Is Autonomy the best answer to combat Balkanization?

Balkanization is a geopolitical term originally used to describe the process of fragmentation or division of a region into smaller regions. The term finds origin in the division of the Balkan Peninsula which was held in its entirety by the Ottoman Empire into a number of smaller states. By and large the division of countries gives leaves poignant history and a hostile future and as such the world balkanization is seen as pejorative. However, in recent years the term comes vis-à-vis democratic rights of an ethnic group and the sustenance of its people. Thus new dimensions of balkanization have come up and rendered the issue very much debatable.

The seeds of balkanization are sown in time when groups of different ethnicity, language, and creed are co-existent in one geopolitical location. There is an inherent tendency in people to get separated from each other and make an entity of their own identity. The tension only grows when in a region, one entity feels that its rights have been pushed to margin by others. In absence of appropriate representation and a strong voice, people begin to feel that they may be better benefitted if they have a separate nation of their own. This leads to agitations – in cases for more rights, more representation and in cases for a separate nation-state. For obvious reasons the process becomes violent in the race to gain ‘freedom’ and retain resources.

Fragmentation of the Byzantine Empire into emerging ethnic kingdoms marked the entire 14th century on the Balkan Peninsula. The coining of the term itself had to wait five centuries for the time of the emergence of Modern Balkan States in the 19th‐century and the retreat of the Ottoman Turks. Balkanization was increasingly used by the rising Western powers during romanticism, allegedly first by British diplomacy forced to revert its support of the Ottomans. Thus Balkanization is hand-in-hand with modernization, if not early modernism, coming out as its casualty. The next Balkanization emerged in 1875-76 with the squeezing and the thinning of the Ottoman remains in the region. This caused the rapid change of multiple borders as the two competing treaties were held almost simultaneously. Trying to consolidate the borders for at least one quick generation, one was held by Russia in San Stefano and the other by Otto van Bismarck in Berlin. The following Balkanization had to wait until the Balkan Wars and the Fall of Austro-Hungarian Empire. More specifically: two “Balkan Wars” occurred. In the first in 1912, small new nation states, which had gathered together against the long domination by the Ottoman Empire, cooperated in ethnical cleansing of Slavic Muslims from the Balkan territory. The “Balkan War II” occurred just a year after in 1913 when the same Balkan nation states went against each other in the race to win as much land for any given national territory. Bosnia was special because of its earlier annexation by the declining Austrian-Hungarian Empire, which produced the first safe heaven for European Muslims. It was only when post-WWI diplomacy consolidated these small Balkan nations into the compound kingdoms of Romania and Yugoslavia that the term was laid to rest. This lull even continued after WWII through the second Yugoslavia granted to Tito by the Western sponsors, Churchill and Roosevelt, to keep them all safe from Stalin. However, with the death of Tito, the thread binding the country (and for many reasons, NAM too) withered away. Very recently, Kosovo also declared its freedom and finds itself in the centre stage of international politics. The concern of Russia (which considers it illegal) and China (which has expressed concern) perhaps present the real worry of large unions of ‘unsatisfied’ parts of country insistent on declaring their independence.

Ayn Rand quoted in Global Balkanization: “As to the stagnation under tribal rule -take a look at the Balkans. At the start of this century, the Balkans was regarded as the disgrace of Europe. Six or eight tribes, plus a number of sub-tribes with unpronounceable names, were crowded on the Balkan Peninsula, engaging in endless wars among themselves or being conquered by stronger neighbors or practicing violence for the sake of violence over some microscopic language differences. Balkanization - the break-up of larger nations into ethnic tribes - was used as a pejorative term by European intellectuals of the time. Those same intellectuals were pathetically proud when they managed, after World War I, to glue most of the Balkan tribes together into two larger countries: Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. But the tribes never vanished; they have been popping up in minor explosions all along, and a major one is possible at any time.”

The case of Soviet Union propounds the context of centralized development in handful of regions. With the obsession of Cold War at hand, the Soviet government concentrated on high end technology development in the field of defense, space exploration etc. The center of power was at Moscow and the requirements of the remote areas of the union took back seat. By 1982 the stagnation of the Soviet economy was obvious, as evidenced by the fact that the Soviet Union had been importing grain from the U.S. throughout the 1970s, but the system was so firmly entrenched that any real change seemed impossible. A huge rate of defense spending consumed large parts of the economy. The transition period that separated the Brezhnev and Gorbachev eras resembled the former much more than the latter, although hints of reform emerged as early as 1983. After the Andropov and Chernenko interregnum, Gorbachev rose to power amidst Afghanistan war. Glasnost and Perestroika took heavy casualties on the Soviet Union and the dissention which was being piled up for two-three decade in the Soviet constituents took a violent shape and dissolution of the USSR was just a matter of time. The gun powder was ignited by the act of Aijerbaijan on people of Armenian descend. There was wide spread demand from the constituent Soviet unions to get separated from the USSR and finally the inevitable happened on the Christmas day of 1991.

When the government made steps to provide a little bit of autonomy the smaller states in the Union were only too eager to cede away. But autonomy cannot be completely blamed for this cessation because the desire to cede away was seeded in the era of heavy centralization and this centralization only gave water and manure to the seed. The era of autonomy only showed the seed the path to bloom into a fully fledged tree. Whereas Soviet republic dissolved only when leeway in terms of freeness (glasnost and perestroika) was granted by the government and the dissolution was not too bloody a struggle; whereas on the other hand Yugoslavian dissolution was a completely messy and bloody affair- a direct opposition to centralized power.

United States of America seems to be exemplary model of how autonomy can curb balkanization. Each of the 50 states in America has their own set of law which, in many cases, is entirely different from the others – capital punishment, gun control, drinking age etc. The states are also at complete autonomy to formulate and execute their laws. However, the reasons for non-cessations movement may not lie in autonomy alone. Consider the fact that the American economy – industry, agriculture, services are highly decentralized over the entire area of the country. The states also compete with each other to lure the industry to establish in their zones. Besides, the ethnic conflicts based on origin, language are almost non-existent since apart from the native Indians, the ethnicity and origin of people is similar.

Balkanization of America is generally presented as a call against US immigrant rights to keep ethnic and religious origin intact. Largely responding to the growing Latin population in Northern America which succeeds in keeping its language autonomy, those calls echo racist calls for forced assimilation by spreading fear from emerging claim for difference. Balkanization here is particularly aimed as an accusation against Mexicans, who in the minds of racist movements do not belong to ‘Whites, Yellows and Blacks’ and are thus subdividing perceived monolith of the Caucasian race.

The concept of balkanization in India is multi-dimensional – lingual, ethnic, religious and ideological. Centralization can curb the impending balkanization as a short term measure. Heavy centralization means a strong centre always looking down on the weaker states. Any slightest dissention is being dealt with a heavy hand by the centre. This will surely intimidate the divisive forces to take any revolutionary step but at the same time it will pile up their dissentions within themselves which will explode sooner or later. A government that uses an iron clad hand for enforcing the ‘nationalism’ on its states and its people would perhaps be looking down the barrel of revolution in long term. There can be no question regarding decentralization of economy. The after-effects of localization of economic centers are already visible in Mumbai – the call for return of people from UP & Bihar to their own states and voices of Marathas first. Implausible, though it may seem to many, the centralization of economy has also taken the government’s focus from traditionally agricultural zones like Vidarbh and Rayalseema.

However, the question regarding the extent of centralization of powers remains. Considering the size of the country and the demographic distribution administering the country through a centralized power is quite enormous a task. Especially when there is a multi-party system of politics in India and there is a whole lot of regional political parties with strong regional and ethnic (caste based) support base. Any plan for a strong centre will first be opposed by the regional powers whose hegemonic influence over a particular region will be seriously jeopardized. A strong centre will create more tension than the existing situation.

This also calls for the analysis of the argument regarding autonomy – can it satisfactorily answer the call for separation? In a set up like ours where the nation is characterized by so many difference in social, economic parameters, the forces of separation cannot be left unchecked. The smaller parties may gradually call for higher independence from the Indian union for electoral gain which might not be the favorable situation for us. Autonomy is a double edged sword if not used properly it will harm in more ways. And to reap the benefits of this weapon one has to have a certain level of maturity and a favorable political set up which, unfortunately India lacks. As German sociologist Georg Simmel put it:

The deepest problems of modern life derive from the claim of the individual to preserve the autonomy and individuality of his existence in the face of overwhelming social forces, of historical heritage, of external culture, and of the technique of life.

Some special cases like Punjab’s Khalistan, Kashmiri Separatist movements also exist which have to be considered specially, for there is/was a presence of external element in these states. The agitation took the form of violent struggle and is considered terrorism. Such cases only advocate the presence of capable, strong centre. State autonomy is unthinkable in nations where the cessation movement has assumed the flavor of terrorist sabotage. For example autonomy will fail to prevent balkanization, in fact gather momentum for it, if granted to countries like Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. So we stand at a point where neither autonomy nor heavy centralization is of any good help to prevent the evil of balkanization.
At present we have a quasi-federal set up. This is a mid way between full autonomy and full centralization. The states have been provided autonomy in many important matters but there is provision for central control of the states through some administrative machinery.

In this way the states cry for more power has been answered so also the control of the states when the state government becomes wayward. But the quasi-federalism as practiced is not the appropriate method. We need to address issues like equitable distribution of industrialization, removing regional disparity, spread of education and awareness throughout the country.

Balkanization is a concept born out of mind. The perception of man towards a particular situation gives shape to the ideology of balkanization. If people begin to think that they are not less developed to their neighbors or the union government is giving them as much importance as to any other state then will not have the urge to get separated. The only way to combat the evil of balkanization is to attack it at the level of human brain. It can be tackled by developmental administration. The development activity - be it on an autonomous stare or a centralized state always work as a force against balkanization. Whenever there is development people begin to understand that the government is working for them and they will not have the courage or any valid reason for ceding away from the union.

The Night of the Jasmine

The revolution was called Jasmine after the Tunisian national flower. Ours was a young flower too, but one should not go to the extent of naming our revolution after our national flower lest it makes the movement unnecessarily political. There are similarities that one cannot overlook and shadows that keep us apart - individual.

A revolution is for the young, for the old – it is a movement. The enemy had been similar too – unemployment, poverty and here, only additionally corruption (at least prima facie). They stood against anarchy and we stood against our own. In a country where democracy is quoted as farce time and again perhaps, one could see it coming. The recent events had only triggered the final blow. The movement had shaken up the government's indifference on the issue of corruption and mobilized the urban youth across the country to come out on the streets in support of the demand voiced by Anna Hazare and his supporters for setting up an institutional mechanism to deal with corruption at all levels. The way we in various urban centers and netizens have woken up from their slumber on this issue and have risen to the colors of the Anna Hazare movement should be a matter of satisfaction to all the right-thinking people in the country.

The force of desperation has reached a new high and finding no vent, been let up at politics holding them guilty for all woes of life. Such is populist opinion against the electoral form of administration that every voice against the movement is ridiculed and termed pro-government. It is perhaps for this very state of affairs that Bhagat Singh wrote –

‘You go and oppose the prevailing faith, you go and criticize a hero, a great man, who is generally believed to be above criticism because he is thought to be infallible, the strength of your argument shall force the multitude to decry you as vainglorious. This is due to the mental stagnation, that criticism and independent thinking are the two indispensable qualities of a revolutionary. Because … is great, therefore none should criticize him. Because he has risen above, therefore everything he says-may be in the field of politics or religion, economics or ethics-is right. Whether you are convinced or not you must say, "Yes, that's true". This mentality does not lead towards progress. It is rather too obviously, reactionary.’

There have been many who have been fighting the issue of corruption for many years – each in his/her own manner. There are numerous NGOs working on the front of corruption with tools like RTI and have earned their credibility. And amongst such man, the contribution of Anna Hazare, Arvind Kejriwal, Kiran Bedi, Swami Agnivesh cannot be forgotten at all specially in the light of recent events having lucratively catapulted youth to the national portal. The question is on accepting the monopolistic wisdom on the issue and the projection of idea that we can do nothing better than to accept his demands without subjecting them to scrutiny.

The government was not offered with much choice in face of a hunger strike and an extremely popular opinion. The latter, however, seems to have worked magic in this case since the government is used to facing hunger strike threats now and then or Irom Charu Sharmila would have won her case within 4 days too like her fellow, although elder, Gandhian. The iron lady of Manipur has been on fast since November 4, 2000 demanding the Government of India to withdraw the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, also otherwise known as AFSPA, from Manipur and other areas of India's north east. She has been charged with “attempt to commit suicide” which is unlawful under IPC and forcibly fed by police through nasogastric intubation in order to keep her alive while under arrest. Shirin Ebadi when in Delhi told the journalists:

"If Sharmila dies, Parliament is directly responsible. If she dies, courts and judiciary are responsible, the military is responsible… If she dies, the executive, the PM and President are responsible for doing nothing… If she dies, each one of you journalists is responsible because you did not do your duty…"

For the movement against corruption, the media/journalists were certainly doing their duty. Perhaps, north-east fails to strike emotive chords with our consciences or perhaps, superficially though they may be Indian, but deep down we all deem them as aliens using that racial word for them that differentiates us.

(Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee also went on a ‘fast unto death’ when his party had been allegedly denied a chance to form a government. The politicians definitely have some clout apparently, for the Rashtrapati Bhawan interfered in the matter within 1 day.)

To a generation of youth whose parents have been unsuccessfully trying to explain this unwarranted characteristic of a democracy, perhaps this seemed the only visible answer. They followed the Gandhian fasting, tweeting, sharing and calling each other. This is the same generation who was born in lap of democracy never to know what it is to be without a representation (emergency or pre-independence), this is also the army of youth that is proudly marching all over the world conquering the challenges thrown at it and yet, forgetting what Winston Churchill once said about ‘democracy being the worst form of government, except that all others have been tried.’ It is also, alas, the generation that skips the dutiful steps of democracy and expects to reap the rewards of it.

This movement surpasses the (electoral) choice its people have already made with a preferential choice and one is bound to ask a question – what makes you believe that one group can be chosen over others? Some might argue that when the Prime Minister of the country confesses on national television that he can also be helpless because of coalition dharma, then the only way to have your way is by dharnas and protests. But an imperfect system has to be tried and improved first rather than replaced by populist opinions. This also calls for analysis of two cynical arguments regarding the failure of Indian democracy and hence the need for a popular uprising:

1. Democracy has failed as and it does not suit to Indian conditions.

This argument flatly supports a military rule that will take us to the elusive utopian society. It pre-requisites supreme self-belief in one’s beliefs, ideas and ethics. A certain ruler (of this kind) will also have little respect, if any, for any kind of opposition and thus remove any possibility of evolution of ideas, ethics etc.

The vast majority of people are not able to think for themselves and hence the idea of democracy gets them rather more confused. The only thing that the non-elite require in this system is food and not abstract ideas of democracy and freedom. However, as it turns out it is the poor that go out to exercise their power once in 5 years because not only food is important, a platform to express the distress is equally wanted too.

2. Democracy will inevitably be corrupt in a country like India that is plagued by poverty, illiteracy.

The postulate is that in a country like India, it is pointless trying to fight things that already are or have become a part of the basic fabric of society. Caste divisions have become voting blocks. Corruption begins during the election process itself.

Caste, gender, and the contentious question of reservations is a case in point. Democracy should, in at least 50 years have helped us get rid of the primary support caste groupings seem to provide. If the inequalities in our society had been squarely tackled, we would not have found Dalit groups having to look for political support only amongst their own caste formations. The questions raised by Dr. Ambedkar before independence should have forced us to address and remove the exploitation inherent in our society in a more uncompromising manner. And when we have failed, we despair at how all identities in our society have become caste based. We turn cynical once again, look for ways to play one card against the other, and decide that politics will always be a dirty game.

In a democracy, if our representatives are failing us then we need to find methods of directly participating in decision making and implementation process. It is the abdication of our responsibilities towards the governance that has alienated us from the process of legislation and policy making. Such campaigns will require all of us as citizens to build the links between democracy and ethics so that we have a democratic structure where there is a more meaningful sense of the rule of law; equality of all citizens; a faith in justice; and a social sanction for a polity which tries to ensure greater equity and social justice.

In any case above or otherwise, the democratic system cannot be kept aside as a mute spectator charged guilty of its previous undoing’s, as Aruna Roy said:
"By-passing democratic processes for political expediency, however desirable the outcome, may be detrimental to democracy itself".

(With inputs from The Hindu, The Times of India, Indian Express, Rediff.com, Wikipedia)