Jai Prithivinarayan Shah, Jai Gorkha, Jai Gorkhaland!
Posted by barunroy on February 6, 2008
A MUST READ ARTICLE!
PLEASE READ AND COMMENT!
Dear Sir,
Herewith an article explaining the assumed confusion of the much hyped term Gorkha, or whatever it means, but arising a deep sense of parochial brotherhood leading the people to a dead end alley, blinkers over the eyes on route to invisible agenda for the benefit of some vested persons from respective communities. Accordingly, the article has been appropriately titled to bring out the truth, Jai Prithivinarayan Shah, Jai Gorkha, Jai Gorkhaland, which very name rings the alarm bell to the Indian mind vis-à-vis the kingdom of Nepal, even to consider statehood under such name. This article is basically to enlighten the public for further research and investigation on the topic.
Jai Prithivinarayan Shah, Jai Gorkha, Jai Gorkhaland
In your Darjeeling Times Vol. 1. No. 2 15 Jan – 14 Feb 2008, Pg 20 title letter from the Chief which designation is ambiguous, to ask the question, Chief ‘sitting bull’ or Chief ‘Udhyan Rai’ kindly explain.
Also the entire magazine contributively concerning the Darjeeling Hills prominently in the foreground printed to highlight the editorship of Barun Roy’s personal journalistic agenda, rough shod riding on Bimal Gurung’s GJMM nirvanic Gorkhaland salvation, and which too rodeo-rode on Prashant Tamang the Indian Idol III, the messiah of Gorkha chauvinism, distinct in the previous but recently established Bharatiya Gorkha Parisangh (BGP), supposedly spearheading the cause of the Gorkhas, for some ominous reasons at the national level. The Indian intelligence, attributed to make an anthill out of a mole hole, pretending as the proverbial dumb witted sleuth, by asking unexplainable questions and rhetoric’s to the birth and existence of BGP as a large social cultural corporate.
The people of Darjeeling hills are more puzzled with themselves than with the gurus, read Gorkhaland leaders, whereas the issue remains simply the one and only separation from Bengal whether annexed with Sikkim, Nepal, Bhutan or simply a unit state of India which has been denied for past 100 years by the British in pre-independent India and by Bengal in connivance with the Centre in post independent era, when the entire country professed democratic right to self determination but denied to the people of Darjeeling district.
Prachanda (does not use surname as its use would have divided the unity of the peoples of Nepal) on the contrary united the various tribes and non-tribes of Nepal under the downtrodden universal political philosophy of Maoism without a hint or mention of the mantra Gorkha or Nepali. This is an interesting for the intelligentsia to fathom. Herein some suggestions directed to arriving at the answer. In Pawan Chamling’s Sikkim, the word Gorkha is practically extinct and his once own associate B. M. Subba raising the word Gorkha was sent into oblivion and now to become a spokesman person for BGP. In Bhutan it is an unspoken word, and from which country the Nepalese refugee/émigrés has settled in large scaled in Darjeeling district specially in adjoining Kalimpong. So why is the term preserved in the socio-political background of Darjeeling hills and gaining a kick-start momentum in recent times. The Darjeeling hills is only small geophysical entity but strategically situated in the continuity of the above geo-political landmass. This is a million dollar question to be transparently answered by alt the organizations named with the prefix Gorkha, which word according to Nepal’s historical context referred to the Shah dynasty of Kings from the house of Gorkhas of Indian immigrant ruling class in Nepal and other high class Hindus comprising Ranas, Brahmins, Chettris and maybe Pradhans. Paradoxically and strangely the rule of the Prithivinarayan Shah Gorkha Kings are now terminated, primarily by Prachanda’s Maoist revolutioners’ inspite of Prime Minister Koirala’s soft corner for the continuance of the monarchy. Here’s a question for the BGP, should it not be inviting the Hindu monarchial Shah Gorkha Kings dethroned in Nepal to return to India after 250 years rule in Nepal, to help set BGP to set about a state in India if not a sovereign Kingdom?
The hill peoples of Darjeeling suppressed under British and now Bengal rule who openly claim the Darjeeling hills as the ‘crown of Bengal’ asserting a no compromise situation to let the people of Darjeeling secede from its fold whereas at the same time depriving the hill people of their cherished dream of self-determination, a fundamental human right for indigenous peoples enshrined in the Declaration by 143 members of United Nations. Is it the CPM rulers who are denying democratic rights or is it the Bengal of Rabindranath Tagore and Subhas Chandra Bose who are denying the hill people their democratic rights (it is in record that many German POW Indian soldiers from the Darjeeling hill joined Netaji’s Indian National Army, as well as freedom fighters including the late Congressman Shri Sapkota (the hill Gandhi) and other hill personalities championed the cause for Indian independence). Are the fruits of their arduous labour being denied to the generations of these Indian nationalists is the question that the hill peoples of Darjeeling Hills are asking.
With no historical reason in support nor justification the hill people are seemed to be divided on tribals and non-tribals basis, whereas the reason is otherwise, but simply the inapplicability of the term Gorkha, whereas the term infers the non-tribals, who too would like to be recognized as tribals to derive the constitutional overtures. This situation has become conspicuous and an immediate relevance, wherein the Gurung and the Rai communities as a whole have appealed for a Scheduled Tribe designation (pending review by the Scheduled Tribe & Scheduled caste Minorities Commission) where already 34% of the population composing the following tribes Lepchas, (Bhutias, Sherpas and others) Tamangs and Limbus. If the Gurung and the Rai communities are conferred tribal designation, it is estimated over 60 % of the hill population will be Scheduled tribes, with the possibility of the area being considered under the Fifth as well as the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution as bonafide tribal areas.
In such eventuality what happens to the word Gorkha. Does it just vanish or is the banner carried on by the non-tribal communities, exclusive of the Scheduled caste who are already recognized by constitutional provisions. In the process of eliminations the communities who are left to raise the Gorkha flag, remaining are, the higher caste Hindus including the Brahmins, the Chettriyas and allied Hindu communities. Can marginalization of these high caste Hindus be the hidden agenda, i.e. to aspire and preserve this ruling statesmanship by conveniently using the word Gorkha, seem to unite the Darjeeling hills peoples under a common cause, Gorkhaland, initially maybe a state of India, and possibly a sovereign country under the auspicious of BGP, or corporate.
Thanking you
This entry was posted on February 6, 2008 at 6:11 pm and is filed under Have your Say?. Tagged: b m subba, barun roy, bengal, bgp, bharatiya gorkha parisangh, bhutan, bhutias, bimal gurung, brahmins, british, centre, chettris, congressman, cpm, darjeeling district, darjeeling hills, darjeeling times, editorship, fifth, german pow, gjmm, gorkha, gurung, gurungs, hindu monarchy, india, indian idol iii, indian intelligence, indian national army, indian soldiers, jai gorkha, jai gorkhaland, jai prithivinarayan shah, kalimpong, kingdom of nepal, koirala, lepchas, limbus, maoism, maoist, minorities commission, nepal, nepali, netaji, nirvanic, non tribes, pawan chamling, prachanda, pradhan, prashant tamang, pre-independent india, prime minister, rabindranath tagore, rai, ranas, s prithivinarayan shah gorkha, sapkota, scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, shah dynasty, sherpas, sikkim, sixth schedule, subhas chandra bose, tamangs, united nations. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
February 6, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Dear friends,
Greetings from Darjeeling!
I received this mail today. Neatly printed in an official format with the name and the address of the writer evidently missing. The writer has expressed his or her opinion on the Second edition of Darjeeling Times which I have the good fortune and honour of Editing. I have even taken care not to edit the letter in any way and to publish it here ‘as it were written’.
I will answer to the allegations made in herewith. However, I would first like to know what our readers feel. Please feel free to offer your candid opinion. I will abide by the Blogger’s code of ethics and not delete any comment however, hard it might be.
yours faithfully,
Barun Roy
February 6, 2008 at 6:56 pm
there will be no gorkhaland. The centre does not want it because we do not trust people with dubious nationality funded by the chinese.
Prime minister Morarji desai clearly stated that nepalis are foreigners- if they have any demand they can go back to nepal and make their demands there. I dont think you can dispute that.We do not want you. Stay in india and follow the rules or go back
Subhas Ghisingh has created a personal feifdom in the hills- there is no accountability. this cant go on. the only rule is the rule of terror and fear in the hills
February 6, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Jai Pritihivinarayan Shah, Jai Gorkha, Jai Gorkhaland and yes ultimately an independent Hindu Nation. Barun Roy is a Bengali who is a Pro-Hindu, Pro-Gorkha, Pro-Shah Monarch’s (in Nepal), Pro-RSS, Pro-VHP and ultimately and anti-Indian! It would have been better if you worked for the betterment of your own people! You are a traitor for the Bengalis all over the world. Why are you so much in favour of Gorkhaland when you arn’t even a Gorkha! And one more thing is there such a thing as Gorkha as a race? Do answer that question.
February 6, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Question of Identity
Reasons was dampened for more than twenty years in Darjeeling and we experienced democratic rights stolen, human rights handicapped and truth vieled. It was almost like one sided referee game and a foolish act for foolish act; in nature. As a consequence, economic, social, and political conditions for the hill people were deteriorated. But analyzing present political situation we can say that a time has come for us to be united for the demand of a separate state (Gorkhaland) not only nationwide but globally. Our scholars and intelligentsias have much purposeful role to play but this should not be like what we have seen in the past years - the creation of beautiful illusions and reign of a kind of implicit intellectual terrorism and also a drain of brains. Today, in this age of globalization how our racial and cultural identity is endangered is connected with the questions of cultural subjugations, ethics, and global image and identity itself in the context of national identity.
Eagam Khaling
Rungnook T.E.
Sonada - 734219
February 6, 2008 at 7:15 pm
dear barun,
the bengal tiger and the bengali are blessings in disguise for your site…at least they amuse us with their meaningless chatter..sometimes they are funny..other times down right provocative..but never dull..love these two ‘rascals’
some times i wonder if they aren’t fictional characters created by some Gorkhaland lover to add some imaginary counterweight.. to an other wise open and shut case
…indeed how boring life in this blog would be if it were not for them..
keep bringing them on guys…
barun don’t ever ban them..a little sense of humor never hurt anyone..
February 6, 2008 at 8:09 pm
if you can wade past the rather dense prose of the anonymous writer you will realize that he is only muddling the issue and walking straight into the “gorkhaland is anti-national’/ ‘greater nepal’ trap laid out by the likes of …you know who…especially when he makes this kind of jingoistic projections about the future..
“Can marginalization of these high caste Hindus be the hidden agenda, i.e. to aspire and preserve this ruling statesmanship by conveniently using the word Gorkha, seem to unite the Darjeeling hills peoples under a common cause, Gorkhaland, initially maybe a state of India, and possibly a sovereign country under the auspicious of BGP, or corporate.”
i would also like to point out that the word gorkha is used by the different political parties in a talismanic sense and not because they have thought through its anthropological, ethnographic justifications..in other words it is a political USP designed to catch voters/followers .. an inclusive tag rather succinctly captured by this andolan day slogan
BHOTEY LAPCHEY NEPALI
HAMI SABAI GORKHALI
it could also be pointed out that Ghising with his typically naive reasoning sought to use it to distinguish indian nepalis from the real nepalese..
today the use of the word has caught on and no amount of polemical nitpicking can undo its popularity or relevance…
you could maybe understand it better if you drew up a HMT analogy from the corporate world..
February 6, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Hi everyone
I am sitting in Switzerland, and as I used to live in Kalimpong for some time, I keep following your debates and the political situation in Darjeeling.
I am not going to be involved in any “what is right or wrong” discussion, that is left for you “locals” to care for, and as a foreigner I’m especially reluctant to voice my opinion here. But sometimes it may help to get an unbiased outside view, and as I’m writing a news article on the Gorkhaland issue, it will be interesting for me to get your responses. Also I’ve seen that Eegam Khaling has raised the issue of the endangered “racial and cultural identity”, and Bengal Tiger on the other side has asked the question, “is there such a thing as Gorkha as a race?”
I have been asking myself one very simple question: Who are the Gorkhas? I mean, how do you define the people who are fighting for Gorkhaland now? Is it the Indian Nepali-speaking people? How important is the divide between Nepali Nepalis, and Indian Nepalis in this discussion? And: When I was in Darjeeling in January, I saw people of all tribes fighting for Gorkhaland, what is the stance of the tribes like the Lepchas or Bhutias on all this? Are they considered Gorkhas? They are surely not originally Nepalis, and they have a different language, too.
My only opinion here is: now that the Gorhkas are wishing for more autonomy or even independence based on a common identity, the Gorkha identity, there should be transparency what this identity actually means!
If you want to get into what researchers say who have written about the issue, read this by Selma K. Sonntag of 2004. One excerpt from that article for you to debate about:
“What is being created in the process is a pan-ethnic identity based on the Nepali language. It is an identity that is socially constructed in opposition to the dominant Bengali culture of the state of West Bengal, in which Darjeeling is located.”
So there’s no such original thing as the “Gorkhas” at all? (I do know about the Gorkha ethnicity in Nepal and that many of them came from Nepal, but surely this is not all about them!)
Looking forward to hear your opinion.
Corinne
February 6, 2008 at 8:37 pm
“What is being created in the process is a pan-ethnic identity based on the Nepali language. It is an identity that is socially constructed in opposition to the dominant Bengali culture of the state of West Bengal, in which Darjeeling is located.”
such academic myopia misses the fact that ‘Gorkhas’ exist ( or are organized as such) in Assam and the North East..in Dehra Dun and other parts of Uttar Anchal , all geographically and politically removed from the ‘dominant Bengali culture of the state of West Bengal’
the use of word Gorkha is not as reactionary as it is being made to be in the aforementioned statement..Gorkhas do not define/create or ’socially construct’ their identity as a reaction to domination whether perceived or real…it is a positive terminology and it would require a biased analyst to posit that an entire people would define or assert their identity as a reaction to something….
in the darjeeling hills you will find this term being used rampantly only in political sloganeering…the real Gorkhas/nepalis are busy trying to make a life as anybody else
February 6, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Wow after a long time, something worth debating about. As for Corinne, well you have come to the right place. So lets start!
I agree with everyone here the unknown writer is right, so is the Bengali, the Bengal Tiger (this is the first time I am agreeing with them) and of course Celaphus - Morarji Desai did rather tell all those demanding for the recognition of the Nepali language to ‘go to Nepal and meeting their King’, Yes, at times movements for statehood did grow into Greater Nepal campaigns. And of course, ‘Gorkha’ as the word itself is a mere USP for all political campaigns. Sadly, however, the summary of all this is that there is no such thing as Gorkha. Gorkha as a term does not imply to one single race. And yes, during the beginning of the Prithivi Narayan Shah Dynasty and the rise of the Gorkha Empire, there were greater subjugation of the Limbus, Rais and other races which were not Gorkhas. Today, to call up a Limbu or a Rai and tell them that they are not Gorkhas would be taken as a lie. The Gorkhas themselves constituted of the Chettris, Newars, and Rajputana Shah’s.
February 6, 2008 at 9:03 pm
To today say that the Gorkhas could not even have been the Nepalese and that the Gorkha Pioneers and Prithivi Narayan Shah himself were Rajputs (of Indian origin) could be sacrilegious.
February 6, 2008 at 9:05 pm
So this is the reality finding its way down from the dungeons of lie. There are no Gorkhas - Gorkha as a term is merely like Pepsi - a mere USP.
February 6, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Dear Miss Corinne I have downloaded the PDF and extracted the text here. It will be easy for these so called Gorkhaland warriors to read.
Read this Gorkheys!
National Minority Rights in the Himalayas SELMA K. SONNTAG Humboldt State University, California, USA*
India is a multicultural liberal democratic state. It is also a poor, overpopulated Third World country. Many modernization theorists have assumed that these two descriptors were at odds, or at least sequentially determined with economic development a necessary pre-condition for democracy, and hence predicted the failure of the Indian experiment because of its ‘fissiparous tendencies’ (Harrison 1960). More contemporary comparative political scientists have attempted more sophisticated and nuanced explanations of the Indian experiment than what modernization theorists offered (see, e.g., Mitra 2001). Also recently political theorists have increasingly turned their attention to multiculturalism (see, e.g., Parekh 2000). In this paper, I use a particular type of accommodation made by the Indian state to cultural diversity, constitutionally prescribed in the Sixth Schedule for parts of Assam but increasingly applied elsewhere in the northern stretches of Indian territory, to investigate contributions of recent liberal theory to understanding India’s multiculturalism. One of the most prominent political theorists in recent times in the West is Will Kymlicka, who weds multiculturalism to liberalism in his liberal theory of minority rights. The mainstay of his theory is his distinction between national minorities and immigrant ethnic groups. Through this distinction he describes and prescribes accommodations made by the liberal state to cultural diversity. Although he admits that there are gray areas or ‘hard cases’ that challenge his categorization, his ‘approach’ has been ‘to draw clear lines in muddy waters’ (Kymlicka 1997: 72). Can Kymlickian lines be drawn in the sediment-filled streams flowing down from the Himalayas? Do Kymlicka’s categories, and, more generally, his theory help us understand India’s liberal multiculturalism as practiced in the Himalayan foothills of north India? * Professor Sonntag is Chair of the Department of Government & Politics, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. E-mail: sks1@humboldt.edu.
HEIDELBERG PAPERS IN SOUTH ASIAN AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS
Working Paper No. 21 · June 2004 · ISSN 1617-5069 · http://www.hpsacp.uni-hd.de
SELMA K. SONNTAG 2
KYMLICKA TRAVELS TO INDIA For Kymlicka, national minorities are ‘territorially concentrated cultures’ that have been historically ‘incorporated’ into a larger nation-state. In contrast, ‘ethnic groups’, in Kymlicka’s schema, result from ‘individual and familial immigration’ (1995:10). Kymlicka argues that his two categories of national minorities and immigrant ethnic groups have practical relevance for liberal democratic states: ‘differential treatment of immigrants and national minorities [...] is a well-established feature of liberal democracies’ (1997: 73). This differential treatment is grounded in the rights discourse of liberalism. National minorities have the right to self-determination, according to the Wilsonian liberal tradition that Kymlicka admires. Immigrant ethnic groups, on the other hand, are usually granted ‘polyethnic rights’ or perhaps even ‘special representation rights’ by the liberal state. Polyethnic rights would include, for example, government funding for privately practiced cultural or religious beliefs; special representation rights would be some kind of quota affirmative action or what is known in India as reservations policy. Polyethnic and special representation rights are indeed familiar features of Western liberal democracies. As Kymlicka (1989) notes, liberal democracies usually have no problem with temporary special representation rights or polyethnic rights in the private sphere; however, they may be quite reluctant to grant self-determination rights. This does not appear to be the case in India. In India, for reasons to be explored in this paper, the liberal state seems to be more willing to grant self-determination rights than polyethnic rights in the ‘hard cases’ of the Himalayas. India grants self-government rights to certain minority groups through provisions of the Sixth Schedule of its constitution. These provisions allow for the establishment of ‘autonomous councils’. Originally designed for the Naga region of Assam, autonomous councils have more recently been established in Darjeeling and Ladakh, as well as regions in addition to the Naga area in the Northeast and elsewhere. The Jharkhand autonomous council has already evolved into statehood in the Indian federal union, and in Uttarakhand a contemplated autonomous council was bypassed in favor of statehood. After briefly discussing the original autonomous council provisions, I will focus on Darjeeling, where the first autonomous council outside of Assam was established in 1988, and on Uttarakhand. The siting of autonomous councils insinuates the historical incorporation of territorially concentrated cultures. Autonomous councils are all on the borderlands of the Indian nation-state. They are all in areas that under British colonial rule were, to use colonial terminology, ‘excluded’ or ‘partially excluded’ areas along the ‘frontiers’ of the British empire. Darjeeling and Uttarakhand are in the Himalayas, the former just east of Nepal and the latter just west of Nepal. Even someplace like Jharkhand which today appears to be well in the interior of India was the South West Frontier Agency in 1833, given that Bengal was the colonial center at the time. By ‘excluded’ the British meant ‘non-regulated’ (a term used
SELMA K. SONNTAG 3
prior to ‘excluded’), in terms of the Raj’s regulations and administration. Upon independence, the Constituent Assembly heatedly debated the wisdom of retaining these colonial exclusions – but they were retained, renamed as ‘scheduled areas’ (Sonntag 1999). Scheduled areas, the constitutional designation for granting self-government rights, are as much a feature of the post-colonial state as they are of the liberal state. The ‘schedule’ in ‘scheduled areas’ refers to the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Indian Constitution, both of which address accommodation of ‘tribals’. At the Constituent Assembly, there was intense discussion and disagreement between assimilationists, who argued for only polyethnic and special representation rights for tribals, and Nehruvian liberals who argued for self-government rights. The compromise was that the Sixth Schedule would grant self-government, originally limited to the Nagas in Assam. The Fifth Schedule was for all other tribals; though it granted the tribals the right to participate in an (appointed) tribal advisory council, its main purpose was to establish special development zones in tribal areas. Its measures were considered temporary with the ultimate goal being tribal assimilation into the mainstream. The Fifth Schedule granted what Kymlicka would define as special representation associated with polyethnic rights, rights that, in Kymlicka’s scheme, are meant to be temporary and to enable integration and assimilation. The Sixth Schedule, in contrast, recognized permanent self-governing rights. Given the contrasting rights granted in the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, are tribals ‘national minorities’ or ‘ethnic groups’ in Kymlicka’s terms? The widely used Indian term for tribals is ‘adivasi’. It carries the connotation of aboriginal, living in geographically and topographically isolated areas (usually in forest-jungle areas). Tribal/adivasi also carries the connotation of being culturally different. These characteristics would suggest that they are national minorities, according to Kymlicka’s categorization. However, it seems to have been the degree of cultural difference that determined whether tribals fell under the Fifth or Sixth Schedule, at least when these constitutional provisions were initially conceived. Many in the Constituent Assembly appeared fixated on the head-hunting cultural traits of the Nagas, willingly granting the Nagas self-government rather than risking their own heads by forcing assimilation (Sonntag 1999: 420). For other tribals such as those in Jharkhand, who were at least superficially just as different as the Nagas (minus the head-hunting), the Constituent Assembly only granted temporary measures under the Fifth Schedule to facilitate assimilation. In other words, tribals who were at the cultural margins (e.g., headhunters) were most likely to be granted self-government. One non-Naga adivasi member of the Constituent Assembly complained that he was expected to don native garb and brandish a spear if he was to be considered a tribal by his colleagues.1 Not only were the Nagas culturally ‘far out’, but they were also geographically peripheral. Assam is located to the north and northeast of Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan), sandwiched between Bhutan, China (Tibet) and Burma. It was and
1 Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume IX, 995 [5th September 1949]; Jaipal Singh.
SELMA K. SONNTAG 4
still is at the outer limits of the Indian nation-state. Ironically, in addition to being head-hunters, the Nagas were apparently skilled negotiators: Some members of the Constituent Assembly referred to the delicate negotiations between the Nagas and the new Indian state, with the Nagas threatening to join Tibet or Burma if not granted self-government (Sonntag 1999: 420). Although Kymlicka dismisses deal-cutting as an anomaly in liberal accommodations of minorities (for example, with the Amish or Hasidic Jews in the United States), the Indian case here suggests that it may be more central than Kymlicka acknowledges. India’s initial reasons for granting self-government rights appear at odds with Kymlicka’s theory. Self-government rights were established, but only in the Sixth Schedule, limited to a portion of Assam, and probably because of fear (of those head-hunting Nagas). At least initially, then, the liberal Indian government didn’t treat its tribals consistently and in some cases not even differently from the allegedly assimilable polyethnic groups, despite Kymlicka’s insistence that liberal governments do so but liberal theorists just don’t acknowledge it (Kymlicka 1997: 74). Darjeeling The extension of self-government through autonomous councils outside of Assam beginning in the 1980s casts further doubt on the applicability of Kymlicka’s categories to India. As mentioned above, Darjeeling was the first area outside of Assam in which an autonomous council was established. Although this was a ‘partially excluded’ area under the British Raj, it is not a tribal area. Some groups are supposedly autochthonous (such as the Bhotia and Lepchas) and therefore could be, and sometimes are, considered adivasis, albeit Tibeto-Burman. Other, non-adivasi, Tibeto-Burman groups, such as Tamangs, Magars, Gurungs, Sherpas, Rai and Limbu, form the majority of the population. Along with the Indo-Aryan Khas Chettris, these groups all make up the ‘Gorkhalis’ of the region.2 The region was incorporated into the British Raj in the early 19th century, a ‘gift’ from independent Nepal. By being ‘historical incorporated’, the population would fit into Kymlicka’s category of national minority. However, many Gorkhalis migrated to the region during the British Raj to work on the tea plantations. They are therefore ethnic groups, according to Kymlicka’s categorization. There is no distinction made in Darjeeling between those who were incorporated, i.e., those who form a national minority in Kymlicka’s terms, and those who migrated, i.e., those who are ethnic. Already we are presented with a problem in using Kymlicka’s categories. When we move from categories of minorities to categories of demands in Kymlicka’s framework, the problems do not resolve themselves. What unites the Gorkhalis is the Nepali language, used as the lingua franca and regarded as a cultural marker to be protected and enhanced. Joined by Nepali speakers in Sikkim, agitation for recognition of the Nepali language in the Darjeeling area resulted in
2 Not incorporated in the Gorkhali identity are Dalits such as the Rajbhansi, as well as migrant tribals from primarily the Jharkhand region and Bengalis.
SELMA K. SONNTAG 5
December 1992 in Nepali being added to the Eighth Schedule, the constitutional clause listing major languages of India.3 According to Kymlicka, national minorities have the right to protect and enhance their language, even through imposing restrictions on the use of other languages, as in Quebec for example. More commonly, however, demands for language rights are ‘polyethnic’ demands according to Kymlicka, i.e., the type of demand made by ethnic groups (e.g., mother-tongue instruction in primary grades, access to native tongue in courts). In either case, Kymlicka assumes that the national minority or the ethnic group is demanding rights for its language. That is because he assumes that culturally distinct minorities have their own distinct language. Nepali is an Indo-Aryan language, the mother tongue of the locally dominant Chettris. Here we have Tibeto-Burman groups identifying with a language from a completely different language family and demanding rights for that language. What is being created in the process is a pan-ethnic identity based on the Nepali language. It is an identity that is socially constructed in opposition to the dominant Bengali culture of the state of West Bengal, in which Darjeeling is located. In nearby Nepal, these same Tibeto-Burman ethnic groups have been rejecting the Indo-Aryan Nepali language in recent years as democratic political space opens for voicing opposition (Sonntag 1995). This suggests that the social construction of identity may be a better indicator of the demands put forth than the type of minority as defined by Kymlicka.4 The primary demand of the Gorkha National Liberation Front (GNLF), which led the frequently violent agitation in the Darjeeling area for most of the 1980s, wasn’t for language, but for citizenship rights. Citizenship rights are Kymlicka’s quintessential ‘polyethnic demand’, desired by immigrant groups but eschewed by national minorities who, according to Kymlicka, usually don’t want to be part of the nation-state in which they find themselves. Ironically, this ‘polyethnic demand’ by the GNLF led to the granting of self-government in Darjeeling, Kymlicka’s quintessential national minority demand! In the early 1980s, Nepali-speaking tea-plantation workers in Assam and further east were being expelled by ‘sons of the soil’ movements. Darjeeling Nepali-speakers’ sense of insecurity was heightened by the plight of these Nepali-speaking refugees from the east (Datta 1993: 150-51). In expressing politically their insecurity, the GNLF focused on Clause VII of the 1950 India-Nepal treaty, which the GNLF saw as ‘an immediate danger for thousands of Nepalis to be dubbed “aliens”.’5 Clause VII states: ‘The Government of India and Nepal agree to grant, on a reciprocal basis, to the nationals of one country in the territories of the other, the same privileges in the matter of residence, ownership of property, participation in trade and commerce, movement and other privileges of a similar nature.’ In short, Nepalis living in India had residency rights but not citizenship rights. This, the leader of the GNLF, Subash Ghising, argued, opened the door to expulsion and exclusion as had happened to the Nepali-speakers
3 For a discussion of Eighth Schedule languages, see Gupta, Abbi, and Aggarwal (1995). 4 If Kymlicka talked about French and joual in Quebec, he might be able to draw parallels during his travels to Darjeeling. 5 ‘Disputed Clause’ (1986: 45). See also Government of West Bengal (1986: 17).
SELMA K. SONNTAG 6
further east of Darjeeling: ‘We are not bona fide citizens of India; life and future is not secure for us here’.6 Ghising wanted citizenship rights for Nepali speakers who, according to him, were not ‘Nepalese’, the term implying loyalty to and citizenship of Nepal, but were ‘Gorkhas’. This latter term for Nepali speakers was popularized by the British as the designation for the ‘brave’ soldiers from the Himalayas in the Indian army, and is derived from the Gorkha Valley west of Kathmandu where the Nepalese dynasty was founded in the 18th century.7 Why, then, if polyethnic demands were being made, did the GNLF end up with self-government in the form of an autonomous council being established in 1988? In addition to the problems with the application of Kymlicka’s categories in offering an explanation, we must also pay more attention than Kymlicka does to the politics surrounding such demands. The establishment of the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council (DGHC) and the continuing debate over devolution of power to the council have much to do with the political antics between the Centre, dominated by the Congress party in the 1980s, and the West Bengal state government, the bastion of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). It has been said that Rajiv Gandhi, Prime Minister in the late 1980s when the DGHC was established, ‘used Ghising as a stick to beat West Bengal [CPI(M)] Chief Minister Jyoti Basu’ (‘Encounter’ 1992: 6). Ghising himself was recognized as politically astute with his ‘dual strategy of adopting a soft line toward the Congress(I)-ruled Centre and a tough posture against the CPI(M)-led West Bengal Government’ (‘Ghisingh’s Games’ 1988: 28). In this triangulation of power plays, deals were made and unmade (despite Kymlicka’s dismissal of deals as anomalies). Uttarakhand Surely the most glaring anomaly in India to Kymlicka’s categories and theory is what transpired in the Himalayan region of Uttar Pradesh in the 1980s. Again, the political context provides explanatory background. While Jyoti Basu and the CPI(M) remained in power in West Bengal in the 1990s, Congress(I)’s hold on power at the Centre had been usurped initially by the left (1996-8) and more recently by the BJP, the Hindu nationalist right-wing party. These power dynamics at the Centre and in the states explain the momentum toward granting statehood to Uttarakhand, bypassing earlier proposals for an autonomous council for the region. Uttarakhand is BJP territory. By severing it from the plains region of the state of Uttar Pradesh, where left and lower-caste parties tend to dominate, the BJP stood to gain. In the mid-1990s, there was ‘fire in the hills’ of northern Uttar Pradesh fueled by violent demonstrations, agitations, and police reprisals (including rape) (Ramakrishnan 1994). The catalyst for the conflict was the implementation by the
6 Subash Ghising, quoted in Government of West Bengal (1986: 18). 7 The nomenclature issue also surfaced in disputes over what to call the language of the region for its inclusion in the Eighth Schedule. As noted above, the battle for inclusion finally succeeded in 1992, with Sikkimese politicians taking the lead. Their preferred nomenclature of ‘Nepali’ won out over Ghising’s preference for ‘Gorkhali’.
SELMA K. SONNTAG 7
Uttar Pradesh Samajwadi (Socialist) Party government of a 27% reservations policy for backward castes in state education. The state already had implemented, as had all of India, dating back to the 1950s, special representation rights (to use Kymlicka’s terminology for reservations) for Dalits in education and employment. The late 1980s, early 1990s had seen political impetus to extend these representation rights to backward castes. The Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh (UP), Mulayam Singh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party, had popular support for this in the plains of the state where backward castes (such as Yadavs) predominate. However, in northern UP, where the plains give way to the Himalayas, upper castes form the overwhelming majority of the population. Despite being upper caste, the people in this Himalayan region of Uttarakhand are quite poor and illiterate. Indeed, lack of economic development has been the prevalent problem in the past. As a result, the area suffers from severe out-migration, as most men leave to the plains to find employment (Mawdsley 1997a). In response to Mulayam Singh Yadav’s reservation policy, the Uttarakhandis demanded a separate reservation quota for the region, more reflective of the demographic make-up. The state government refused (Pande 1995: 48). As frustration mounted, violence erupted and demands escalated – from repeal of the 27% quota to autonomy for Uttarakhand. For Kymlicka, Uttarakhand would indeed be a ‘hard case’. In Kymlicka’s framework, the Uttarakhandis might well be classified as a national minority. The inhabitants of the area claim a separate culture based on telluric distinctiveness: survival in the mountainous terrain allegedly breeds a different kind of folk. This is the region, after all, of the famous Chipko movement. The area was annexed by the British from Nepal in the early 1800s, with parts of it remaining excluded up until the 1920s (Trivedi 1995; Keith 1937). Furthermore, the Uttarakhandis would probably qualify for self-government rights under Kymlicka’s scheme because of the severe out-migration from the region for wage labor in the plains. This threatens the cultural context in which Uttarakhandis can exercise personal autonomy, the latter being the foundation of liberalism (as discussed below). But in terms of caste, the Uttarakhandis are part of a privileged minority. Indeed, their demands for self-government stemmed from their opposition to special representation rights for the underprivileged. The application of Kymlicka’s theory in this case seems to lead to a perversion: the granting of minority rights to upper-caste Hindus in India. LIBERAL NARRATIVES IN THE HIMALAYAS The cases presented above suggest that Kymlicka’s categories aren’t very useful or applicable to the Indian Himalayas. Kymlicka’s liberal narrative, originally developed for the Canadian context, doesn’t appear to be transnational. The problem is not only one of Kymlicka’s analytical categories but also, more fundamentally, of his underlying theoretical premises. Categories are not empirical realities but rather a method to concretize perceived relations among things,
SELMA K. SONNTAG 8
relations that are often unenunciated except through the naming of categories. What are Kymlicka’s unenunciated assumptions that inform his categories? We need to uncover the thematic informing Kymlicka’s categories—that is, the justificatory principles establishing relations that allow Kymlicka to derive his categories. Kymlicka’s categories derive from his arguments about why liberal governments should, and do, grant self-government rights to national minorities but not to ethnic groups. Kymlicka argues that liberal states should facilitate personal autonomy, defined as the ability of the individual to reflect upon and make choices about the good life. As a multiculturalist, Kymlicka adds that such choices are only meaningful in a cultural context. The liberal notion of a completely unencumbered individual is non-existent in practice. In practical terms, there is no such thing as a culturally unencumbered individual. Kymlicka’s acknowledgement of the importance of cultural context stops far short of the cultural determinism espoused by communitarians. For communitarians, the cultural context is foundational from which individualism may be derived, at least in Western cultures. Kymlicka remains a liberal. For him, the self-reflecting individual is foundational. The individual exercises personal autonomy in a cultural context. But that capacity for autonomy, for choice and self-reflection, is independent of the cultural context. In this regard, Kymlicka is a minimalist. According to Geoffrey Levey, ‘Kymlicka tends to conceive of autonomy simply in terms of an individual’s capacity to choose’ (Levey 1997: 235).8 In contrast, a Lockean liberal assumes that reason dictates an individual’s choice. Furthermore, most liberals assume that rational choice is a universal human trait. For Kymlicka, the question of whether an individual’s capacity to choose is rational, hence whether ‘reason’ is universal or particular to Western tradition, should be decided at the end of the day, after debate and reflection and not a priori (Kymlicka 1989: chap. 4). Liberals who posit reason as informing individuals’ choice of the good life can easily and effortlessly extrapolate to justify the liberal state. Liberal institutions are derivative of the Lockean concept of human nature because of its presupposition of the individual being endowed with reason. Liberal institutions are the choice of rational autonomous individuals, as liberals see it. The collective nature of the choice can be resolved by the Habermasian liberal, who would emphasize the consensual, dialogical contract through which liberals establish political institutions. Liberalism’s critics, such as Uday Mehta, argue that this Habermasian contract is itself a liberal institution that doesn’t necessarily follow from Lockean assumptions (Mehta 1997: 65). Mehta argues, using Locke’s Thoughts on Education, that liberals assume, without problematizing, that individuals are socialized into ‘reason’. This necessary socialization through education refutes any 8 Levey frets over Kymlicka’s ‘anything goes’ minimalism and attempts to resolve it by creating more categories rather than pinning the problem on authenticity, as I do further on here. Levey correctly but briefly raises the authenticity question in his article immediately after his characterization of Kymlicka just quoted, noting that problems occur when there is ‘doubt about the authenticity of a person’s preferences’, but then quickly notes that ‘[t]hese points raise complex issues beyond the scope of the present inquiry’ (Levey 1997: 235).
SELMA K. SONNTAG 9
universal claim, since reason has to be learned. Learning, Carlos Forment (1996) points out, is the basis for exclusion: Learners, i.e., those who have yet to learn or are in the process of learning, are excluded from being ‘choosers’, those who by virtue of reason can exercise personal autonomy. Hence, as Mehta argues, ‘the exclusionary basis of liberalism derive[s] from its theoretical core’; that is, ‘liberalism has been exclusionary and [...] in this it manifests an aspect of its theoretical underpinning and not merely an episodic compromise with the practical constraints of implementation’ (1997: 61). Bhikhu Parekh similarly notes that ‘[t]he contradiction [in liberalism] is not just between liberal thought and practice, but within liberal thought itself’ (1995: 82). Kymlicka would agree with Mehta that the liberal minimalism he espouses doesn’t necessarily lead to liberal institutions. Indeed, Kymlicka doesn’t even assume universal reason as a foundation from which to derive liberal institutions. In this regard, he gives ground to liberalism’s critics. But, as with his giving ground to the communitarians in regard to the cultural context of personal autonomy, this places him in a conceptual conundrum. Although, according to Kymlicka, liberal institutions are not derivative of (rational) personal choice, the reverse does hold: liberal institutions guarantee the ability to act upon self-reflection, i.e., to choose. Not only is this true, but also desirable; Kymlicka insinuates that his theory has policy implications that liberal governments can follow. Liberal governments should set up liberal institutions which will foster the individual’s capacity to choose. Since liberal institutions and cultural context are necessary for individual/personal autonomy, according to Kymlicka, it is imperative for liberal states to protect the cultural context of culturally distinct minorities. Protecting minority cultures is required for liberal states if self-reflection for autonomous, minority individuals is to be meaningful. What if these two imperatives for the exercise of personal autonomy, i.e., liberal institutions and cultural context, conflict in practice? In protecting minority cultural contexts, one might not end up with liberal institutions within that context. Choosing, i.e., exercising self-reflection, doesn’t guarantee liberal institutions, Kymlicka admits, as we saw above. And he frets over this – what to do with those illiberal communities that good liberals must tolerate? ‘Liberals in the majority group’, Kymlicka distresses, ‘have to learn to live with this [illiberalism in the minority community]’, though they should ‘provide [...] support’ to ‘any efforts the [minority] group makes to liberalize their culture’ (1995: 168). The stench of benevolent paternalism, so familiar to liberals, is strong here. Kymlicka distances himself from what he calls ‘paternalistic colonialism’ where liberal principles were imposed by force (1995: 167). Instead, Kymlicka prefers non-coercive methods (e.g., support, encouragement, role-modeling). Only when the illiberal practices are truly offensive, such as wife-beating, is intervention by the liberal majority called for. But in most cases, the illiberal minority community can learn to be, or be socialized into becoming, liberal. With this argument, Kymlicka is confronted with a conundrum. Above we saw how liberalism’s critics, such as Mehta and Forment, suggest that learning and socialization, as necessary practices of liberalism, are exclusionary. However,
SELMA K. SONNTAG 10
Kymlicka is in effect saying that liberalism isn’t exclusionary because, after all, a liberal state wouldn’t/shouldn’t/doesn’t exclude illiberal minority cultures. Kymlicka laments that despite majoritarian liberal institutions, illiberalism may occur in minority cultures. Where does this illiberalism come from then? Since Kymlicka would never suggest that liberalism itself might foster illiberal cultures, the illiberalism must come from somewhere else. Accordingly, there must be cultures (and individuals for that matter) ‘outside’ of liberalism. According to Kymlicka’s reasoning, it isn’t because liberalism ‘excludes’ that these communities/individuals are outside of liberalism (as Mehta and Forment might argue). They therefore must be outside because of something else. For Kymlicka that something else is cultural distinctiveness which translates into claims of (both cultural and personal) authenticity. Kymlicka assumes that illiberal national minorities are authentic.9 That is, they are/have been ‘insulated’ (1995: 164). Their culture is ‘thick’. ‘[A]s a culture is liberalized,’ explains Kymlicka, ‘the resulting cultural identity becomes both “thinner” and less distinctive’ (1995: 87). Less distinctive means less authentic, and therefore less illiberal. Assuming the authenticity of national minority cultures as the source of illiberalism absolves liberalism and liberals of responsibility and justifies liberal hegemony. This was the justification Mill gave, Kymlicka admits, for colonialism. But what if illiberalism is caused by liberalism, rather than by ‘authenticity’? What if liberalism reproduces its other, its alterity – to justify itself? Then the ‘source’ of illiberalism wouldn’t be external to, but rather internal to, liberalism. Kymlicka claims that the Pueblo Indians in the United States are illiberal because they disbar membership to the offspring of tribal women who marry outside the tribe (1995: 164-65). Were marriage and tribal membership even issues in ‘authentic’, i.e., pre-contact, Pueblo culture (see, e.g., Minow 1995: 359)? Marriage and citizenship are liberal institutions – the quintessential contracts. How do we know that it wasn’t the introduction of liberal institutions that provoked the illiberalism? As noted above, many liberals derive liberal institutions from the presumed universal premises of liberal theory. But a liberal theory that truly has any pretense of being universal must be so minimal that there is no theoretical guarantee of it emanating liberal institutions. Hence Kymlicka’s minimalism. Yet, in the end, Kymlicka, like Locke, must introduce a more expansive definition of capacity to choose and the exercise of personal autonomy through learning/socialization. This ‘learning’ may guarantee liberal institutions but it means forsaking any claim to universality. In forsaking universality, the criteria for distinguishing liberal from illiberal practices become culturally specific. Practices that evolve in reaction to the imposition of liberal institutions could thusly be defined as illiberal. Whereas Kymlicka would argue that the ‘source’ of this illiberalism is an ‘authentic’ culture, the source might actually be the imposition of (western liberal) culture-specific criteria for evaluating practices.
9 Kymlicka makes the same argument for what he perceives to be illiberal sovereign states.
SELMA K. SONNTAG 11
Kymlicka’s liberalism, then, assumes authentic national minority cultures that need to be tolerated and preserved (up to a point) by liberal governments, in order for individuals in that minority culture to exercise personal autonomy.10 Anthony Appiah (1994) worries that such an appeal to authenticity facilitates essentializing. Those making the appeal assume that there must be some authentic essence to those (illiberal) insulated cultures. It is often this ‘essence’ then that liberals seek to preserve rather than the cultural context. Appiah warns that this might just ‘replace one kind of tyranny with another’ by demanding a show of authenticity in order to achieve recognition and minority rights (1994: 163). This was indeed the case for tribals at the Constituent Assembly as we saw above: Authenticity (easily identifiable by illiberal head-hunting) was the determinant of the granting of self-government. Kymlicka maintains that only national minorities have the right to self-government. This is because Kymlicka assumes their culture is authentic; it is ‘thick’. Other minority cultures such as those of immigrant ethnic groups are less authentic. Hence, ethnic groups don’t pose the same problem for Kymlicka because their culture is already ‘thin’. Ethnic groups ‘take the larger political community for granted, and seek greater inclusion in it’ (Kymlicka 1995: 181). They want to and do assimilate – ‘assimilation [being] the cardinal sin against the ideal of authenticity’ (Taylor 1994: 38). Their ‘thin’ cultures aren’t necessary for providing meaningful context to choices. Individuals belonging to ethnic groups can exercise personal autonomy, i.e., make choices, within the dominant cultural context. Therefore immigrants can’t get away with illiberal practices in Kymlicka’s scheme. Indeed the liberal state is legitimate in ‘compel[ling] respect for liberal principles’ from immigrant ethnic groups (Kymlicka 1995: 170). At the end of the day, Kymlicka ends up with ‘authentic’, preservable cultures (national minorities) and ‘thin’ cultures not necessary for liberalism to preserve (ethnic groups). This conclusion, however, is based on exclusion, as suggested above. Authentic cultures are perceived to be illiberal cultures, formed outside and independent of liberalism. In contrast, thin cultures are perceived to be assimilable, and hence more likely to be liberal. 10 Taylor (1994) comments on similar liberal assumptions about the authenticity of the individual. An authentic individual, critiques Taylor, today at least defines herself dialogically. There is no pristine authenticity anymore. Unfortunately, Taylor only briefly notes the analogy between authenticity at the individual level and authenticity at the cultural level (1994: 31). See Seglow (1998) for a more extensive discussion of individual versus cultural authenticity. Cosmopolitans such as Waldron (1995) explicitly reject the reality of cultural authenticity. But Waldron uses this rejection to attack the communitarian dimension of Kymlicka’s argument rather than the liberal dimension. Waldron is concerned to show that individuals don’t need just one cultural framework, and ignores the issue of ‘accommodation of nonliberal minorities [which] represents such a conundrum for Kymlicka’ (Levey 1997: 231).
SELMA K. SONNTAG 12
HIMALAYAN EXCLUSIONS Above I argued that in Kymlicka’s view, autonomy for national minorities is linked to and dependent on cultural ‘authenticity’, a ‘condition’, Kymlicka implies, existing ‘outside’ of liberalism. If the Kymlickian liberal state justifies self-government on the basis of cultural exclusion, what does this imply for the Indian liberal state in terms of its accommodation of cultural minorities? Is the liberal narrative of exclusion, a narrative that Kymlicka doesn’t acknowledge but to which he nevertheless contributes, transnational? Kymlicka implies that national minorities with ‘thick’ cultures want to be excluded: ‘[d]emands for self-government [...] reflect a desire to weaken the bonds with the larger political community, and indeed question its very authority and permanence’ (Kymlicka 1995: 181). They claim an ‘inherent’ and ‘permanent’ right to self-government (Kymlicka 1995: 30). Self-government rights are desired by national minorities, but not desired by ethnic groups (Kymlicka 1995: 10, 97-98). As we saw above, Kymlicka worries that these national minorities may not be liberal. We also noted how Kymlicka regards self-government as a liberal institution that guarantees autonomy. So, according to Kymlicka’s logic, illiberal groups naturally/inherently demand a liberal institution that will guarantee their autonomy so that the source of their illiberalism, i.e., their authentic culture, can survive. In the Indian Himalayas, an inverted logic seems to be the modus operandi: by identifying cultures as authentic and culturally distinctive, the liberal state can declare them illiberal and hence candidates for exclusion. Concomitant to this exclusion, however, is the granting of (nominal) self-government. In Darjeeling, the ‘Gorkhalis’ demand inclusion only to be granted self-government which justifies their exclusion. The liberal state contends they need to be excluded because of their illiberal practices and the distinctiveness/authenticity of their culture. The state then backs up its contentions with its presentation of evidence. Hence, when the GNLF leader, Subash Ghising, spouts off admiration for Hitler, as he has done in the not-too-distant past, the West Bengal government frets about the problem of these minority types being illiberal and speculates about the need to rein them in – justifying the state government’s intransigence in devolving power to the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council (DGHC). And, in the Naga case as we saw above, the illiberal head-hunting appeared to be the cultural practice that preoccupied the liberal Constituent Assembly. But how do we know that Naga head-hunting wasn’t a response to the imposition of the colonial and post-colonial liberal state and its institutions? The Indian liberal state goes to great lengths to establish the cultural distinctiveness of the areas granted self-government. In the case of Darjeeling, the West Bengal government emphasized the cultural distinctiveness/authenticity of the area in justifying (nominal) self-government: ‘[W]hile it is true that the constitutional provision [Sixth Schedule] presently applies only to tribal areas, this is precisely why an amendment [...] is being sought, in some specific situations, to
SELMA K. SONNTAG 13
make it applicable to non-tribal areas with such culturally distinct minorities living in compact areas’ (Government of West Bengal 1986: 26; emphasis added). Similarly, in Uttarakhand, the portrayal of cultural distinctiveness went so far as to claim that upper-caste Hindus were tribals in a government report (Mawdsley 1997b: 2229)! Why should the liberal state grant self-governance to minorities? In my re-interpretation of Kymlicka’s liberal logic, the liberal state grants self-government to national minorities because this establishes borders, and borders exclude. Authentic, geographically concentrated cultures can be physically and culturally marked off by liberal borders. Both abstract and concrete markers of inclusion and exclusion are the hallmarks of the liberal state: Think of liberalism as a certain way of drawing the map of the social and political world. The [...] preliberal map showed a largely undifferentiated land mass, with rivers and mountains, cities and towns, but no borders. [...] Society was conceived as an organic and integrated whole. [...] Confronting this world, liberal theorists preached and practiced the art of separation. They drew lines, marked off different realms, and created the socio-political map with which we are still familiar. [...] Liberalism is a world of walls [...] (Walzer 1984: 315). Kymlicka’s approach does indeed ‘draw clear lines’ in the ‘muddy waters’ of the Himalayas, but only after revealing his unenunciated premises of exclusion. Chantal Mouffe (1996) has argued that these exclusions are necessary for liberalism. It is the exclusions, the ‘constitutive outside’, that define liberalism. Liberalism is theoretically consistent, but its theory is not the one explicated by its theoreticians and practitioners. Rather its consistency and its power are visible through its own unacknowledged exclusions. These exclusions, the ‘constitutive outside’, of liberalism are apparent in the Indian context. The Indian liberal democratic state grants self-government to certain groups by allowing these groups to establish autonomous councils. The location of autonomous councils and the designation of which groups are afforded councils by the state reveal the liberal state’s exclusions. These liberal exclusions, as outlined above, are premised on projecting authenticity onto assumed isolated, insulated cultures, and establishing borders in order to overcome the ‘cartographic anxiety’ (Krishna 1996) of the liberal nation-state. Alternatively, we might then characterize self-government in the form of autonomous councils not as an accommodation to a national minority based on recognizing its inherent rights,11 but as a liberal projection that legitimizes the liberal core (i.e., the liberal democratic state) by demarcating the periphery
11 Martha Minow deftly argues that demanding a ‘right’ acknowledges and legitimizes liberalism rather than challenging it. Although this is quite apparent with special representation and polyethnic rights, Minow implies that this applies even to self-government demands (1995: 358-59).
SELMA K. SONNTAG
14
culturally in terms of projecting authenticity, theoretically by projecting illiberalism, and institutionally by granting self-government. At the end of the day (or rather at the end of this paper), we can conclude that Kymlicka’s theory helps us understand India’s liberal multiculturalism, but not in the way that Kymlicka intended. Liberalism can accommodate multiculturalism, but not because of any transnational or trans-cultural, i.e., universal, premises inherent in liberal theory. Indian liberalism accommodates multiculturalism in the Himalayas through exclusion. In the process of excluding, the definition of who is included is negotiated (e.g., in the Constituent Assembly) and renegotiated (e.g., in the politics of extending the Sixth Schedule to new areas). The result is what Mitra (2001) calls ‘fuzzy multiculturalism’ or what I have referred to elsewhere as India’s capacity to ‘muddle through’ (Sonntag, 2003).
SELMA K. SONNTAG
15
BIBLIOGRAPHY Appiah, K. Anthony. 1994. Identity, Authenticity, Survival: Multicultural Societies and Social Reproduction. In Multiculturalism, ed. Amy Gutmann, 149-63. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Datta, Prabhat. 1993. Regionalisation of Indian Politics. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers. ‘The Disputed Clause’. 1986. Frontier (Calcutta) 19, no. s 8-10 (October 11-25), 45-48. ‘Encounter: Ghising Has Betrayed the People’. 1992. The Independent (Kathmandu), (November 11), 6. Forment, Carlos A. 1996. Peripheral Peoples and Narrative Identities: Arendtian Reflections on Late Modernity. In Democracy and Difference, ed. Seyla Benhabib, 314-30. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ‘Ghisingh’s Games’. 1988. Frontline (February 6-19). Government of India. 1946-1950. Constituent Assembly Debates. Official Report, twelve volumes (1999, third reprint). New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat. Government of West Bengal. 1986. Gorkhaland Agitation: The Issues [An Information Document]. Calcutta: Director of Information, Government of West Bengal. Gupta, R. S., Abbi, Anvita and Aggarwal, Kailash S, eds. 1995. Language and the State: Perspectives on the Eighth Schedule. New Delhi: Creative Books. Keith, Arthur Berriedale. 1937. A Constitutional History of India 1600-1935. London: Methuen & Co., Ltd. Krishna, Sankaran. 1996. Cartographic Anxiety: Mapping the Body Politic in India. In Challenging Boundaries, eds. Michael J. Shapiro and Hayward Walker, 193-214. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Kymlicka, Will. 1989. Liberalism, Community and Culture. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Kymlicka, Will. 1997. Do We Need a Liberal Theory of Minority Rights? Reply to Carens, Young, Parekh and Forst. Constellations 4 (1), 72-87. Levey, Geoffrey Brahm. 1997. Equality, Autonomy, and Cultural Rights. Political Theory 25 (2), April, 215-48. Mawdsley, Emma. 1997a. Uttarakhand Agitation and Other Backward Classes. Economic and Political Weekly (January 27), 205-10. Mawdsley, Emma. 1997b. Nonsecessionist regionalism in India: the Uttarakhand separate State movement. Environment and Planning A, 29 (December). Mehta, Uday S. 1997. Liberal Strategies of Exclusion. In Tensions of Empire, eds. Frederick Cooper and Ann Laura Stoler, 59-86. Berkeley: University of California Press.
SELMA K. S