Comment

Azaadi is the current war-cry in Kashmir, but I believe that the valley’s Muslims deserve something better than self-determination. Self-determination is self-limiting and self-defeating, and no one should propose it as a solution to ethnic tensions without thinking through the consequences.

A commonsense definition of ‘self-determination’ would mean giving a people the right to become politically independent because they want it. Common sense also suggests that you can’t be politically independent without a geographical area that is co-terminus with where you live. This is why the Jews had to forcibly inject themselves into Palestine to obtain their “right” to self-determination — with horrible consequences for everybody.

Tomorrow, if, say, a few million Brahmins decide that they will create a paradise by demanding the right to self-determination, they wouldn’t get it without doing an Israel once more. They are scattered all over the globe and not in one geographically contiguous area. There may be more Brahmins in the world than Kashmiri Muslims, but the latter can apparently claim the right, and not the former.

In short, self-determination is a right available to some and not others. A libertarian idea has to be universal, not something available only to the lucky few. My second point is about identity. From experience, we know that self-determination is sought whenever people believe their identity is under some kind of threat from larger majorities. But that begs the question: what identity are we talking about? When Kashmiris demand self-determination, they are not asking for it because they are Kashmiris, but because they are Muslim. The only reason Pakistan wanted Kashmir was because it had more Muslims than Hindus. When I wrote my last article on the issue, an irate Muslim wrote to me saying that I was trying to communalise the issue by painting Kashmiri Muslims as communal, which they are not.

I agree Kashmiri Muslims are not communal — just as Kashmiri Pandits are not. But if self-determination is being sought on the basis of a pan-Kashmiri identity, then the Pandits ought to be backing the idea, too. This does not appear to be the case. If Kashmiris truly believe that they are demanding self-determination on the basis of ethnicity, and not religion, the solution is simple: let them convince the Pandits that independence is worth having. They would then at least have a case. Without the backing of the Pandits, the demand for self-determination is a pure Muslim demand, exactly the kind that created Pakistan. 1947 is not worth repeating.

A corollary: if Kashmiri Muslims have the right to self-determination, the Pandits, the Ladakhis and many other smaller ethnic and religious groups also have the same right. Implicit in any demand for self-determination is the availability of the same right for every kind of minority living in the same area. The process can go on endlessly till we are down to a few families.

The world over, self-determination is sought on religious, linguistic and ethnic grounds. But if we are to accept Amartya Sen’s proposition — that we have multiple identities, and that no one identity need necessarily predominate — then self-determination should be an option for other kinds of identities, too. How about a country of wine-drinkers? Or nudists? Or cricketers?

In the ultimate analysis, it is worth remembering where the right to self-determination comes from. It comes from the universal declaration of human rights. Whether it is ethnic, gender or religious rights, all rights emerge from the same basic right of a human being to live as he or she deems fit as long as he does not deny others the same privilege. This is what Kashmiris should be demanding — human rights — and not self-determination. Self-determination is narrow-minded and exclusivist. The world needs to aspire for the higher goal of pluralism, diversity and tolerance. Azaadi is a state of mind, not a state of xenophobia.
Email: r_jagannathan@dnaindia.net