“What is the greatest wonder of this world” asked Yama. “People know that they can’t evade death yet they try to escape it all the time,” replied Yadhistra. This is one of the fascinating discourses of Maha Bharta as it reflects an eternal fact of human life. Even if man continues his strides in the field of biotechnology and becomes “immortal” yet he has to die. The system on which he survives, the earth, the sun and other planets have an age. Once they exhaust it, man will be no more. What is true of human species is also true about states and empires. Geography of countries like history is a dynamic phenomenon. States come into existence and vanish. Within the century that is coming to an end we have seen rise and fall of huge empires. In early decades of twentieth century Ottoman Empire fragmented into various nation states. In the middle of the century, British Empire vanished. End of the twentieth century has seen breakup of the Soviet Union.
Present day India is no exception to this eternal phenomenon. Had their been any scope for exceptions to this process of history then the kingdom of Ram and Ashoka should’ve survived. They vanished in spite of the fact that those who ruled them were ideal rulers. These kingdoms do survive in the hearts and minds of people not because their rulers kept their Akhandta intact but because they were governed in accordance with some principles. In view of the preceding discussion, the statement of Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihare Vajpayee in Lahore that he wants peace without redefining borders is nothing but a wishful thinking, an attempt to evade an unavoidable eventuality. History and geography of countries has to change irrespective of what Atalji or any one else wishes. The argument of Mr. Vajpayee sounds strange on account of the fact that he himself has been an admirer of territorial changes in the past. It was this writer of “jang na honey dhenga Mantra” who described Indira Gandhi as an incarnation of Durga for her role in the creation of Bangladesh. If change of borders of a country was welcome in 1971 why should we be abhorrent to a similar change at this juncture of the history?
In previous epochs, territorial changes occurred as a result of discovery. American continents and Australia became parts of European countries as a result of discovery. Conquest was also a mode of enforcing territorial changes. India availed this way of adding to its territory by conquering Hyderabad and Goa. Both these techniques of territorial changes have become obsolete now. There are no undiscovered areas on the globe. Conquest as a mode of acquisition of territory has become illegal under international law. Self-determination of the people inhabiting a territory is one of the legitimate modes, of territorial changes.
Military might and coercion could sustain countries previously. This is an era of people. It is only people of a territory who can ensure existence of that territory within a country. Those whom we mock are wise enough to have realised this fact better than us. That is why Britishers, French, and now Russians dismantled their huge empires in response to wishes of the people of these territories. Third world countries came into existence as a result of recognition of this principle. But these countries were not ready to concede right of secession to different ethnic religious and linguistic groups within their territories. Western nations are comparatively receptive to this idea even now. In past few years several territories besides the states of former Soviet Union have been granted right of secession. Referendum was held several times in the Canadian Quebec Province. Czechoslovakia got divided into two republics. Even Indonesia and Ethiopia also conceded this right to Eastern Timor and Eritrea. None of the leaders of these countries used the terminology of “integral part” to deny the right of secession. Terminology of laps of time was not used for denial of transfer of Honkong to China by Britishers.
Previously huge territories were retained by countries to keep their enemy away from their main land and population centres. Now with ballistic missiles capable of targeting any part of a state, territory has become irrelevant to defense of a country. It is realisation of this point that made Israel to give territorial concessions to Palestinians after the Gulf war. Once hit by the missiles of Sadam Hussain, Israel realised futility of keeping Arab territories within its possession for defense of its main land. Soon after the victory of allied forces against Sadam Hussain, Israel initiated the process of restoring Arab territories to Palestinians. It wasn’t out of any favour but change of the strategic paradigm that facilitated the change of Israeli policy. Economic worth of an area is the only criteria of keeping it within the suzerainty of a state nowadays.
India also has to respond to the change of strategic paradigm that has been brought about by the developments in the field of science and technology. Advancement in the nuclear and missile technology should broaden our horizons. We should realise that status of a state is not estimated by the vastness of its territories but by firmness of its grip over frontiers of knowledge. Instead of investing huge amounts of money in defending barren patches of land like Saichen, India must divert its resources to consolidate its hold on the frontiers of knowledge. It is shameful that India invest billions on retaining the territories whose strategic importance has been over estimated and its laboratories are starving for funds. It isn’t the control over the frontiers of the territory but the hold over the frontiers of science and technology that is going to determine the status of a country in twenty-first century.
Some may suggest that cultural proselytization upon which India has embarked will finally change the mindset of Kashmiris. Utility rather futility of these attempts should be assessed in context of the corresponding impact of rival influences to which populations are getting exposed through various TV channels and other uncontrollable means of information nowadays. Iron curtains of yesteryears are no more sustainable in the twenty first century.
Present day India is no exception to this eternal phenomenon. Had their been any scope for exceptions to this process of history then the kingdom of Ram and Ashoka should’ve survived. They vanished in spite of the fact that those who ruled them were ideal rulers. These kingdoms do survive in the hearts and minds of people not because their rulers kept their Akhandta intact but because they were governed in accordance with some principles. In view of the preceding discussion, the statement of Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihare Vajpayee in Lahore that he wants peace without redefining borders is nothing but a wishful thinking, an attempt to evade an unavoidable eventuality. History and geography of countries has to change irrespective of what Atalji or any one else wishes. The argument of Mr. Vajpayee sounds strange on account of the fact that he himself has been an admirer of territorial changes in the past. It was this writer of “jang na honey dhenga Mantra” who described Indira Gandhi as an incarnation of Durga for her role in the creation of Bangladesh. If change of borders of a country was welcome in 1971 why should we be abhorrent to a similar change at this juncture of the history?
In previous epochs, territorial changes occurred as a result of discovery. American continents and Australia became parts of European countries as a result of discovery. Conquest was also a mode of enforcing territorial changes. India availed this way of adding to its territory by conquering Hyderabad and Goa. Both these techniques of territorial changes have become obsolete now. There are no undiscovered areas on the globe. Conquest as a mode of acquisition of territory has become illegal under international law. Self-determination of the people inhabiting a territory is one of the legitimate modes, of territorial changes.
Military might and coercion could sustain countries previously. This is an era of people. It is only people of a territory who can ensure existence of that territory within a country. Those whom we mock are wise enough to have realised this fact better than us. That is why Britishers, French, and now Russians dismantled their huge empires in response to wishes of the people of these territories. Third world countries came into existence as a result of recognition of this principle. But these countries were not ready to concede right of secession to different ethnic religious and linguistic groups within their territories. Western nations are comparatively receptive to this idea even now. In past few years several territories besides the states of former Soviet Union have been granted right of secession. Referendum was held several times in the Canadian Quebec Province. Czechoslovakia got divided into two republics. Even Indonesia and Ethiopia also conceded this right to Eastern Timor and Eritrea. None of the leaders of these countries used the terminology of “integral part” to deny the right of secession. Terminology of laps of time was not used for denial of transfer of Honkong to China by Britishers.
Previously huge territories were retained by countries to keep their enemy away from their main land and population centres. Now with ballistic missiles capable of targeting any part of a state, territory has become irrelevant to defense of a country. It is realisation of this point that made Israel to give territorial concessions to Palestinians after the Gulf war. Once hit by the missiles of Sadam Hussain, Israel realised futility of keeping Arab territories within its possession for defense of its main land. Soon after the victory of allied forces against Sadam Hussain, Israel initiated the process of restoring Arab territories to Palestinians. It wasn’t out of any favour but change of the strategic paradigm that facilitated the change of Israeli policy. Economic worth of an area is the only criteria of keeping it within the suzerainty of a state nowadays.
India also has to respond to the change of strategic paradigm that has been brought about by the developments in the field of science and technology. Advancement in the nuclear and missile technology should broaden our horizons. We should realise that status of a state is not estimated by the vastness of its territories but by firmness of its grip over frontiers of knowledge. Instead of investing huge amounts of money in defending barren patches of land like Saichen, India must divert its resources to consolidate its hold on the frontiers of knowledge. It is shameful that India invest billions on retaining the territories whose strategic importance has been over estimated and its laboratories are starving for funds. It isn’t the control over the frontiers of the territory but the hold over the frontiers of science and technology that is going to determine the status of a country in twenty-first century.
Some may suggest that cultural proselytization upon which India has embarked will finally change the mindset of Kashmiris. Utility rather futility of these attempts should be assessed in context of the corresponding impact of rival influences to which populations are getting exposed through various TV channels and other uncontrollable means of information nowadays. Iron curtains of yesteryears are no more sustainable in the twenty first century.
No comments:
Post a Comment