‘A state of one’s own’: secessionism and federalism in India

Ever since the 'ethnic explosion' and secessionism blasted across the world in the mid-1980s, theorists have worked overtime to devise solutions to what appears to be an intractable problem. The problem is simply this: how can the escalation of ethnic discontent into violence, armed struggle and demands for separation be pre-empted? Violent conflicts can be managed, but when politics in the violent mode overlaps with identity issues, the problem verges on the insoluble. However, ethnic wars have to be forestalled, simply because they have inflicted incalculable harm on the human condition - grave and massive violations of human rights, dislocations, homelessness, desecration, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Basically, three solutions are on offer to resolve the problem: institutionalisation of democracy; federalism or decentralisation of power and resources and minority rights. Democracy assures citizens that their fundamental rights will be protected through the institutionalisation of two basic norms - participation and accountability. Federalism in and for plural societies is not only about decentralisation of power and resources to territorially distinct administrative units, it is also about such decentralisation to the dominant ethnic group which inhabits these territories, so that the group acquires a stake in the system. Democracy and federalism must be backed by the constitutional sanction of minority rights in order to prove effective. The problem is that the establishment of democracy, federalism, and minority rights in India has not precluded violent politics, armed rebellion, and secessionism in Punjab, Mizoram, Jammu and Kashmir (J and K), and Manipur. Today, Punjab and Mizoram are post-conflict societies but until the late 1980s these two states were wracked by tremendous violence and demands for secession. The other two states continue to be torn apart by the same phenomenon. Something has gone seriously wrong with the performance of democratic and federal institutions in this part of the country and it is the task of a responsible political theorist to see what has gone wrong and where. As Dunn sagely reminds us ‘the purpose of political theory is to diagnose political predicaments and to show us how best to confront them.

Contested secessions in formal democracies: the case of Jammu and Kashmir

In a new book, Dr Neera Chandhoke considers the political context and moral considerations that complicate the right of secession in the postcolonial world

Democracy and Revolutionary Politics

This book is available as open access through the Bloomsbury Open Access programme and is available on www.bloomsburycollections.com. Democracy and political violence can hardly be considered conceptual siblings, at least at first sight. Democracy allows people to route their aspirations, demands, and expectations of the state through peaceful methods; violence works outside these prescribed and institutionalized channels in public spaces, in the streets, in the forests and in inhospitable terrains. But can committed democrats afford to ignore the fact that violence has become a routine way of doing politics in countries such as India? By exploring the concept of political violence from the perspective of critical political theory, Neera Chandhoke investigates its nature, justification and contradictions. She uses the case study of Maoist revolutionaries in India to globalize and relocate the debate alongside questions of social injustice, exploitation, oppression and imperfect democracies. As such, this is an important and much-needed contribution to the dialogue surrounding revolutionary violence

Democracy and Revolutionary Politics

This book is available as open access through the Bloomsbury Open Access programme and is available on www.bloomsburycollections.com. Democracy and political violence can hardly be considered conceptual siblings, at least at first sight. Democracy allows people to route their aspirations, demands, and expectations of the state through peaceful methods; violence works outside these prescribed and institutionalized channels in public spaces, in the streets, in the forests and in inhospitable terrains. But can committed democrats afford to ignore the fact that violence has become a routine way of doing politics in countries such as India? By exploring the concept of political violence from the perspective of critical political theory, Neera Chandhoke investigates its nature, justification and contradictions. She uses the case study of Maoist revolutionaries in India to globalize and relocate the debate alongside questions of social injustice, exploitation, oppression and imperfect democracies. As such, this is an important and much-needed contribution to the dialogue surrounding revolutionary violence

Gujarat: how an exclusionary political pact is also a durable one

As the Indian state of Gujarat prepares to go to polls in December, most commentators agree that the chief minister Narendra Modi and his BJP party will be voted back to power yet again. Dr Neera Chandhoke argues that the electoral performance of the BJP government is based on a Hindu majoritarian political pact that sustains itself by excluding and marginalising the Muslim community. This exclusion, and its relationship with the majoritarian political pact, can best be understood by looking at the plight of victims of the 2002 pogrom and the resettlement colonies in Ahmedabad that they continue to inhabit. (Dr Chandhoke’s working paper, “Some Reflections on the Notion of an ‘Inclusive Political Pact’: A Perspective from Ahmedabad”, has been summarised here by Praveen Priyadarshi)

Some reflections on the notion of an ‘inclusive political pact’: a perspective from Ahmedabad

This paper explores the notion of an 'inclusive political pact', as developed by Prof James Putzel, Director of the Crisis States research programme, taking the city of Ahmedabad in Gujarat as its case study. It looks at the ghettoisation of the Muslim population into resettlement communities following the communal violence of 2002 and examines how this spatial marginalisation has disempowered a whole section of society and rendered them politically irrelevant. The paper argues that the set of circumstances in Ahmedabad that has completely excluded the Muslim section of society from full citizenship and basic civic rights, demonstrates the ramifications of excluding certain groups from a fully inclusive political pact. The author has also explored the role of civil society during the communal violence in her Working Paper 64.2 : 'Civil Society in Conflict Cities: the case of Ahmedabad

The political consequences of ethnic mapping

This paper contributes to the debate on the causes and consequences of politics that are practised in an 'ethnic' mode. It considers how ethnic identities are constituted and legitimised through the practices of modern states, which are themselves embedded in ethnic categories. It analyses the dynamics of ethnic politics in the context of the formation of linguistic states within the Indian Union in the 1950s and 1960s, with particular reference to Punjab and traces how these reinforced and intensified perceptions of ethnic discrimination from the 1970s onwards