J&K Part 2: Why a Potential J&K Exit will NOT "Balkanize" India

Note: This is part 2 of a 3-part series about the J&K dispute. In Part 1, I presented an unbiased history of the J&K conflict, followed by my proposed roadmap for a peaceful and permanent resolution, and my rebuttals to the rationalizations given in India for disallowing a plebiscite in J&K. In this post, I present my detailed rebuttal of one of the most common rationalizations that some Indians assume is "gospel truth" - that a potential exit of (parts of) J&K from the Union of India will somehow lead to a civil war and a "Balkanization" of India, a la Yugoslavia. I must concede that I used to subscribe to this view earlier. But after more careful analysis, I have come to the conclusion that this common rationalization (due mostly to irrational fear, ironically) mostly rings hollow! Of course, my analysis is of a purely hypothetical scenario where each state of India decides whether it should stay within the Union after the potential exit of (parts of) J&K. My opinion is based partially on anecdotal and electoral evidence. I am not encouraging any separatism or uprising, but merely opining about a "what-if" scenario.

Caution: Following the stifling seriousness of Part 1, I have decided to humor myself by peppering this post with subtle (and not-so subtle) sarcastic and edgy humor! I am aware that not everyone laughs at my jokes; so feel free to take offense, and an advanced apology. :D

India's Underlying "Hindu" Cultural Fabric

For two-thirds of a century, India has held together as one republic in spite of its incredible diversity, surprising the entire world. How did it achieve this remarkable feat? Clearly, India is not a "police state" - our police is simply too incompetent (largely speaking)! :D Most parts of India have little to no presence of the armed forces. So, what else could be the reason? I contend that, apart from its commitment to secular liberal democracy, it is India's underlying "Hindu cultural fabric" that creates a sense of cultural and religious "oneness". No, I do not consider myself a Hindutva nationalist. So, I encourage you to read through this reasoning patiently. Most of the Muslim-majority areas of the Indian subcontinent are outside of India already (Pakistan and Bangladesh). Within India, the most serious extant separatist conflicts are in J&K (Muslim-majority), Nagaland, and Mizoram (both Christian-majority). Granted, the conflicts in the north-east are not about religion per se, but the fact still stays. Assam (Hindu majority) might count as an exception, owing to its long history of independence from historical "pan-Indian" empires (see point 4 from the rebuttals in Part 1). I will address Assam in more detail shortly. Of course, this argument does not mean that non-Hindus are not part of the fabric of India! Rather, it means that Mahatma Gandhi's interpretation of pluralistic and monistic Hindu (read Advaita Vedantic) cultural values are the foundation of the Republic of India's "secularism". India's interpretation of secularism stands in stark contrast with the European/American meaning of secularism, viz., strict separation of religion from state affairs. This difference often invites ridicule from Western intellectuals, but seems to work for India. Most practicing Indian Hindus I know (primarily from the religions of Smartism, Shaivism, Shaktism, and Vaishnavism) do at some level consider the entire landmass of India - from Amarnath (J&K) to Kanyakumari (TN), and from Somnath (Gujarat) to Kamakhya (Assam) - as their "motherland, fatherland, and holy land" (to use the the words of the Hindutva nationalist, Savarkar). In this sense, I contend that India is both a "Hindu" country and a "secular" country (thanks to Gandhian Advaita Vedantism), both of which have been, are, and will be, instrumental in preserving its unity and integrity.

Let us consider all the states of India. I think it is laughable to imagine that the Hindi "heartland" states (UP, Bihar, MP, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Haryana, Delhi, Himachal, and Uttarakhand) would want to secede from India; so I ignore them. That leaves us with two classes of potential new demands for separatism - the north-eastern states, and the "regional powerhouse" states.

North-eastern States: Assam

From anecdotal evidence, it appears that popular support for separatism in Assam is indeed low, in sharp contrast to (parts of) J&K. The violent separatist militancy has all but died down, and even among the political separatists, factionalism and infighting has dissolved any unified anti-India stance. Assam's basic problem is this - it is not a monolithic entity; it has numerous internal ethno-linguistic tensions. However, most of the tribes and groups are pro-India. Thus, the threat of a post-secession civil war within Assam will likely make it stick to the Union of India, even if it comes to a vote.

North-eastern States: Others

I suspect that Nagaland and Mizoram would indeed demand their own plebiscites if (a part of) J&K exits the Union of India, and I think that is fair to grant them that. And I also suspect that both of them will vote to exit the Union of India. Honestly, I think this is an insignificant loss to the Union. :) I think so, not because their economies and populations are tiny or because most Indians would probably not be able to point them out on a map of India (which is probably mostly true :D), but because I do not know any Nagas or Mizos in any of the sciences, arts, sports, politics, etc., who have contributed significantly or memorably to India. Putting it bluntly, even if they exit, they might not be "missed" by most Indians. I apologize if this sounds offensive, but this is the truth (at least for me, and likely for most Indians). Of course, I recognize that my view may not be the most common on this point, and you can blame my political incorrectness or even ignorance. Of course, if they vote to stay in the Union, I would consider them the same as any other other state. With respect to Tripura, Manipur, Arunachal, Sikkim, and Meghalaya, I think they would all vote to stay within the Union, owing to the existential threats they face from China and illegal immigration from Bangladesh and Nepal.

Regional Powerhouses: Tamil Nadu

Next up is the old nemesis of the Hindi nationalists - Tamil Nadu! :D Periyar and the DMK used to advocate separatism based on linguistic and racial chauvinism early on after independence from Britain, but they have been successfully resolved within the framework of Indian democracy. Why? I think the "separatism" in TN was merely a political game to rein in the Hindi nationalists, who live in this bubble that India and Hindustan are identical, while the evidence says that less than half of India's population is Hindustani! Nothing scares the Hindi nationalists more than a bit of good old Tamil "separatism" (and Bengali too, if I may add)! :D On a serious note, I think TN's peaceful and complete integration with the Republic of India is one of the most under-appreciated success stories of democracy in the world. Many Western-style democracies themselves have failed here, e.g., Spain, and Turkey. Owing to crucial role of the large Indian market in Tamil Nadu's economy, and the large Tamil population in India outside of TN, I think the chance of TN separating is low, even if it does come to a vote. And if this is not reason enough, the real prospect of a catastrophic post-secession war with a Chinese-armed Lanka will almost certainly deter Tamil politicians from seeking to exit the Union of India. Most of them are from a thespian background anyway - they excel at political drama, and will likely flounder in a real war! :D

Regional Powerhouses: Punjab

Next, let us consider Punjab - a state that has witnessed brutal separatist violence in the past, but has put it behind successfully. Similar to TN, I think the (re)integration of Punjab is another great success story of democracy. Notwithstanding the attempts of the Hindutva groups to label Sikhs as being within the "Hindu fold", I am not confident that Punjab will opt to stay within the Union, if it comes to a vote. But I do think that the unfortunate but powerful memory of the anti-Sikh violence of 1984 will play a strong role in their decision. Punjab, of course, is economically viable as an independent country, but secession will come at a great cost for its (and the rest of India's) society and economy. There are many Punjabis in India outside of Punjab, including many mixed-marriage families. The rest of India is Punjab's largest "export market", which it could potentially lose. Since it is landlocked, an independent Punjab might have to depend more on Pakistan, which is not palatable due to its partition-related historical baggage. As for India, it will lose a major source of its agricultural produce. Not to mention controversial humor. :D But on a serious note, personally, I would be saddened if Punjab exits the Union.

Regional Powerhouses: Others

Again, I think similar arguments apply to most of the other regional powerhouses - Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, Bengal, Andhra, and Kerala as well as the significantly poorer Odisha and Telangana. None of these states have had a history of separatist tendencies. All of these are Hindu-majority states. And they stand to lose a lot economically and socially if they secede from the Union of India. For example, the rich industrial and service-driven economies of Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Karnataka are highly integrated with the rest of India, and will likely collapse if they secede. The economies of Odisha, Bengal, and Telangana (along with Bihar and UP) are heavily dependent on migration of their workers to the other states of India for employment. Kerala and Andhra are sort of a mix of both, but they have large, vulnerable expatriate populations in the Middle East ("ungle in the gelf" anyone? :D) and US (been to the "Visa" Balaji temple?). Without the muscle of a unified Indian foreign policy, they will likely find it hard to confront those countries. Thus, I suspect all these states will probably not even want a vote! The last state left is Goa, which of course, fought the Portuguese to join India, and is unlikely to exit. We are left with tiny union territories, none of which have any inklings of separatism.

All in all, I think the potential loss of Punjab will probably be the only major loss to the Union of India, if (parts of) J&K vote to secede, and a plebiscite is held in all states. Nevertheless, due to the economic, social, political, and religious reasons I outlined above, I think that the rebooted Union of India, following the exit of those states, will probably be stronger and more united than ever before! Or not. :) The regional powerhouses (maybe even Bihar) might demand more autonomy from New Delhi, but still within the Union. As such, we are already seeing this "regionalization", or "decentralization" of Indian politics - a trend that some consider as being healthy for India's federal setup (I concur), while others consider as the warning signs of a break up, a la USSR. This trend, of course, is unrelated to the J&K dispute. A future "Union of Indian Socialist Republics (UISR)", or "United States of India (USI)", perhaps? LOL, no, I am fine with "Republic of India". Another blog post then, circa 2050. :)

If you are an Indian, feel free to let me know whether you think my analysis of your state's possible outcome is accurate (especially, Assam, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Punjab). I am always interested in hearing new perspectives! :)