The Hindu : The violence of sovereignty

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, May 11, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

The violence of sovereignty

By Himadeep R. Muppidi

How shameless must a political leadership be to object to the concerns of foreign Governments while deliberately ignoring (when not justifying) the continuing carnage under its own administration?

AS THE killings continue in Gujarat, it is astounding to hear the Indian Government deplore the concerned calls from fellow Governments around the world as "foreign interference". It appears equally ridiculous to hear the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, say that India does not need any lessons in secularism from the "West". India has, in the past, been fairly scrupulous, and rightly so, about asserting its sovereignty in international affairs. But rarely has it defended state sovereignty on such pathetic and blatantly anti-humanitarian grounds. This defence is not only ethically flawed but also geo-politically short-sighted.

The fundamental responsibility of a modern democratic state is to secure, at the least, the physical well being of its citizens. In Gujarat, however, we have a situation in which the state machinery is the primary source of terror, insecurity and violent death for its citizens. Rather than dismissing the State Government and ensuring the safety of its nationals, the Central Government is busy proclaiming its sovereign rights over the nation.

But is "sovereignty" really the primary issue here or is it the state-sponsored slaughter of Indians in Gujarat? How shameless must a political leadership be to object to the concerns of foreign Governments while deliberately ignoring (when not justifying) the continuing carnage under its own administration? Should we discount the concerned voices of the Canadians, the Swiss or the European Union because they happen not to be fellow nationals — even in the face of the brutalities of completely home grown, thoroughly "nationalist" goondas? Is "sovereignty", as a right of the state, so precious that it needs to be shouted out over and above the carefully ignored screams of dying women, men and children in Narendra Modi's Gujarat?

It is worth asking if the humanitarian concerns of other states really represent a threat to the nation's sovereignty. Maybe the concerns of the "foreigners" come laced with a hidden politics. But is that politics more deplorable and more of a threat to India than the amoral calculations through which the Modi administration and the BJP, by all accounts, not only connived in the killings but also sought to benefit electorally from its bloody harvest?

What is truly wretched in this situation is not the concern expressed by other Governments but the continuing callousness and indifference of the Indian Government towards the suffering of its own citizens. It appears that the Indian Government wants its economy and society to be globalised but not necessarily its humanitarian impulses. If so, it is clearly headed in the wrong direction.

Caught up, as it has been, in the euphoria over the "war on terrorism", the Indian Government does not seem to have read the fine print of globalisation too closely. Here is what Richard Haass, Director of Policy Planning for the U.S. State Department, had to say about "sovereignty" in a recent interview in The New Yorker (April 1, 2002): "Sovereignty entails obligations. One is not to massacre your own people. Another is not to support terrorism in any way." The ruling party seems to have latched onto the second dimension and somehow forgotten the first.

But this amnesia about the ordinary responsibilities of the modern state can carry a heavy burden. As Mr. Haass notes: "If a Government fails to meet these obligations, then it forfeits some of the normal advantages of sovereignty, including the right to be left alone inside your own territory. Other Governments, including the United States, gain the right to intervene." The Indian Government has gone out of its way to demonstrate to the West its capacity for behaving "responsibly". Whether it is the modification of domestic patent laws or the offering of bases in the fight against "terrorism", it has sought to assure the West that it is a reliable and trusted partner, possibly even a servile one. National sovereignty did not seem to weigh heavily in such decisions.

But, absurdly enough, sovereignty becomes an issue when the massacre of its own citizens is involved. The report of Syeda Hameed and others titled "How the Gujarat massacre affected minority women'' makes for chilling reading in terms of the systematic violence against women. It shames the Government and all of us. But that shame is a worthy sentiment only if it compels the Government into prosecuting the guilty. Of what use is a shame that is worried only about how it looks abroad? Rather than railing at the West, it would be worthwhile for the Government to demonstrate a sense of responsibility for the lives of its own citizens. Maybe even a little servility would be in order. The Government is, after all, the people's servant and not its benevolent ruler, as the misguided concept of raj dharma seems to imply.

It is conceivable that the Indian Government feels its newfound "natural ally'', the United States, will shield it from these global pressures. But in the contemporary world order, states, however powerful, are not the only actors affecting the international system. NGOs, international courts and diasporas affect global politics in powerful ways. As the Third U.N. Conference Against Racism in Durban demonstrated, Dalit groups achieved a significant level of support in global civil society by publicising their oppression as an issue of racism. Faculty from my college who attended the conference came back with a heightened awareness of these issues and that awareness has translated into course offerings, lectures and student activism. That is all to the good.

What is morally flawed and politically foolish in this context is for the Government to place itself against these progressive currents in the name of national sovereignty. If a Henry Kissinger himself is busy running away from international courts, then how safe are a Modi, an Advani or a Vajpayee?

There is a lesson here also for the more brand conscious CEOs such as Chandrababu Naidu who keep the NDA Government in power. Mr. Naidu has successfully marketed himself internationally as a Chief Minister focussed on clean governance but his opportunistic secularism could sink his brand quite rapidly. Large institutional investment funds increasingly base their investment decisions on criteria of global social responsibility. NGO activism on a range of issues (from furs to carpets to diamonds to footballs) is powerful enough for the U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, to have initiated a new "Global Compact" that brings together corporations, unions and NGOs to promote responsible corporate behaviour on the basis of universally accepted principles.

A self-respecting, truly democratic political leadership would seek to ensure the rule of law. It would dismiss the Modi administration and work with organisations in national and global civil society to stop the slaughter of innocent citizens, identify and arrest the guilty and put them on trial. Before the rest of the world demands it from them or, worse, does it for them. But these are not things one can claim with garv (pride) about Mera Bharat Mahaan, either as an Indian or as a Hindu or as a concerned human being.

(The writer is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Vassar College, New York.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Packaging for better results

Truce with extremism

Export patterns

The violence of sovereignty

Where women bore the brunt