Separatist movements of India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Secession in India typically refers to state secession, which is the withdrawal of one or more states from the Republic of India. Some have argued for secession as a natural right of revolution.

Many independence movements exist with thousands of members, however, with moderate local support and high voter participation in the democratic elections. The Khalistan movement in Punjab was active in the 1980s and the 1990s, but is now largely subdued within India. Insurgency has occurred in North-East India, in the states of Tripura, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Manipur, Assam and Nagaland. But now, the separatism and insurgency in northeast india has now become largely insignificant due to lack of local public support.

India has introduced several Armed Forces Special Powers Acts (AFSPA) to subdue insurgency in certain parts of the country. The law was first enforced in Manipur and later enforced in other insurgency-ridden north-eastern states. It was extended to most parts of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir in 1990 after the outbreak of an armed insurgency in 1989. Each Act gives soldiers immunity in specified regions against prosecution under state government unless the Indian government gives prior sanction for such prosecution. The government maintains that the AFSPA is necessary to restore order in regions like Indian territories Kashmir and Manipur.[1]

Jammu and Kashmir[edit]

Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh (1895–1961)

Maharaja Hari Singh became the ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir in 1925, and he was the reigning monarch at the conclusion of British rule in the subcontinent in 1947. With the impending independence of India, the British announced that the British Paramountcy over the princely states would end, and the states were free to choose between the new Dominions of India and Pakistan or to remain independent. It was emphasized that independence was only a `theoretical possibility' because, during the long rule of the British in India, the states had come to depend on British Indian government for a variety of their needs including their internal and external security.

Jammu and Kashmir had a Muslim majority (77% Muslim by the previous census in 1941[2]). Following the logic of Partition, many people in Pakistan expected that Kashmir would join Pakistan. However, the predominant political movement in the Valley of Kashmir (Jammu and Kashmir National Conference) was secular and was allied with the Indian National Congress since the 1930s. So many in India too had expectations that Kashmir would join India.[3][4] The Maharaja was faced with indecision.[note 1]

On 22 October 1947, rebellious citizens from the western districts of the State and Pushtoon tribesmen from the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan invaded the State, backed by Pakistan.[5][6] The Maharaja initially fought back but appealed for assistance to India,[7][8] who agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India.[9] Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession on 26 October 1947 in return for military aid and assistance,[10] which was accepted by the Governor General the next day.[11][12] While the Government of India accepted the accession, it added the proviso that it would be submitted to a "reference to the people" after the state is cleared of the invaders, since "only the people, not the Maharaja, could decide where Kashmiris wanted to live." It was a provisional accession.[13][14][15][note 2]

Once the Instrument of Accession was signed, Indian soldiers entered Kashmir with orders to evict the raiders. The resulting Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 lasted till the end of 1948. At the beginning of 1948, India took the matter to the United Nations Security Council. The Security Council passed a resolution asking Pakistan to withdraw its forces as well as the Pakistani nationals from the territory of Jammu and Kashmir, and India to withdraw the majority of its forces leaving only a sufficient number to maintain law and order, following which a plebiscite would be held. A ceasefire was agreed on 1 January 1949, supervised by UN observers.[16]

A special United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) was set up to negotiate the withdrawal arrangements as per the Security Council resolution. The UNCIP made three visits to the subcontinent between 1948 and 1949, trying to find a solution agreeable to both India and Pakistan.[17] It passed a resolution in August 1948 proposing a three-part process. It was accepted by India but effectively rejected by Pakistan.[note 3] In the end, no withdrawal was ever carried out, India insisting that Pakistan had to withdraw first, and Pakistan contending that there was no guarantee that India would withdraw afterward.[18] No agreement could be reached between the two countries on the process of demilitarization.[19]

India and Pakistan fought two further wars in 1965 and 1971[20]. Following the latter war, the countries reached the Simla Agreement, agreeing on a Line of Control between their respective regions and committing to a peaceful resolution of the dispute through bilateral negotiations.

North East India[edit]

Assam[edit]

The militant organization United Liberation Front of Assam demands a separate country for the indigenous people of Assam. The Government of India had banned the ULFA in 1990 and has officially labelled it as a terrorist group, whereas the US State Department lists it under "Other groups of concern".[21] Military operations against it by the Indian Army that began in 1990 continue to the present. In the past two decades, some 10,000 people have died in the clash between the rebels and the government.[22] The Assamese secessionists have protested against the illegal migration from the neighboring regions. Since the mid-20th century, people from present-day Bangladesh (then known as East Pakistan) have been migrating to Assam. In 1961, the Government of Assam passed legislation making use of Assamese language compulsory; it had to be withdrawn later under pressure from Bengali speaking people in Cachar. In the 1980s the Brahmaputra valley saw six years of Assam agitation[23] triggered by the discovery of a sudden rise in registered voters on electoral rolls.

The Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam (MULTA), established in 1996, advocates a separate country for the Muslims of the region.[24] The United People's Democratic Solidarity (UPDS) demands a sovereign nation for the Karbi people. It was formed in March 1999 with the merger of two militant outfits in Assam's Karbi Anglong district, the Karbi National Volunteers (KNV) and Karbi People’s Front (KPF).[25] The United People's Democratic Solidarity signed a cease-fire agreement for one year with the Union Government on 23 May 2002. However, this led to a split in the UPDS with one faction deciding to continue with its subversive activities while the other commenced negotiations with the Government.[citation needed]

Nagalim[edit]

The Nagalim is a proposed independent country for the Naga people. In the 1950s, the Naga National Council led a violent unsuccessful insurgency against the Government of India, demanding a separate country for the Nagas. The secessionist violence decreased considerably after the formation of the Naga-majority Nagaland state, and more militants surrendered after the Shillong Accord of 1975. However, the majority of Nagas, operating under the various factions of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland, continue to demand a separate country.

2014 General Elections of India recorded a voter turnout of more than 87% in Nagaland, which was the highest in India.[26][27][26]

Punjab[edit]

Khalistan[edit]

See also[edit]

Further reading[edit]

  • Racine, Jean-Luc (2013). Secessionism in independent India: Failed attempts, irredentism, and accommodations. Secessionism and Separatism in Europe and Asia: To have a state of one’s own. Routledge. pp. 147–163.

References[edit]

  1. ^ "India campaign over 'draconian' anti-insurgent law". BBC News. 17 October 2011.
  2. ^ Snedden 2003.
  3. ^ Guha, Ramachandra (2008), India after Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy, Pan Macmillan, ISBN 0330396110: "Pakistan naturally expected Kashmir, with its Muslim majority, to join it. India thought that the religious factor was irrelevant, especially since the leading political party, the National Conference, was known to be non-sectarian."
  4. ^ Snedden, Christopher (2015), Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris, Oxford University Press, pp. 172–, ISBN 978-1-84904-342-7: "Senior Pakistanis, many of whom had once naively simply expected that J&K would join Pakistan, had come to believe that India had been deliberately conniving with Hari Singh to obtain J&K's accession. To try to prevent India's acquisition, some of these Pakistanis sent the Pukhtoons to capture J&K for Pakistan."
  5. ^ "Quick guide: Kashmir dispute". BBC News. 29 June 2006. Retrieved 14 June 2009.
  6. ^ "Who changed the face of '47 war?". Times of India. 14 August 2005. Retrieved 14 August 2005.
  7. ^ http://www.getmistified.com/competition_docs/2013_Topic_I_Kashmir.pdf
  8. ^ http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/4425/9/09_chapter%202.pdf
  9. ^ Stein, Burton. 1998. A History of India. Oxford University Press. 432 pages. ISBN 0-19-565446-3. Page 368.
  10. ^ Šumit Ganguly (13 February 1999). The Crisis in Kashmir: Portents of War, Hopes of Peace. Cambridge University Press. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-0-521-65566-8.
  11. ^ "Rediff on the NeT Special: The Real Kashmir Story". Rediff.com. Retrieved 16 April 2013.
  12. ^ "Rediff on the NeT: An interview with Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw". Rediff.com. Retrieved 16 April 2013.
  13. ^ Varshney 1992, p. 194.
  14. ^ Humayun Mirza (1 January 2002). From Plassey to Pakistan: The Family History of Iskander Mirza, the First President of Pakistan. University Press of America. p. 161. ISBN 978-0-7618-2349-0.
  15. ^ Nyla Ali Khan (15 September 2010). Islam, Women, and Violence in Kashmir: Between India and Pakistan. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 30–. ISBN 978-0-230-11352-7.
  16. ^ Subramaniam, Arjun (2016), India's Wars: A Military History, 1947–1971, Harper Collins India, ISBN 9351777499. Excerpt at How the map of Jammu and Kashmir could have been significantly different today, Scroll.in
  17. ^ Schofield 2003, p. 70.
  18. ^ Varshney 1992, p. 212.
  19. ^ Korbel 1953, pp. 506–507.
  20. ^ Zulqurnain, Zafar. "India couldn't beat us in 1965, can't beat the stronger Pakistan of today either". The Express Tribune. The Express Tribune. Retrieved 23. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  21. ^ Country Reports on Terrorism, 2006
  22. ^ Five killed in Assam bomb blasts - Dawn
  23. ^ Hazarika 2003
  24. ^ "Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam (MULTA)". South Asia Terrorism Portal. Retrieved 14 August 2009.
  25. ^ SATP - UPDS
  26. ^ a b "State-Wise Voter Turnout in General Election 2014". Election Commission of India. Government of India. Press Information Bureau. 21 May 2014. Retrieved 7 April 2015.
  27. ^ "Assessment for Tripuras in India", Minorities at Risk Project, UNHCR Refworld, 31 December 2003, retrieved 15 March 2009

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Schofield (2003, p. 54): In his letter to Lord Mountbatten on 26 October 1947, the Maharaja wrote, "I wanted to take time to decide which Dominion I should accede... whether it is not in the best interests of both the Dominions and my State to stay independent, of course with cordial relations with both.
  2. ^ Kashmiri leader Sheikh Abdullah noted in the UN Security Council in 1948: ""the (plebiscite) offer (was) made by the Prime Minister of India when, I think, he had not the slightest need for making it, for Kashmir was in distress... The Government of India could have easily accepted the accession and said, "All right, we accept your accession and we shall render this help." There was no necessity for the Prime Minister of India to add the proviso while accepting the accession that "India does not want to take advantage of the difficult situation in Kashmir."(Varshney 1992, p. 195)
  3. ^ Korbel (1953, p. 502): "Though India accepted the resolution, Pakistan attached to its acceptance so many reservations, qualifications, and assumptions as to make its answer `tantamount to rejection'.