Sanjib Baruah
When a delegation of Nagas told Gandhi in June 1947 that the government had warned that there would be military sanctions against Nagas if they declared independence, Gandhi said “the government is wrong... No army will deprive you of your freedom... Those days are gone... I believe you all belong to one, to India. But if you say you won’t, no one can force you.” When asked if the new government would not force the Nagas to join India, Gandhi replied, “No, not if I am alive. I will go to Naga Hills and say that you will shoot me before you shoot a single Naga.”
In the real world of politics, Gandhi’s support for the Nagas did not amount to much. On the eve of Independence he was already outside the mainstream of the party coming to power. Had he lived for a few more years and had he followed up on his promise of opposing Indian military action, the Naga conflict might have taken a very different course. Nearly six decades later, the armed conflicts in Northeast India and the force used by successive governments to counter them make the Gandhian credo of non-violence seem like a fairy tale.
Gandhi’s methods — even if ‘utopian’ in this case — were based on deep convictions about politics and society. The exchange was in line with his ideas in Hind Swaraj, where he distinguished between ‘a genuine nation formed as community (praja) and a nation of individuals merely held together by state power (rashtra)’.’ His project was to build a different kind of polity.
It is possible to respond more creatively to the Naga proposal for a special federal relationship with India. Such an arrangement, Naga leader Thuingaleng Muivah says, can come “as close as possible” to the constitutional framework, even though he rules out a settlement entirely within the existing framework.
But the reaction to this is tepid. Policy-makers and public opinion are ambivalent about asymmetrical federalism — a federation where some units have different institutions and powers, and greater autonomy than others. A leading example of asymmetrical federalism is Canada, where Quebec enjoys more powers on certain subjects than the predominantly Anglophone provinces. Spain provides another example where ‘historical communities’ such as Catalonia, Basque Country and Galicia have more powers than other autonomous communities.
The Article 370 on Jammu and Kashmir gave the Indian system a significant element of asymmetrical federalism. But gradually all elements of this special autonomy were taken away and Kashmir became like any other state. Nagaland and a few other Northeastern states enjoy limited asymmetrical autonomy under Article 371. This has survived not because of active public support for such a dispensation but because of a lack of interest in what goes on in the region.
A special federal relationship can be built on the foundation of the asymmetrical federalism that already exists in Nagaland. It might even permit the settlement of the vexed issue of the integration of Naga-inhabited areas. There can be a second legislative chamber to represent Nagas living outside Nagaland. Such a chamber, elected by non-territorial constituencies, can recognise the trans-state nature of Naga identity. At the same time, this need not jeopardise the territorial integrity of Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Assam.
Canadian debates on Quebec provide an example of constitutional law dealing effectively with a demand for secession. After the narrow defeat of the ‘yes’ side in the 1995 Quebec referendum, the Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that a province has no right to secede unilaterally, but it did not try to close the secessionist option as illegal. Instead it set in motion a process by which the Constitution can respond to demands for secession. In 2000, the Canadian Parliament passed the Clarity Act, which gave it the right to determine if the language of a referendum for secession is unambiguous or if a clear majority favours secession.
When Gandhi met the Naga leaders in 1947, India was about to embark on the road to build a modern nation State. In today’s world absolutist notions of the sovereignty of nation States have given way to notions of relative sovereignty and of sharing. The present generation Naga leaders have shown remarkable statesmanship in getting their supporters to think of sovereignty outside the paradigm of independence.
A demand for independence need not be a matter of life and death for a nation. Options do exist, other than the use of raw power. Gandhi wanted India to be a model for a new type of polity and not simply another conventional nation State with an army, a flag, a national anthem and a national airline. It may be time to pick up his unfinished project and make the fiction of the consent of the governed a more active principle in our democratic federal polity.
(The writer is visiting professor, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi)
