In the Ramayana, King Dasharatha promised two wishes to Queen Kaikeyi when she saved his life in the war. These could be fulfilled anytime in her life. She made use of this opportunity later and asked Dasharatha to send his elder son, Lord Rama to exile for fourteen years so that her son, Bharat, can be made the Crown Prince. Rama obediently followed his father and respected his promise.
Regarding this episode, the poet Tulsidas wrote these famous lines in Ramcharitmanas:
रघुकुल रीत सदा चल आई, प्राण जाई पर वचन न जाई.
Raghukul reet sada chali aayi, praan jaayi par vachan na jaayi.
(The tradition of the Raghukul Kingdom has always continued, life may go, but words must be kept.)
What if Lord Rama had disagreed with his father? The epic tells us that he was the most favourite and the ablest of the four princes. He was virtuous and loved by the people. His going away would have meant severe uncertainty for the kingdom and despair for the public. It was also a break in the norm that the throne passed from the father to the eldest son.
Lord Rama could have easily said, that for good governance, the happiness of the people, the sake of continuity, preventing despair and uncertainty, he would NOT follow his father’s commands and his stepmother’s wishes.
But he did not. He instead honoured his father’s promise and agreed to comply with the unreasonable and brutal demands made by his stepmother. And we worship him for that. We worship our Lord because he faced hardships, but honoured the promises made by his father.
Let us come to the present now. This August, the people who claim themselves to be the followers of Lord Rama completely dishonoured a promise made to the people of Jammu and Kashmir by the previous Indian governments. The provision giving special status to the state under Article 370 was revoked. Many others, who worship Lord Rama hailed this dishonour of word as a triumph. The irony could not be more explicit and louder.
Were The Original Promises Reasonable?
Many people found the original promise of the special status unreasonable and thus worthy to be scraped off. And when one sees things simplistically, it is natural to ask: what sort of an arrangement disallows people to buy land in other parts of their own country? And thus, what is wrong if this provision is thrown out of the books?
But the people who ask these questions are probably not aware of the other arrangements made to accommodate the diversity of India. The following are a few examples:
- In Sikkim, the legislative assembly seat no. 32 represents the constituency ‘Sangha’. This is not a geographical constituency, and only the Buddhist Monks can vote and contest in elections for this seat. This is an arrangement not found in any other state of India. This tradition was followed by the Chogyals who ruled Sikkim before 1973, and when Sikkim merged with India, this arrangement continued.
- There are restrictions on buying land in Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and many other states of India.
- There are restrictions and checks in travelling to some parts of the country. Outsiders have to get an Inner Line Permit (ILP) to travel to Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Nagaland while there is freedom of movement in other states.
- There are special arrangements made for administration as well. Under the Treaty of Cessation of 1956, Puducherry, which was a French colony, merged in India as a Union Territory. The treaty guaranteed special status to these territories. The towns of Mahe, Karaikal and Yanam which are coastal enclaves in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh respectively and fell under Puducherry, which itself is a coastal enclave of Tamil Nadu were not merged with these states. India has so far very respectfully honoured the unique arrangements made in the treaty.
- The Bodoland Territorial Area districts are four autonomous districts in the state of Assam that enjoy relative autonomy in comparison with the other districts of the state. They are ruled by the Bodoland Territorial Council which has its own legislative and executive powers, including ministries. To have a separate cabinet like a body within a state for just a set of districts is unusual for most of the other states of the Country. These special provisions of autonomy were included in the sixth schedule of the Constitution.
The Founders of the Indian Republic were aware of the diverse and heterogeneous nature of the country. And they were largehearted enough to make special arrangements, sometimes temporary, to accommodate this diversity. They hoped that a collective identity would emerge eventually. The Uniform Civil Code was not implemented immediately but was included in the constitution as an aspirational goal under the Directive Principle of State Policy. But this process of nation-building, they hoped, WOULD ALWAYS BE DEMOCRATIC, RESPECTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Therefore, all these provisions were made amendable, but only according to the wishes of the people.
These are issues of identity first. To make changes in them in the name of economics is another wrong which was committed by the latest order.
Identity Vs. Economics And Development
These statistics suggest that development and growth are no bulwarks against secessionism. By making the economic argument, we are either ignoring or choosing to ignore the real problem: identity.
The problem of identity will be resolved only through dialogue and accommodation. People have to be taken into confidence that the Indian identity is not in opposition to their other identities. Only then can true integration happen.
Forced integration is a dangerous idea to play with. The examples of our neighbourhood are enough to prove this point. Western Pakistan forcefully imposed the Urdu language over the Bengali-speaking people of East Pakistan. The argument was uniformity, and the assumption was that the East Pakistanis would choose loyalty to Islam over their language. The East Pakistanis instead saw this as a threat to their culture and the rest is history. Sri Lanka also imposed the Sinhala language over its Tamil-speaking population and paid a huge price for it.
We cannot afford to make the same mistakes which others have made and suffered from. We cannot also assume that uniformity is the solution to India’s future because we cannot wish India’s diversity away. We will have to toil hard and not give up on the process of dialogue to accommodate the concerns of our countrymen. Using force on our own people will deepen mistrust and make reconciliation even more difficult.
15th August 2019
As I celebrated Independence Day and Raksha Bandhan with my family, my thoughts go to a friend from Kashmir, and others like her, who were unable to celebrate Eid and have not heard from their families back home for the past 10 days. Many soldiers posted in the state would also be unable to speak to their families on this festive occasion, and I can’t even imagine how they must be feeling.
On this Independence Day, I pledge to work for an India which resolves its internal differences through dialogue, empathy and mutual respect, and thus manifests the idea of ‘Unity in Diversity’ in letter and spirit. I wish that to ensure my security, my dignity and my well-being, no one’s honour, security and well-being are compromised.