Class 2 Chandhoke 2012

Contesting Secessions

Overview

Kashmir's struggle represents institutionalized injustice in India, revealing how liberal democracies can coexist with notable injustices.

Core Question

How should liberal democrats address illiberal ethno-nationalist groups seeking self-determination?

• Self-determination rights are often denied to illiberal groups, especially those linked to religion.

• Kashmir's secessionist demands are complicated by violence and religious fundamentalism.

Kashmir's Situation

Democracy and Injustice

• The democratic fabric is compromised by violence and intolerant ideologies.

• Secessionist movements threaten minority rights and arose from neglect of justice demands.

Historical Context

• Accession to India: 1947's accession lacked popular endorsement and the promised plebiscite was never conducted. Special status for Jammu and Kashmir has been eroded.

Nature of Secessionism

Ethno-nationalism and Violence

• Protests in Kashmir respond to structural injustices but are co-opted by external violent groups.

• Risks exist in assuming secessionists will adopt democratic norms post-secession.

Key Historical Events

• Democratic Commitments: Political mismanagement and federal violations led to rising separatism. Kashmiris protested against abuses, with external interventions influencing local insurgencies.

• Sufi traditions face challenges from rising extremist ideologies, complicating the political landscape.

Implications for Democracy

Challenges of Secession

• Secession demands reflect long-standing grievances and history of broken promises.

• Raises questions about the future of democratic practices and minority rights in Kashmir.

• A humanitarian approach may better address grievances than violent responses.