Assume that you live in a joint family system. You slog a lot, with few other members, and whereas the rest do not contribute in the same outcome of running the economy in this family. Yes, the rest may be adding respective values in their best capacity but they would not be interested to do more because they are dependent on you and few others without offering you any choice or option. Would you feel bad for seeing systematic infringement of your choices and consent, or would you plot to move out from this joint family because you feel that you would want your identity and autonomy to be protected and preserved? In some cases, you may assume that it is not right to move out because society’s peer pressure does not let you to separate yourself from your family. This case is a manifestation of false consciousness, and nothing else.
Analogically, at a larger level, India pretends nationalism (except when it comes to a media debate on Chinese foreign policy, cricket match with Pakistan and Australia, and special ‘patriotic’ occasions), and, on other days, Indians are usually immersed with caste-ism, divisive politics and social apathy. On a microscopic understanding, many Indians prefer regionalism as well as disintegration because they are not gratified with the centralization of power and unity. Chilling effect on this subject keeps their “free speech” under the desk of legal radar. If you disbelieve me, check the vox populi of “hoi polloi” on Kashmir issue, South India disgruntlement (Dravidianism), compulsion of regional linguisticism and socioeconomic circumvention of North Eastern India.
The best system is a decentralized society. That goes without saying. Constitutionally, India is blessed with clauses on power-sharing between central govt. and state govt. or decentralization, but not many Indians express empathy in general as there are many structural, functional and institutional barriers like regionalism, culture, social norms, literacy and history. This disintegrates the nation, unknowingly. “Unity in diversity” may be occasionally possible (surely, at the expense of gun point) but “Unity from diversity” is certainly impossible. Report me under the law of sedition and terrorism, but truth is truth (no matter how many statists disbelieve it).
Therefore, it makes sense to leave people alone. There is nothing wrong in recognizing “right to self-determination” which is not only an international law but also a natural right. Forcing people to live with you is an assault on the principles and axioms of liberty, consent and choice, in general. Secessionism is not a modern political concept. It existed before and it will continue to exist, because diversity is beautiful. Division of labor and specialization is a natural phenomenon. To condemn this natural tendency is not right because values are subjective and it cannot be legislated. Institutionalization of Union of India was a herculean task during the period 1947-1955. Why was it difficult? Because, Indians do not share the same spirit of nationalism (aka nationazism), cultural norms, history and etc. Building a state of unity in this regard is an assignment of history manipulation. Using the same line of thinking, I anticipate that social unrest (with reference to caste-ism, jobless growth, regional sentiments) is certain (in the next few years). Recently, South Indian regional states felt “ignored” on the domain of fiscal spending (despite paying more taxes to the central government, compared to North Indian states).
Kashmir was not part of modern India. Kashmiris and Khalistanis, unlike other separatists in 1947-1950, were not privileged for a “vox pop” on the issue of statehood. Today, the Government of India continues to commit legal atrocities against the separatists. My point is not to get into useless debate on the topic of separation-ism, but to reflect upon the public policies and social cognition of secessionism and statism. Statism is not a natural philosophy. It is a bad idea which believes in the expression of violence, intimidation, expropriation and plundering. Choice is yours on whose side would you opt for, without resorting to violence? If you are unhappy with the mainstream domain (joint family system), let there be a “liberty to peacefully secede” away. Post-referendum, how people manage their new family is their business and you do not have any obligation to intervene in anyone else’s and vice-versa.
_________________________
About the Author
Prof. Jaimine Vaishnav is an anarcho-capitalist based in Mumbai, India. His hobbies are about defending the liberties of all his dissents without charging any fee at the cost of nobody.
Twitter a/c
@meritocratic