Discuss the question of State Autonomy in India.
Answers
Answered by
0
The key concepts in this paper are ‘state autonomy’, ‘selfdetermination’ and ‘nationality’. This section will, therefore, make an attempt at conceptualizing the aforesaid terms. As far as the concept of ‘nationality’ is concerned, it may be observed that although ‘nationality’ is commonly understood as a derivative of ‘nation’, it can describe a different phenomenon. In Central Europe, the difference between the words ‘national’ and ‘nationality’ developed into a very significant distinction, viz., between the ‘nation-state’ on the one hand and the ‘state of nationalities’ on the other. The first stood for one-nation state and the second for multi-national state. This became a hotly debated issue between the leading nation and national minorities in the successor states of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires.
The official terminology in the communist states has interpreted ‘nation’ as the majority ethnic group in a state and ‘nationality’ as an ethnic minority in that state. A similar distinction has also been suggested by E.K. Francis, a sociologist who considers ‘nation’ as the dominant ethnie in the state. He regards ‘nationality’ as an imperfect nation, i.e., an ethnic minority which as a community has acquired some acknowledgement, in the form of an autonomous or protected status, in a state of another nation. If several nationalities within a state reach more or less equal footing, Francis describes the state as ‘multi-ethnic nation-state [1] In other words, Francis seeks to identify a nation, in one way or the other, with a state. This does not really clarify the terms. Nevertheless, in the context of this paper, the term ‘nationality’ will be understood as a minority ethnic group which asserts its rights through political action and political mobilisation.
According to the doctrine of national self-determination, all people of one nationality are entitled to dwell together in order to govern themselves in a state of their own. Yet this doctrine was difficult to apply primarily because it provided no clear basis for defining the territorial limits of a particular nationality. There are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination. Generally, however, ‘self-determination’ has come to mean the free choice of one’s own acts without external compulsions. This paper views selfdetermination as reflecting the desire of a nationality to determine its own destiny and to have a say in its own affairs. Self-determination, therefore, is an urge for an autonomous status, either within or outside a sovereign entity. The Communist Party of erstwhile Soviet Russia adopted a resolution on the national question according to which the right of all the nations forming part of Russia freely to secede and form independent states must be recognised. To deny them this right, or to fail to take measures guaranteeing its practical realisation, is equivalent to supporting a policy of seizure or annexation. Only the recognition by the proletariat of the right of nations to secede can ensure complete solidarity among the workers of the various nations and help to bring the nations closer together on truly democratic lines [2]. Thus, the Communist Party endorsed the right of secession as an essential element of national self-determination. In recent times, it is alleged by many national governments and centrist forces that any demand for self-determination is actually a prelude for secession and declaration of sovereignty. Responses of the Government of India to self- determination movements launched by Kashmiris and other smaller nationalities in northeast India, response of the Pakistan Government to similar demands in Baluchistan and the reaction of the former Soviet Government to demands of peripheral communities like Chechens are cases in point. This paper argues, however, that although the urge for self-determination may eventually culminate in a demand for sovereignty if a particular nationality does not foresee the possibility of fulfilling its aspirations and interests within the existing territorial and political framework, such a position is usually taken by radi
The official terminology in the communist states has interpreted ‘nation’ as the majority ethnic group in a state and ‘nationality’ as an ethnic minority in that state. A similar distinction has also been suggested by E.K. Francis, a sociologist who considers ‘nation’ as the dominant ethnie in the state. He regards ‘nationality’ as an imperfect nation, i.e., an ethnic minority which as a community has acquired some acknowledgement, in the form of an autonomous or protected status, in a state of another nation. If several nationalities within a state reach more or less equal footing, Francis describes the state as ‘multi-ethnic nation-state [1] In other words, Francis seeks to identify a nation, in one way or the other, with a state. This does not really clarify the terms. Nevertheless, in the context of this paper, the term ‘nationality’ will be understood as a minority ethnic group which asserts its rights through political action and political mobilisation.
According to the doctrine of national self-determination, all people of one nationality are entitled to dwell together in order to govern themselves in a state of their own. Yet this doctrine was difficult to apply primarily because it provided no clear basis for defining the territorial limits of a particular nationality. There are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination. Generally, however, ‘self-determination’ has come to mean the free choice of one’s own acts without external compulsions. This paper views selfdetermination as reflecting the desire of a nationality to determine its own destiny and to have a say in its own affairs. Self-determination, therefore, is an urge for an autonomous status, either within or outside a sovereign entity. The Communist Party of erstwhile Soviet Russia adopted a resolution on the national question according to which the right of all the nations forming part of Russia freely to secede and form independent states must be recognised. To deny them this right, or to fail to take measures guaranteeing its practical realisation, is equivalent to supporting a policy of seizure or annexation. Only the recognition by the proletariat of the right of nations to secede can ensure complete solidarity among the workers of the various nations and help to bring the nations closer together on truly democratic lines [2]. Thus, the Communist Party endorsed the right of secession as an essential element of national self-determination. In recent times, it is alleged by many national governments and centrist forces that any demand for self-determination is actually a prelude for secession and declaration of sovereignty. Responses of the Government of India to self- determination movements launched by Kashmiris and other smaller nationalities in northeast India, response of the Pakistan Government to similar demands in Baluchistan and the reaction of the former Soviet Government to demands of peripheral communities like Chechens are cases in point. This paper argues, however, that although the urge for self-determination may eventually culminate in a demand for sovereignty if a particular nationality does not foresee the possibility of fulfilling its aspirations and interests within the existing territorial and political framework, such a position is usually taken by radi
Similar questions