By
V. LINGAMURTY, M.A., B.Ed.
(Maharaja’s
College, Vizianagaram)
It
has been well said that “ideas rule the world”. The idea of self-determination,
which has caught the imagination of all peoples today and is considered to be a
sovereign right of every nationality, had its origin in the 19th century.
People like Mazzini and J. S. Mill held that it is the natural right of every
nationality to mould its political destiny. The natural corollary of such a
view was that multi-national States were considered as unnatural unions and
“every nationality, a State” has become an axiom. J. S. Mill thought that “ it
is in general a necessary condition of free institutions, that the boundaries
of governments should coincide in the main with those of nationalities.” 1
Thus
having taken its origin in the mid 19th century, self-determination became a
cardinal principle in framing the peace treaties after the Great War of 1914.
President Wilson, the ill-fated Utopian idealist, expressed his belief that
“self-determination is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of
action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril.” In January,
1917, i.e., about a couple of months before America entered the Great
War, addressing the Senate on the future role of America in international
politics he said: “ I am proposing, as it were, that the nations should with
one accord adopt the Doctrine of President Monroe as the doctrine of the world:
That no nation should seek to extend its policy any over other nation or
people, but that every people should be left free to determine its own polity,
its own way of development, unhindered, unthreatened, unafraid, the little
along with the great and the powerful.”2 This doctrine of “exclusive
Universalism” underlies the peace treaties of 1918 and it has resulted in the
creation of nearly thirty individual sovereign Sates in Europe.
This
right of self-determination has gained strength with time and today it has
become the key-note of nationalism. Liberal thinkers of the present century
have unreservedly admitted that complete autonomy and independence is the
birth-right of every nationality. “It (the Nation-State) will not be
answerable, save in the arbitrament of war, to others outside itself. It will
claim to settle its own frontiers, its own tariffs, the privileges it will
accord to such minorities as dwell within its boundaries, the strangers it will
admit, the beliefs it will exclude, the form of government it desires.”3
The late Mr. Willkie, plainly stated, “if we want to enjoy freedom and fight for
it, we must be prepared to extend it to every one.”4
Thus we are to take it for granted that every nation, just because it is a
nation, has an inherent right to be united and to be free.
As
the liberal thought in the present age has considered self-determination as an
inviolable right of all people, it has become the touchstone of the good
intentions of the great Powers in the present war which is described an
ideological war–a war to establish peace, justice, and human liberty. Many
pious declarations have been hurled on this throbbing world, the most
authoritative of them being the Atlantic Charter. The right of
self-determination for all nations is admitted in the clause that “they respect
the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which
they will live.” 5 President
Roosevelt said, “we are committed to full support of those resolute peoples everywhere
who are resisting aggression.”
From
this we are led to hope that self-determination will be conceded to India also.
Liberal thinkers all over the world have categorically expressed the view that
the giving of independence to India is not only politically expedient but
morally necessary. Prof. Harold J. Laski remarked that “delaying in fulfilling
the unanswerable claim of India to self-government is indefensible.”
6 It is revealing to note the following words of
Mr. Willkie: “Cairo on, it (the question: what about India) confronted me at
every turn. The wisest man in China said to me, ‘when the aspiration of India
for freedom was put aside to some future date, it was not Great Britain that
suffered in public esteem in the Far East. It was the United States.” 7
Thus conceding of self-determination to India has become the touchstone of the
good intentions of the Allies.
In
the pages of history we find nowhere a nation winning both the war and the
peace. We find a gulf of difference between the rosy ideals expressed
during the stress of war and the clauses in peace treaties. “This time we arc
getting the post-war disillusionment during the war.” Mr. Churchill, in
explaining the implications of the Eight-point Declaration, stated in the House
of Commons: “The Joint Declaration does not qualify in any way the various
statements of policy which have been made from time to time about the
development of constitutional government in India, Burma or other parts of the
British Empire.” 8 Thus it has
become clear that the principle of self-determination will be applied only with
certain reservations and modifications in view of imperial interests.
The
trend towards such a qualified self-determination can be perceived in the
different pronouncements made by the British Government during the present war
on Indian constitutional problems. The first authoritative statement expressing
the British Government’s willingness to concede self-determination to India,
was made by the Viceroy on behalf of the British Government, and is now
commonly known as the “August Offer.” The Viceroy, with the full approval of
His Majesty’s Government, declared; “There has been very strong insistence that
the framing of that scheme (that is, the new constitutional scheme for India)
should be primarily the responsibility of Indians themselves and should
originate from Indian conceptions of the social, economic and political
structure of Indian life.” 9 But in that
very ‘Offer’ it is revealed how the self-determination to be conceded to India
is qualified by certain ‘if’s.’ We are told that full independence, will be
given to India only after fulfillment of the obligations due to Great Britain,
which is an allusion to such questions as minority rights, the treaties with
the States, etc. Thus the ‘August Offer’ not only showed the unwillingness of
the British Government to part with power, but also raised the issue of
minorities “into an insuperable barrier to India’s progress.”
But
a great step forward was taken by the Cripps offer. In one of his conferences
in Delhi, Sir Stafford clearly and pointedly defined the purpose of the British
proposals as “complete and absolute self-determination and self-government for
India.” When he was asked by a pressman, “Is there any difficulty in the way of
India participating in the Atlantic Charter?” he replied, “None at all.” But
various forces led to the breakdown of the Cripps Mission. As Prof. Laski has
pointed out, “the instructions given to him were too rigid, and prevented the
requisite elasticity in negotiations, and moreover he was unlucky in his
colleagues, some of whom at least were afraid of the consequences of his
success.” 10 Thus ended the latest chapter in the story of India’s
advance towards self-determination.
While
India is thus struggling towards the attainment of self-determination, the
principle has taken a dangerous turn in her internal polity. The policy of
‘divide and rule’ has at last succeeded in raising the disruptive forces in
India. Before 1937, Mr. Jinnah wanted to work the new provincial constitution
‘for what it was worth’. By 1938, he found the weather favourable to launch on
a new adventure. “Democratic systems,” he wrote to a British Journal, “based on
the concept of a homogeneous nation are very definitely not applicable to
heterogeneous countries such as India, and this simple fact is the root cause
of all India’s constitutional ills.” 11
In the same article he put forth his theory of two nations. He argues that
Hindus and Muslims constitute two nations, with no affinities with each other.
Accordingly, as the Muslims are not a mere religious community but a nation,
Mr. Jinnah claims the right of self-determination for the Muslims.
Self-determination
implies, (a) the right to frame the constitution, and (b) the
right to secede. Taking the former, “the first step in constitutional
self-determination is to determine by what kind of body the constitution is to
be made.”12 In this connection a spirit of compromise is a
pre-requisite for any settlement regarding the nature of the
constitution making body. “Constitution is an accommodation. It is
a balance wherein there must be give and take.”13 The concrete form
of the demand for self-determination for India put forth by
the Congress is the Constituent Assembly which is the usual democratic process
in framing a constitution. The Federal and State constitutions of the United
States of America, the constitutions of the British self-governing Dominions,
more especially those of Australia and Ireland, the constitution of France
under the Third French Republic, those of Switzerland of 1848 and 1875, were
all the work of representative bodies. On more than one occasion the Congress
expressed most succinctly and authoritatively its views regarding the
constitution making body. For example, in the Working Committee’s Resolution of
1939, it is stated: “They hold that a Constituent Assembly is the only
democratic method of determining the constitution of a free country…..The
Constituent Assembly should be elected on the basis of adult suffrage existing
separate electorates being retained for such minorities as desire them. The number
of members in the Assembly should reflect their numerical strength.”14
But
the Congress view has not received universal acceptance. Nor can we
expect it in India where division is the rule and compromise the exception.
Some intellectuals like Sir Maurice Gwyer expressed the view that
constitution-making should be done by a small group of experts, and especially
of men who are past-masters in the art of Government. The Constituent Assembly
plan was opposed even more vehemently by the Muslim League and other minority
parties like the Scheduled Castes. Their fear was that the strict adherence to
the ‘logic of democracy’ would lead to ‘numerical democracy’ and ‘majority
rule’. Anyway, “it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the idea of a
Constituent Assembly belongs to the period before the communal schism had
become so deep and difficult to bridge as it is now.”15
As Mr. Jinnah says that the Muslims are a nation, he now argues, in strict
adherence to the logic of self-determination, that the Muslims must live under
a State organisation of their own choice and creation.
Another
implication the principle of self-determination is the right of secession. In a
multi-national State, If people are unwilling to be partners in the Union, they
have “a right to dissolve the partnership by withdrawal and to establish new
States on national foundations.”16
It is on this basis that Mr. Jinnah is fighting for Pakistan.17
In the Lahore resolution as well as in the press statement issued by Mr. Jinnah
after the termination of his talks with Gandhiji in Bombay, he has defined the
Pakistan boundaries as follows: “The division should be on the basis of the
present boundaries of the six provinces, namely the North-West Frontier
Province, Punjab, Sind, Bengal, Assam, and Baluchistan, subject to territorial
adjustments that might be necessary.” Today Mr. Jinnah has become the idol and
Pakistan the symbol of the Muslim League.
The
Muslim demand for self-determination was first belittled as a vision and a
dream and was looked at with indifference. But within the short space of
half-a-dozen years the Pakistan scheme has gained tremendous strength. Their
right to self-determination is admitted in a way not only by the British
Government but also by Mahatma Gandhi.
The
historic Cripps offer marks an important stage in the progressive development
of responsible government, in India. It is historic in the sense that
Parliament has conceded to India the right to frame her own constitution. But
here it has introduced the novel and pernicious principle of non-accession. “If
some provinces decided not to accede, then so far as they were concerned, they
would not be parties to the constitution.” Sir S. Cripps trenchantly remarked
that if the Indian Communities fail to forge a United Constitution and “want to separate nobody in the world can
stop them.” Thus, for the first time, territorial self-determination is
conceded to India by the British Government.
The
territorial self-determination gained further ground by the C. R. formula which
says that, (1) after the termination of the war a commission shall be appointed
for demarcating contiguous districts in the North-East and North-West India,
wherein the Muslim population is in absolute majority, (2) in the areas thus
demarcated a plebiscite shall ultimately decide the issue of separation from
Hindustan, and (3) the plebiscite shall be held on the basis of adult suffrage
or other practicable franchise. Mr. C. Rajagopalachari thinks it ‘childish’ to
quarrel over unity! His theory behind the formula which he has drawn up is that
“administrative unity was not of very great consequence. We could
have twenty different States if we were really united, united in culture,
trade, and everything else.”
The
C. R. formula has gained publicity and importance as it became the basis of the
Gandhi Jinnah talks. Gandhiji’s formula, which was later on presented to Mr.
Jinnah, is mostly based on the C. R. formula. The Gandhi formula clearly
reveals the sincerity with which Gandhiji approached the problem. It “accepts
the principle of sovereign States, consistent with friendliness.” But will Mr.
Jinnah, who is now in the plenitude of power, agree to anything short of
complete surrender to the Muslim League’s Lahore resolution of 1940? He claims
the right of self-determination for Muslims as a nation and as a territorial
unit. He has chosen to understand the word ‘self-determination’ to mean communal
self-determination, and any other interpretation is a ‘misconception’ for
him.
How
far is the right of self-determination for the Muslims in India tenable?
Is it a ‘day dream’ of Mr. Jinnah or is it a
‘birth-right’ of the Muslims? To call it a vision, or to consider the
Muslims as a separate nation with no affinities with the rest of India, would
be untenable. To divide India into two separate nations is politically
inexpedient. As Lord Curzon remarked at the Lausanne Peace Conference (1923),
“the right of self-determination is like a two edged sword and can be admitted
only with reservations: It is, and has been in the past, a unifying force; but
it may be, and has recently become, also a disruptive force. Manifestly, if the
theory were actually applied in all cases it would lead to the
disruption of some of the oldest existing States of the world.” 18
If the principle of communal self-determination is conceded, India will be torn
to pieces. Such Ulsterisation of India is not political sagacity. It would lead
to chaos and anarchy.
Economically,
partition is ruinous to the prosperity and industrial advancement of the country.
“The political and economic unity of India is natural because it is the natural
response to its geography.” 19 Today India, being a single unit, has
been a vast free trade area. But with partition arise problems relating to such
topics as customs, markets for the goods produced etc. Moreover there can no
longer be the present inter-provincial co-operation in times of famine and
stress.
Morally,
the Muslim demand for self-determination is indefensible. Any attempt made by
fractions of peoples to vivisect a definitely established State is a moral
crime. They cannot have any rights over and above the State, or at the expense
of the unity and integrity of the State. “There was no rule of
positive international law which recognised the right of fractions of peoples
as such to separate themselves by a simple act of their own will from a
definitely established State of which they form a part.”20
In his letter dated September 15th, Gandihiji has rightly reminded Mr. Jinnah
that a body of converts and their descendants cannot claim to be a nation apart
from the parent stock. “If India was one nation before the advent of Islam, it
must remain one in spite of the change of faith of a large body of her
children.”21
Historically,
Mr. Jinnah’s conception of self-determination is false. Several countries in
Europe are multi-national States, and no constitution of any country, except
that of Russia, has given self-determination for the minorities. To imitate the
Russian example without introducing the Russian background is to invite
dangerous and deleterious consequences. Russia being a classless State having
community of interests among the proletariat, combined with cultural autonomy,
has proved to be a success as a multi-national State. Self determination acts as
a supreme unifying force under such conditions, while in other countries it
generally leads to disintegration and disruption. Nor should we overlook the
fact that the right of self-determination of the Russian Republics is only
theoretical in nature. “The State as a
whole maintains unity unimpaired and has even, like other federal States,
increased its centralisation of authority.” 22
“The
present malignancy of the minority question is due very largely to President
Wilson’s pedantic obsession with what he called the self-determination of
nations.”23 The
Utopian idealist could not imagine the evil consequences that would follow an
indiscriminate application of the principle of self-determination. A minority
can fight for fundamental rights; but it can claim no right to affect the unity
and integrity of a well-organised State. In fact, when once fundamental rights
are guaranteed to the people of a State, there is no scope for a minority
problem at all. But it may still exist in a subject country like India, for the
minorities are mostly “artificialities created by the mutual aggressiveness of
the great sovereign powers.”24
The British Government, in their eagerness to raise a strong
party as a counter-blast to the Congress, promoted the diabolic tendencies of
separatism. To consider that self-determination is a talisman for all minority
problems is a palpable misconception, for there can be no real minority problem
when fundamental rights are granted to all the people in the State.
Thus
the principle of self-determination is a very subtle and complex one. “This
doctrine though generally accepted as never clearly stated. No definition of
the word ‘peoples’ was given, nor any indication of the Minimum size of the
unit to which it might apply.”25
The result of it is that very community, small as well as
big, is up for a separate homeland rending the air with the cry of ‘stan’.
The
proper application of the doctrine of self-determination lies in balancing the
two opposite principles of autonomy and authority. “There must be a balancing
of the opposite principles of central authority and local autonomy, avoiding on
the one hand the subjection of a people to alien control or influence against
its will, and on the other the multiplication of small units which makes for
instability and invites aggression.”26
So if the right of self determination is conceded either to
the communities or to the territorial units in India, it would become a great
disintegrating force with consequences which cannot be fully imagined.
The
doctrine of self-determination ceases to be a worthy ideal if it leads to the
vivisection of any country or the continent of Europe. Any adherence to the
‘obsessed’ Wilsonian conception of self-determination may prove to be a fateful
act in the history of mankind. Experience is the best school of learning and we
now know, thanks to Hitler, on what depends the stability and security of
Europe. As Mr.Walter Lippman and Mr. Summer Wells have pointed out in their
recent writings and pronouncements, the first step to a functioning world order
is only through joint defence, common foreign policy and ‘organic
consultation.’ The re-creation of small sovereign States in Europe, each with
its own political, economic and military powers, is to repeat the fallacy. “Undiluted
universalism would only widen the gap between the reality of the world
situation and the idea of world order.”27
“The re-creation of the small countries of Europe as
political units, yes; their re-creation as economic and military units, no.”28
Similarly, any nationals or minorities, living in an already
well-established State can fight for political autonomy, but not for the
vivisection of the State. Self-determination remains as an ideal to be aspired
after, only when it brings about a balance between the two opposite principles
of ‘togetherness’ and separateness, of authority and autonomy.
1
On Liberty and other essays–P. 384. (The World’s Classics)
2
Quoted from ‘The World Crisis and the Problem of Peace’–Chitale.
3
H. J. Lalki–A Grammar of Politics, P. 221.
4
One World-P. 133.
5
The Hindu-Aug. 16, 1941.
6 One
World–P. 131.
7 The
Hindu-Aug. 12, 1941.
8 The
Hindu-Sept. 11, 1941.
9
India and Freedom-L. S. Amery.
10
“Reflections on the Revolution of our time.”
11
Time and Tide. Jan. 19, 1940.
12 The
Constitutional Problem in India–R. Coupland,
Part III, P. 32
13
H. J. Laski–“India must be won over”–The Hindu, Mar. 25, 1942.
14
Indian Annual Register, 1939, ii, 238.
15 The
Constitutional Problem in India–R.Coupland, Part. III.
P. 35.
16
Garner--Political Science and Government, P.134.
17
It means ‘land of the pure’. Originally it was spelt as Pakistan, which
referred to the five Northern units of
India, viz., Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan provinces),
Kashmir, Sind, and Baluchistan.
18
Garner-Political Science and Govnnment. P. 134.
19
Coupland–The Constitutional Problem in India. Part III, P. 101
20
Gamer–P. 135
21
The Hindu, Sept. 29, 1944
22
Webbs–Soviet Communism, Vol. I.
23
H. G. Wells. “Fundamental Rights”–The Hindu–April 20, 1941.
24
Ibid.
25
Sir John Hope Simpson–“The problem of National Minorities”–The Fortnightly,
July 1944. 26 Radhakamal Mukerjee–Democracies of the East.
27
The Economist. July
22, 1944.
28
One World. P. 128.