Ethnic Conflict

Ethnic conflict is a major issue worldwide; the Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, ethnic clash in Sudan, ethnic clash between Israel and Palestine, the list is in-exhaustive.

In the aftermath of independence, Indian leaders such as B R Ambedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru were wary of the dangers of federalism resulting in ethnic succession and balkanization of the state. However, the political elites had to accept ethnic plurality and agreed that in the face of national integration and development, creation of a secular and federal polity was unavoidable.

A spate for demand for statehood started from the 1960s and ever since, even the demand of frivolous groups has been gaining momentum. Faced with such uprisings some pertinent questions arise such as—

• Why has there been a growth in separatist sentiments among minority ethnic groups in different parts of India?
• Would separate statehood actually work to make life better for the people of the state?

Thirty years hence independence, INC was the central political organisation of India. However, under the authoritarian leadership of Indira Gandhi, the secular and democratic spirit of the country came under a constant threat. Her desperate measures to retain power at the centre oversaw political criminalization of Indian polity, politicization of Indian bureaucracy and security agencies, and arrogance with the opponents of the congress party. For the first time India witnessed defeat of the congress at the centre and the formation of a coalition government. Soon, regional parties started mushrooming across the country. Such political pieces gained power by tapping into ethno-linguistic, religious and regional sentiments.

Researchers have categorized four broad categories as the cause of ethnic political mobilization and agitation—

First, the ethnic group fear cultural dilution.

Second, modernization has induced large-scale population migration, forcing ethnic groups to live in close proximity and compete with other groups for rewards and resources. This has increased their socio-political awareness and their capacity to politically mobilize for collective action.

Third, unequal development of ethnic groups, poverty, exploitation and lack of opportunity has triggered strong feelings of relative deprivation among ethnic groups and spark ethno-political movements.

Finally, political factors such as mal-governance rise of regional political parties and formation of weak coalition governments at the centre may also contribute significantly to such outbreak.

The truth is, political powers are riding piggy-bank on such sentiments and fuelling indigenous group-protest for personal benefits. The Indian political platform has seen the rise of selfish interest and motives over the common good. A handful are profiting from such agitations and shoving the welfare of the country under the carpet. Power-hungry interest groups are thriving while the populace goes back to the old drudgery of life. Statehood is only a momentary pacification of the angry, impulsive mass. In the long term, the leaders must be true to their commitment to the people to bring about any real change in their livelihood.

As late as 1830, a British Governor in India, Sir Charles Metcalfe, described the village community as follows—

“The village communities are little republics having nearly everything they want within themselves and almost independent of foreign relations. They seem to last where nothing else lasts. This union of the village communities, each one forming a seperate little state in itself…is in a high degree conducive to their happiness, and to the enjoyment of a great portion of freedom and independence.”

The picture of village swaraj as conceived by Gandhiji is not the resurrection of the old village panchayats but the fresh formation of independent village units of swaraj in the context of the present-day world. According to Gandhiji, ideal society is a stateless democracy, the state of enlightened anarchy. Such an ideal is as elusive as the Euclid’s line which can never be possible in reality, but, “it is only by keeping the ideal line in mind that we have made progress in geometry”.

India has over two thousand ethnic groups. If the demands of statehood from ethnic groups are met with, such demands will increase in number and capacity. Soon, we will run out of numbers to count our states. However, organizing them into independent hamlets seems a progressive way of adopting Gandhiji’s farsighted ideas. Gandhiji was a true visionary. Thus, instead of fragmenting India into atomic pieces and chalking out meaningless boundaries we must work from bottom upwards. Gandhiji ultimately stressed on the power of the individual who is the crucial unit in the vision of a village swaraj.

Modern democracies are election-centred, party-dominated, power-centric complex mechanism. And in such a scenario the individual has been relegated to the position of a dumb, mechanic, programmed voter. Individuals are make-belief masters and upholders of democracy. The truth is, they present themselves at periodical elections for casting their vote and then sleep away until the next one. Such actions are once again, under the careful monitoring of a centralized party system and the guidance of the newspapers which are mainly tools of prominent political powers.

The only pathway of transforming these menial dumb-waiters into thoughtful, intelligent human beings is via education. Education is not the art of caricaturing one’s signature. Education is imparting of knowledge. Knowledge is power. Nelson Mandela says,” Education is the most powerful weapon which we can use to change the world”. Thus, in order to realise Gandhiji’s dream, we need to educate the masses to mould him into that crucial unit.

------------------------------------

Payel Halder has chosen Indian Policy to share her views on Indian democracy and its associated issues. You can contact her at indianpolicy2010@gmail.com