Smaller States, Larger Democracies

The discourse around the formation of Telengana state has been largely by opinions that try to quantify or assess what would be qualitatively good or bad for Telengana and its people specifically and for the Andhra Pradesh state generally. I really fail to understand this debate if one recognizes the right to self determination as a fait accompli. Insofar as the International Human Rights legal regime is concerned, this right occupies a pivotal place in both the primary documents that define this legal paradigm viz. International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR) & International Covenant on Economic. Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Interestingly as the first legal formulation of both these covenants and worded alike:

Art1 ICCPR & ICESCR

“1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. “

The special status (at least in theory) of this right has been reinforced by the International Court of Justice which propounds that this right is indisputably a norm of jus cogens -highest rules of international law that must be strictly obeyed at all times – and supports the vies that the principle of self-determination also has the legal status erga omnes – in other words, ergas omnes obligations of a State are owed to the international community as a whole: when a principle achieves the status of erga omnes the rest of the international community is under a mandatory duty to respect it in all circumstances in their relations with each other. But, I need to point out that most nations have paid scant regard to this principle in practice. The Union of India has been more forthright in this regard and has formally expressed its reservations on this right being included both in the ICCPR & ICESCR as pertaining only to self determination from “colonial” domination – whatever that may be – to quote;

“With reference to Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Article 1 of the ICCPR, India declares that the words ‘right of self-determination’ appearing in this article apply only to the peoples under foreign domination and that these words do not apply to sovereign independent States or to a section of a people or nation which is the essence of national integrity”. The hypocrisy can be seen in the way that peoples will was considered w.r.t Hyderabad, but not Kashmir or NWFP (Of course the consolation prize was given to NWFP as a Bharat Ratna to Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan on his death bed)

It cannot be disputed that almost all modern international boundaries have been drawn with blood – more so the former colonies – and in that context – these movements for statehood, for me are symptoms of a maturing polity that is India – where people have demonstrably started to ask for divesting of power in their hands. The realpolitik of this might be tricky though – but why do we always assume that people cannot decide for themselves. It has to be borne in mind that these demands are being made with subtle and overt assertions of faith in the the Constitution of India amid within the framework of Union of India.

In the case of Telengana too – that is precisely what most of us are doing. The badness of the idea is attributed to a number of reasons that “experts” diagnose and give solutions to – but when it comes to the opinion of the people of Telengana – the onus is thrown on their inept and corrupt leaders. In that context, I do not think K. Chandrasekhar Rao /Telangana Rashtra Samiti would carry too much weight in that region. Despite his fast that was portrayed as the tilting point by English language media (and of course the absence of Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy) – in the event of a new state of Telengana I doubt that his chief ministerial ambitions would materialise without the outside support.  My sense about the region is that people have already lost faith in him/party. And the rich social and cultural legacy that the struggle carries beyond political parties. In that sense, I was taken by surprise by the unilateral declaration of the Central government (unless there is a conspiracy theory given how flippant KCR is). I thought this would have been a creative moment to be captured by the Congress leadership and they could have experimented with many democratic options, including (am sure they do not have the courage) perhaps a referendum in the region and bought time to parley with their local leadership.

Insofar the arguments about the viability of small states vs large states are concerned – i think it is filled with an imperialist bias. History of modern nation states show us that smaller administrative units perform better in terms of quality of life for its citizens from Cuba to Netherlands, while most massive human rights abuses happen in large states with overt or covert imperial ambitions from the USA to the erstwhile USSR to our own country. The birth place of democracy according to mythology – Greece – it might do well for us to remember – comprised of city states (though most of them were not “democracies”) and ancient Greece still holds a primal place within liberal democratic lore!!

Just wanted to add one more point – linguistic boundaries in India have been as flippant and insensitive as most modern boundaries anywhere in the world. A good example would be Karnataka and the number of linguistic identities within the same state – Kannada, Kodava, Tulu, Konkani, Tamil, Marathi etc. and the rise of Kannada chauvinism (e.g – KRRS) needs also to be seen in that context. We could say the same about most boundaries of the so-called linguistically re-organised states where administrative convenience was always placed before peoples interests (North eastern states are the prime example and Verrier Elwin played no small role in that policy game)

My sincere hope is that many more celebrate this growing maturity within the Indian polity and join hands in evolving a creative solution to not only Telengana, but similar articulations, of course within the constraints of realpolitik – even if the Congress government has tied itself into a bind on this issue. I think Mayawati did play a masterstroke in supporting the call for division of the present UP – and was wishing that more political actors would take a cue from this!!!!