PaRCha - JNU - All Organisations - 2007 ID-47730
.
'· .
.
---~~,..Tfr'~' .
-.
' .
lh ---.
·1-G\-\0 -Ol .
A prison house of nations Globalization, Indian State &National Liberation Movements .
It is argued that Nationality movements which are based on territoriality are no more a viable ~reject of decolonization. This ,.
argument springs from two major characterizations of the emerging scenario of international politics. The first position claims . e'nts for National.
that with the globalization of capital, all national boundaries have traded. Nationality movements or the movem.
Self Determination have thus become unviable since the erosion of national boundaries have reached such an advanced stage .
that any strug.gle based on a demand of separate territory becomes meaningles::;. Yet another opinion insists that the state has .
rolled back from ltc; earlier all encompassing role with the r,olicies of globalization or, to put it differently, globalization marks the .
general withdrawal of the state. Further, this opinion equates the withdrawal d the state with the simultaneous presumed .
extension of the dvil society. Since the stc:te has become ~'soft" the space has opened up for various civil society ventures to .
address the questions of <:lll forms of Inequalities, disparities, discrimination through peaceful ways and means of discussion and .
deliberation. The direct consequence of this argument is the supplanting of the :;truggle for a demand such as national self .
determination with that of the principle of negotiation. .
Mere counter positioning of nationality struggle with globalization is not a new phenomenon. It has a historical past pt;nctuated with the explosion In the development of capital and capitalism fuelled by its everlastin~ needs for new captive markets and resources. Many might misconstrue the acove said arguments as something new in the pret)ent times of the so· called 'footloose' capital. ln 'fact, It would be Interesting to note that the apologists of the early project of the 'White man's burden" and its present variant known euphemistically as Globalization, Uberalization and Privutization, argued the necessity for capi(C!I to ~ndwithout any boundaries, any re~ictions. The early .days of ~pitalist expl~sion in W~emEurope had -~, \ .
~· .
witnessed slmtlar sentiments of the hunger of capital/capitals rooted 10 Its national bou:1danes ready 1n search of the best .
1.
possibilities of profit maximization at every nook and cran:1y of the world. From Marx, Lenin to Mao one can see t:he intense .
polemic demystifying the delibe,..ate maze created by the blood sucking capitalim. and their apologists-the revisionist Left to the arch right-wing-decisively establishing the need and validity of the subjugated nations to fight for liberation; the validity of .
countries flghtJng for Independence (anti-colonial resistance) and significantly, thP genuine cry of the people for revolution. .
The Indian Context .
\Vhlle moving away from conventional notions of globalization as a recent phenomenon which is only a decade and a half old, .
one has to trace the trajectory of globalization in the Indian sub continent since the days of the colony and its subsequent transfonnation Into a semi-feudal, semi-colonial state Post-1947. The history of the Indian Unlor: from the days of 'Nehruvian .
socialism' punctuated by ~Modern Temples" like big dams, big industries with the slogan of '\:atchlng up wi·th the West'' to the .
present near total privatization of vital sectors of the Indian economy is the violent story ot how imperialism anchored by its .
local comprador ruling dasses have implanted its parasitic blood sucking im.:,ge on the various peoples of the sub-continent. .
It is this imprint of the image of imperialism, its development rooted in the nature of wmbined and uneven development as a dynamic set in motion which got translated as state building/nation building, the underlying core of the policy inrtiatfves Indian State resorted to in the form of development or otherwise post-1947. The principal aspect that was kP.pt as the cardinal rule was the nation3lintegrity of the Indian Un!on, evident from the subsequent event; that unfolded, the chief architects of the Indian Union not willing to consider any aspect that would be contrary ~o the interest of NatJonal Integration/National Security. .
National security as the principle of state building The policy Initiatives of the Indian State Immediately after the transfer of power in 1947 in the North East and Kashmir stands testimony to what has been mentioned above. Notwithstanding a popular deffti!nd of the Nagas or the Manipuris or the Kashmirls to be an independent nation it was the ~rimar1 concern of the Indian rulers to project the new Indian Union as a ..
stror.g nation with safe frontiers/borders that took precedence. The demand for a separate Sikh homeland was brushed aside. The heroic Telangana Armed struggle was violently ' ' u3hed under the garb of annexing the Nizam state to the Indian Union. One of the major concerns of the P.arly committees in 1948 called the JVP Committee consisting of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhai Patel and Pattabhi Sltaramayya to look into the formation of the future state boundar!es also stressed that the "primary .
..
consideration mu::,t be the security, unity and economic prospe.ritY of India". Any policy promulgation for any regiun of the Indian Union had to facilitate the dynamic of combined and uneven development through the cooption of the emerging regional bourgeoisie who became the cog in the wheel of surplus extraction of the region. Only on the basis of this unevenness could the production and reproduction of a highly centralized state-which .
was dependent on international capital and technology for its declared policy of "catching up with the West"-could be made possible. Thus the entir~ region of thE: North E~c;t r.:ontinued to be ndministered from Assam till the early-60s. Sheikh Abdullah lho oloetcd Primo Mlnl~·\(\1' of J\lnHllll ~ K:,·.hrllil l tH tllnucd to tJe lllltlcl ch.:kntlun tw nu It:!..~. llklll 22 yeiu s. .
Most of the newly formed states were carved out arbitt arily agamst the aspirations of the masses·as it would not tacllltate the easy extraction of surplus. Also any posslbiltty of future resistance from these communities can only be prevented 1f they are kept under separate juridical lim1ts. The most powerful resistance of the Naga community was undermined when the Indian state propped up the Naga People's Convention (a group of civil s·~rvants) agJinst the will of the Naga National Council (NNC) through whom was floated the idea of the state of Nagaland. Thus NagJs found themselves under·the jurisdiction of Manipur, Nag.aland, Assam, ArtJnachal Pradesh besides being separa~cd br·tween Tndiil and Burma, The Santhals got split !11t0 the states of Bihar, Orissa, West Bengal, t-1adllyd PrJdt!!..ll. Ielanuana Wd5 not <:lllowed sep~rate statehood as it was subsumed .
fl .
-.
.
-..!. .
.
"0 .
\/:; .
.
.
.
.
PaRCha - JNU - All Organisations - 2007 ID-47730
.
'· .
.
---~~,..Tfr'~' .
-.
' .
lh ---.
·1-G\-\0 -Ol .
A prison house of nations Globalization, Indian State &National Liberation Movements .
It is argued that Nationality movements which are based on territoriality are no more a viable ~reject of decolonization. This ,.
argument springs from two major characterizations of the emerging scenario of international politics. The first position claims . e'nts for National.
that with the globalization of capital, all national boundaries have traded. Nationality movements or the movem.
Self Determination have thus become unviable since the erosion of national boundaries have reached such an advanced stage .
that any strug.gle based on a demand of separate territory becomes meaningles::;. Yet another opinion insists that the state has .
rolled back from ltc; earlier all encompassing role with the r,olicies of globalization or, to put it differently, globalization marks the .
general withdrawal of the state. Further, this opinion equates the withdrawal d the state with the simultaneous presumed .
extension of the dvil society. Since the stc:te has become ~'soft" the space has opened up for various civil society ventures to .
address the questions of <:lll forms of Inequalities, disparities, discrimination through peaceful ways and means of discussion and .
deliberation. The direct consequence of this argument is the supplanting of the :;truggle for a demand such as national self .
determination with that of the principle of negotiation. .
Mere counter positioning of nationality struggle with globalization is not a new phenomenon. It has a historical past pt;nctuated with the explosion In the development of capital and capitalism fuelled by its everlastin~ needs for new captive markets and resources. Many might misconstrue the acove said arguments as something new in the pret)ent times of the so· called 'footloose' capital. ln 'fact, It would be Interesting to note that the apologists of the early project of the 'White man's burden" and its present variant known euphemistically as Globalization, Uberalization and Privutization, argued the necessity for capi(C!I to ~ndwithout any boundaries, any re~ictions. The early .days of ~pitalist expl~sion in W~emEurope had -~, \ .
~· .
witnessed slmtlar sentiments of the hunger of capital/capitals rooted 10 Its national bou:1danes ready 1n search of the best .
1.
possibilities of profit maximization at every nook and cran:1y of the world. From Marx, Lenin to Mao one can see t:he intense .
polemic demystifying the delibe,..ate maze created by the blood sucking capitalim. and their apologists-the revisionist Left to the arch right-wing-decisively establishing the need and validity of the subjugated nations to fight for liberation; the validity of .
countries flghtJng for Independence (anti-colonial resistance) and significantly, thP genuine cry of the people for revolution. .
The Indian Context .
\Vhlle moving away from conventional notions of globalization as a recent phenomenon which is only a decade and a half old, .
one has to trace the trajectory of globalization in the Indian sub continent since the days of the colony and its subsequent transfonnation Into a semi-feudal, semi-colonial state Post-1947. The history of the Indian Unlor: from the days of 'Nehruvian .
socialism' punctuated by ~Modern Temples" like big dams, big industries with the slogan of '\:atchlng up wi·th the West'' to the .
present near total privatization of vital sectors of the Indian economy is the violent story ot how imperialism anchored by its .
local comprador ruling dasses have implanted its parasitic blood sucking im.:,ge on the various peoples of the sub-continent. .
It is this imprint of the image of imperialism, its development rooted in the nature of wmbined and uneven development as a dynamic set in motion which got translated as state building/nation building, the underlying core of the policy inrtiatfves Indian State resorted to in the form of development or otherwise post-1947. The principal aspect that was kP.pt as the cardinal rule was the nation3lintegrity of the Indian Un!on, evident from the subsequent event; that unfolded, the chief architects of the Indian Union not willing to consider any aspect that would be contrary ~o the interest of NatJonal Integration/National Security. .
National security as the principle of state building The policy Initiatives of the Indian State Immediately after the transfer of power in 1947 in the North East and Kashmir stands testimony to what has been mentioned above. Notwithstanding a popular deffti!nd of the Nagas or the Manipuris or the Kashmirls to be an independent nation it was the ~rimar1 concern of the Indian rulers to project the new Indian Union as a ..
stror.g nation with safe frontiers/borders that took precedence. The demand for a separate Sikh homeland was brushed aside. The heroic Telangana Armed struggle was violently ' ' u3hed under the garb of annexing the Nizam state to the Indian Union. One of the major concerns of the P.arly committees in 1948 called the JVP Committee consisting of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhai Patel and Pattabhi Sltaramayya to look into the formation of the future state boundar!es also stressed that the "primary .
..
consideration mu::,t be the security, unity and economic prospe.ritY of India". Any policy promulgation for any regiun of the Indian Union had to facilitate the dynamic of combined and uneven development through the cooption of the emerging regional bourgeoisie who became the cog in the wheel of surplus extraction of the region. Only on the basis of this unevenness could the production and reproduction of a highly centralized state-which .
was dependent on international capital and technology for its declared policy of "catching up with the West"-could be made possible. Thus the entir~ region of thE: North E~c;t r.:ontinued to be ndministered from Assam till the early-60s. Sheikh Abdullah lho oloetcd Primo Mlnl~·\(\1' of J\lnHllll ~ K:,·.hrllil l tH tllnucd to tJe lllltlcl ch.:kntlun tw nu It:!..~. llklll 22 yeiu s. .
Most of the newly formed states were carved out arbitt arily agamst the aspirations of the masses·as it would not tacllltate the easy extraction of surplus. Also any posslbiltty of future resistance from these communities can only be prevented 1f they are kept under separate juridical lim1ts. The most powerful resistance of the Naga community was undermined when the Indian state propped up the Naga People's Convention (a group of civil s·~rvants) agJinst the will of the Naga National Council (NNC) through whom was floated the idea of the state of Nagaland. Thus NagJs found themselves under·the jurisdiction of Manipur, Nag.aland, Assam, ArtJnachal Pradesh besides being separa~cd br·tween Tndiil and Burma, The Santhals got split !11t0 the states of Bihar, Orissa, West Bengal, t-1adllyd PrJdt!!..ll. Ielanuana Wd5 not <:lllowed sep~rate statehood as it was subsumed .
fl .
-.
.
-..!. .
.
"0 .
\/:; .
.
.
.
.