September 1... I will remember this day for a lot of things reasons...
Among them was the fact that I decided to join an MDMK rally expressing solidarity with the struggle for Tamil Eelam and to condemn the genocide in Sri Lanka. Well, I have been clear, ever since 1983 when the government aided the mass murder of the Tamil people, that Tamil Eelam is a legitimate demand and the regime there was an immoral one, I had not participated in any such demonstrative actions then. Because, I was in an organisation that considered the demand for a nation for the tamils as seperatist. And, I was not too sure about the need to revolt against the organisation then. Revolted finally in 1991 when the organisation refused to speak out against the arrest (under TADA, a notorious Preventive Detention Law in vogue then) of a fellow student in the university. Yes. But the Tamil resistance movement had become a ``bad'' word in India around that time. Particularly after May 21, 1991! I would argue, with friends and others that my position on the issue need not and cannot be determined by the life and death of one individual!!!! Yes. I continued to believe that Tamil Eelam is the only solution and the just solution too.
On September 1, 2006, I realised that this ``position'' of mine did not mean anything unless I become part of that campaign. And moreover, like I do in the case of the Palestine cause and against the US invasion of Iraq, I must also be part of a demonstation that stood by the Tamil speaking people of Sri Lanka.
It is a different matter that I do not hold Vaiko with any regard. But that did not matter. The issue he took up was important and I joined the procession. And patiently sat there to listen to Vaiko... and more so to Pazha Nedumaran.
As the rally was coming to an end, I got a message that MS Appa Rao, that great man who battles against the British in 1942 and against Indira in 1976, had passed away. Well, MS uncle, I think the best way to pay homage to you will be to stand by the struggling people whenever ad wherever they are.
Among them was the fact that I decided to join an MDMK rally expressing solidarity with the struggle for Tamil Eelam and to condemn the genocide in Sri Lanka. Well, I have been clear, ever since 1983 when the government aided the mass murder of the Tamil people, that Tamil Eelam is a legitimate demand and the regime there was an immoral one, I had not participated in any such demonstrative actions then. Because, I was in an organisation that considered the demand for a nation for the tamils as seperatist. And, I was not too sure about the need to revolt against the organisation then. Revolted finally in 1991 when the organisation refused to speak out against the arrest (under TADA, a notorious Preventive Detention Law in vogue then) of a fellow student in the university. Yes. But the Tamil resistance movement had become a ``bad'' word in India around that time. Particularly after May 21, 1991! I would argue, with friends and others that my position on the issue need not and cannot be determined by the life and death of one individual!!!! Yes. I continued to believe that Tamil Eelam is the only solution and the just solution too.
On September 1, 2006, I realised that this ``position'' of mine did not mean anything unless I become part of that campaign. And moreover, like I do in the case of the Palestine cause and against the US invasion of Iraq, I must also be part of a demonstation that stood by the Tamil speaking people of Sri Lanka.
It is a different matter that I do not hold Vaiko with any regard. But that did not matter. The issue he took up was important and I joined the procession. And patiently sat there to listen to Vaiko... and more so to Pazha Nedumaran.
As the rally was coming to an end, I got a message that MS Appa Rao, that great man who battles against the British in 1942 and against Indira in 1976, had passed away. Well, MS uncle, I think the best way to pay homage to you will be to stand by the struggling people whenever ad wherever they are.
posted by Krishna Ananth at
9:01 AM
10 Comments:
In principle I'm all for movements for independence, including those within India.
Nevertheless, does it mean, at some level, that a state has to be coeval with a nation, or a "race"? Is there no means by which a state can be a state of many equal nations?
interesting query there cheri...
but if we are to define a nation as one comprising of territory, sovereignty, government and people then where do we go with your thought? are we really seeing it as increasing the federal structure of the state?
I'm not sure whether I precisely understand your question, Vibha. Could you explain?
hmm...let's see if i have got you right...
when we talk of a state of many equal nations, say within a nation, than are we talking of just increasing the federal character of the State, ie., giving more autonomy to the different states within a nation? (of course in the context of my definition of the nation)
A democratic multi-ethnic state would require that its constituent peoples have greater rights, and hence, they must have greater autonomy than a unitary state allows. In that sense, yes, greater federalism is a way.
The idea of autonomy and federalism has to be qualified. Would it mean merely devolving powers to the constituent states (as is in the case of India) or would it mean greater stakes in the control of resources (as the Baloch are demanding)? And, are these enough in themselves?
Of course, economic and political autonomy are important. In the Baloch movement, for instance, is a story of how the ethnic identity has been used to mobilise people for what is in the final analysis, a economic question (revenues from the Sui gas fields, jobs from the Gawadar port). Indeed, the Sardars who lead the current insurgency were all at one time great allies of Islamabad. Ethnicity was easily pacified by economic sops (or as in Balochistan, by the promise of sop
But along with a federal structure that recognises political autonomy and control over resources, do we also need a recognition of cultural autonomy? Is cultural automony an effect, or a cause for political and economic autonomy?
Looking at Sri Lanka: the first attacks against the Tamils were through the medium of culture; the Tamil identity was sought to be erased from Sri Lankan public affairs - Sinhala was made the official language, Tamil was incresinly proscribed and Tamils were discriminated against in higher education.
Here comes the question that I posed. Is it possible for multiple ethnic groups qua ethnic groups (and not just as economic or politicalo groups) to remain under a single state, more so, under a state that posits itself as the will of the populace?
The last point is material, as in a monarchy, the ruler is the symbol of unity, and such a state is governed not by calls to a popular mandate, but more to a divine mandate. Such a state can ignore to a larger degree claims from marginal groups.
In a democratic polity, where the state derives its authority from the people, and is concerned with balancing the claims of groups - maintaining the status quo as much as possible, so to say - can multiple nations exist? With or without federalism?
In South Asia, the experience would point to the contrary. India's numerous insurgencies are well known, so is Sri Lanka's. In Pakistan, the Balochi, the Pathan, and increasingly, the Sindhi, are declaring their claims against the Punjabi. In Bhutan, a hundred thousand Lhotsampha have been expelled by the ruling Drukpa. In Nepal, the Maoist movement drew much from the pent-up anger of the many little ethic groups.
This may be the norm, and given the political and economic circumstances, I would support each of these movements. Nevertheless, in the idiom of EM Foster, can we not be friends, until we have driven each other into the sea?
Cheri/Vibha,
I think you both are, with some difference, looking at the state as just the executive. In other words, the instruments of the state. And then talking in terms of making the state accountable, representative, etc. And at some point, wondering or even imagining the possibility of this instrument, working in a fashion where it includes the aspirations of all, in the social, economic and political sense of the term. May be a set up, that Gandhi loudly thought about; the trusteeship.
I think we don't mean any of this when we refer to the concept of nation. And let's be clear that the concept of nation is real and it presupposes the other in order to remain alive. And this is a development of the post-feudal era; I don't want to call it capitalist because we can see nations emerging and sustaining even in a semi-feudal context and the Indian nation is an instance of this.
This, I think is what Cheri refers to when he expresses apprehensions ... and yes, the nation, necessarily pre-supposes an antagonistic other and this also emerges into a nation, either real or notional. Palestine, Afghanistan, Kurdistan, Khalistan, etc. (I know I am painting a lot of things with one brush!!!!!!!)
The point is, the Tamil National Identity in Sri Lanka and its evolution as the movement for Tamil Eelam was the outcome of the reification of the Sinhala Nation within Sri Lanka ... yes. this has been pointed out by Cheri while Vibha sticking to her idea of nation as the same as the nation state.
Now, why do we have to search for stability? I mean, stability and the quest for that is not very different from celebrating the status quo and then dismissing all the challenges, including the national movements as disruptive/divisive and all such ideas!!!!!!!!!
Having said all this, why not ponder over the following proposition?
The Tamil National movement in Sri Lanka being a specific response to the consolidation of the Sinhala nationalism, is also the expression of protest at this stage. And rest assured that the consolidation of the Tamil Eelam will spur another kind of oppression ... could be the Tamil speaking Muslims, the plantation workers and this could and will set the stage for another movement. Just like the Jews, victimised by Nazi Germany emerged as the oppressors and this lending to the PLO/Hamas/Hezbollah.
Or like Saddam and the Baathist party turning out to be oppressors of the Kurds.
This being the reality and the course of history, we have to clarify to ourselves. And answer the question as to whether we are prepared to stand up for the oppressed in a given situation. Stability is not our concern because nothing can be stable!!!!
Permanent Revolution !!!!!!!!!!
What I tried to mean by stability was not status quo. Rather, it was a thought on the end of a permanent opposition.
The question is: are we condemned to keep splitting these post-feudal identities? Tamil against the Sinhala today, Muslim Tamil against the Hindu Tamil tomorrow? Like as in Indian versus British to Pakistan versus India to Baluchi versus Punjabi?
We must be ready to support the underdog, but shouldn’t we also ask : Where does it end? Is there an end other than the atomisation of society?
My apprehension on using ethnic bonds as the basis of the nation, and extrapolated, of the state, rests on the arbitrariness and the fluidity of the concept of ethnicity and nation.
The nation and the state are different, but in a post-feudal democracy, the (dominant) nation and the state elide each other, each becoming the other, each drawing legitimacy from the other. There is a fundamental contradiction at play here – the democratic state is the actualisation of the people, but its feudal nature makes the state an expression of the dominant interests.
I agree with you Cheri..But, my problem is that man, as an active interventionist and even as the agent of change, does not have the luxury of chosing the objective reality in which he operates and seeks the change. This being the basis (and I think you agree with this premise, that enabled Marx to set out on his treatise on Historical Materialism), do we wait, endlessly for the ideal change or be part of and also act as the agent in the change... well, the owl of minerva cries at the darkest hour!!!!
Meanwhile, can you think of a basis other than identities (ethnic, shared history, shared experience) that have helped in nation building (and here I use nation as to refer to a community exercise and not as it is understood). Well, can there be a movement or change without the other???
Tamil Eelam!
Now that's exactly what India wants!
The first military expedition would be against India for Cauvery water!
Ravi!
Don't get you. What do you mean when you say India want's Tamil Eelam? And what has Cauvery water have to do with Tamil Eelam? The geography, as I know, does not permit Cauvery to be taken to Eelam... unless you are talking of a water pipe, under the sea, to the Eelam land!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home