Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand were carved out from Bihar and Utter Pradesh on lingual and ethnic lines. Now, the creation of Telangana will give an impetus to those forces who want to create new states. For instance, the Gorkhas of Nepali origin living in West Bengal are demanding the state of Gorkhaland and the Bodo tribe living in Assam wants Bodoland. There are reports that in UP, further division on the basis of culture and language is expected. If that happens, India can end up having 35 states in the coming years!

India has enormous cultural, lingual and religious diversity. Hundreds of languages are spoken there and the country is home to the world's ancient civilizations and religions. But, despite its ethnic, communal and religious variations, India is not only united but has aspirations to emerge as an Asian and a world power. Unlike Pakistan, where the issues of cultural, lingual and ethnic identities were dealt in a coercive and non-political manner, in India the state authorities are quite prudent in handling issues and challenges which may have the potential of escalating a political turmoil. Sound and vibrant democratic institutions and the capability of the Indian state and society to prevent centrifugal forces moving in the direction of disintegration made it possible for India to remain not only united but also providing a successful example of federalism to neighboring countries.

In Pakistan, the debate on creating new provinces has not been encouraged by the state because of two reasons. First, the deep-rooted insecurity and paranoia among state actors vis-à-vis. the demands of new provinces; they view redrawing the map of Pakistan on ethnic and lingual grounds as a threat to its sovereignty. The loss of East Pakistan still haunts the rulers as they neither possess political will nor the acceptance of new geographical units. Second, lingual and ethnic assertion is considered contradictory to the ideology of Pakistan, i.e. Islam. Since, the so-called custodians of Pakistan consider Islam as a common bond, any force which challenges religion is unacceptable.

The demands of new provinces in Pakistan on lingual and ethnic lines are not new. For instance, the demand for a Seraiki province in southern Punjab, Hindko province in NWFP, merger of Pushtun population in Balochistan with NWFP and a separate province in urban Sindh cannot be dismissed as mere rhetoric.

At least three provinces of Pakistan, i.e. Balochistan, Punjab and Sindh exist on ethnic grounds. And the ruling Awami National Party (ANP) wants to rename NWFP on ethnic lines! When one unit was imposed in Pakistan in the 1950s, its purpose was to discourage ethnicity and divide the country into two provinces i.e. West and East Pakistan. The dismantling of one-unit and the restoration of provinces in West Pakistan in 1970 basically was the result of demands made by the people of Balochistan, Sindh and NWFP to restore their identities.

The perception in some quarters that the carving out of Telangana from AP on ethnic grounds may unleash the process of disintegration of India may not have any logical basis, though, one cannot guarantee status quo in the geographical map of any country as every state is vulnerable to various threats. In case of India it is fascinating that despite so many cultural, lingual, religious and communal contradictions and diversities, the country is untied and its map has not been changed. New Delhi has effectively responded in the past to serious ethnic challenges in the states of Punjab and in the Northeast. The southern Indian states of AP, Tamil Nadu, Karanatka and Kerala are quite different from the north in terms of culture and language, yet, the unity of the country has been ensured and not compromised.

Over decades, the Indian state has successfully promoted national integration not by coercion but by political means. When there was an attempt made by Delhi to impose Hindi in the southern states, it met stiff resistance but slowly and gradually, the south was brought into the mainstream. If the northern states of India are caste-ridden and buried under communal and economic issues, the south has been able to develop itself as a progressive and modern part of India; it is less ethno-centric and caste or communal-conscious than the north.

The north-south and east-west divide in India is a reality but it has certainly not threatened its existence as a nation-state.
What can jeopardize India's integrity and sovereignty is the erosion of its central power. If viewed historically, one can find several examples to prove that as long as central power in India was able to sustain, there was no significant threat to the unity of the country, but the moment central power was weakened, there was a strengthening of centrifugal forces and disintegration of India seemed to become a possibility.
However, it will be wishful thinking to expect the break-up of India as a result of the assertion of ethnic, lingual and communal forces because one cannot see any possibility of the weakening of the Indian state in the near future. Some quarters do project disintegration of India because of the existence of several separatist movements. But such circles have forgotten that because of strong democratic institutions and massive economic progress in terms of its per capita income, GDP, GNP and foreign exchange reserves, India is nowhere near collapse.

Issues like the creation of a new state of Telangana may continue but one should not draw a conclusion on the basis of just one or two cases.

The issue of centrifugal forces challenging the writ of the state and pursuing their separatist agenda is more relevant in Pakistan rather than in India because there are no concerns about India's existence as a viable state. That is the difference between a state which is ethnically, culturally and religiously diverse but secure and a state which has only four provinces but still feels insecure about its future. Perhaps, Pakistan's predicament as a state can be properly dealt with if more provinces are created on rational grounds so that a sense of proper participation in the affairs of governance and empowerment is created among those groups who feel marginalized.

Moonis Ahmar is a Visiting DAAD Fellow at the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy, University of Erfurt, Germany. He is also Professor of International Relations at the University of Karachi and Director, Program on Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution.

Facebook | Twitter | Email

Comments (0)

Show/hide comments

Show/hide comment form