Presentation at the International Conference for Human Rights and Peace in the Philippines

Quezon City, Philippines
20 July 2013

PANEL 5. Struggle for national and social liberation

By ALBERTO RUIZ
Civil Rights Committee, Peru

The Civil Rights Committee of Peru expresses its joy of being with you on witnessing the direct testimony of how human rights, Philippine and international laws are being violated all over your beautiful country. We condemn the reactionaries that plan and implement all these crimes against your people.

We extend warm greetings to the organizers, speakers, delegates, guests and observers gathered here. Together we are strong.

We have agreed that we will support your struggle for human rights and peace in your country, and we have approved the objectives of your Conference, agreed to participate and coordinate campaigns and actions in favor of human rights and peace in your country.

The Civil Rights Committee of Peru has been charged to read its contribution to this panel, concerning our country, Peru.

Peru is also a country with ancient civilizations but we will talk to you about recent events in our country.

In 1980, after 33 years of the beginning of the political revolutionary movement of the greatest importance in Peruvian history, headed by the Communist Party of Peru, as several Peruvian Institutions have noted, they informed that the movement has had important several successes. They stated that it created several big transformations in Peruvian society, having successes against the reactionary general offensive that presented Marxism as outdated and the goal of communism as a utopia; changing Peruvian agrarian ownership, improving the peasant’s situation, and providing work, free health and education services for the people; looking after the well-being for every Peruvian; and beginning to build new democratic power.

After important reverses and massive attacks by reactionaries and imperialist forces, this important revolutionary process couldn’t continue and leaders were being killed while others were imprisoned. For the past 21 years, the Chairman of the Communist Party of Peru, Doctor Abimael Guzman Reinoso, has been imprisoned in very grave inhuman conditions in very huge inhuman imprisonment conditions. He leads an important new period of political solution, general amnesty and national reconciliation, supported by the communist historical lessons during war periods and peace periods as Marx, Lenin, and Mao have taught.

The Chairman of the Communist Party has defended the new, third and higher stage of this scientific ideology: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Thus, contributing to the struggle to put this ideology as the just guiding principle of the international proletarian revolution.

Today, in severe conditions of imprisonment and cruelly persecuted as political prisoners, civil and democratic rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of organization, freedom for democratic participation are prohibited in order to impede any people’s social or political movement.

But the Peruvian’s social and political organizations continues their determined and massive struggle all around the country. Thousands of workers and peasants who mobilize massively for their rights are generally attack by reactionary forces and imperialists. There are more than one thousand trade union and political leaders in prison. They continue to fight after more than 20 years of incarceration as political prisoners, leaving them only to live in the worst inhuman prison conditions or die in prison.

This hard Peruvian condition is developed in an international situation characterize by:

1. General economic crisis is far from recovery

The economist Nouriel Roubini, who foresaw the current economic crisis, identifies four risks that undermine the global economic growth in the present year: 1) “Deep recession” in the euro zone, particularly in its periphery; 2) “Evidence of loss of dynamism in China and the rest of Asia”; 3) The “boost in the growth of the U.S.” faces a downside risk due to the “fiscal adjustment will be intensified in 2012 and 2013” and to “the expiration of tax benefits that led capital expenses in 2011; and, 4) “There are geopolitical risks rising in the Middle East, because of the possibility of an Israeli military response to Iran’s nuclear activities”. Four real issues that lead Roubini to the accurate conclusion, according to our view “that the world economy is far from reaching an equilibrated and sustainable recovery”.

Most economic analysts consider that only in the year 2014 the global economic recovery will start boosted by the growth in trade.

2. New bipolarity in imperialism

The Pacific Ocean already is specifically the ocean of the future, the main ocean at present and more so, in perspective due to the historical development of humankind, as the Atlantic Ocean was years ago and the Mediterranean even before. With this perspective in mind we try, from the first half of the 1990s, to review history and its new approaches. There we can see how the U.S. rethinks its military fronts. Obama and the authorities of the Defense Secretariat announced the realignment of their military fronts, specifying two main issues: the Asian Front as the main military front. And the Islamic Front as the second military front in importance.

These two approaches to military strategy, to great strategy, are expressing new circumstances in which the world has begun to develop; they are linked to what has been stated about the Pacific and to what we state below.

U.S.A.-China is the new bipolarity. Multipolarity couldn’t materialize, since, after all, historically, multipolarities, only if they occur are transitional, and the trend is always, ultimately, the establishment of bipolarities or the hegemony of the winning power. This is being expressed by the development of the imperialist powers, and history proves it: The end of World War II gave us two great winners, the United States and the Soviet Union; and while the second half of the 20th century gave us, first the recovery of the powers that took part in the war, very soon a new bipolarity was set up: the United States of America-the Soviet Union; until finally during the 1990s the U.S. hegemony was established. And in the early 21st century a new bipolarity has been established: U.S.A.-China. This is the current reality and perspective, although at present China is not a superpower, but it goes in that direction. Do not forget, China is part of the real unfolding of the current world.

However, how must we understand Russia within this view? It is struggling to restore the Russian-Asiatic block and to have control over it. That is the direction that it will follow with Putin, retaking the old orientation that dates back to the Old Russian czars.

And what can be said about the European Union? The European Union faces recession and its area struggles amidst the world economic crisis. Today just as yesterday, they are trying to sink it and to disappear it; if they weren´t able to do it yesterday, today it is less probable that they will succeed. Once again they try to undermine the transcendental Franco-German relationship that leads the Union, especially against Germany. But the European Union will make headway once the economic crisis is over, more so today, the issue will be its political advance, the European Union is part of the development of today´s world.

And what is happening in the Middle East? Briefly, from the recent events we conclude: Risk of war looms in Syria and Iran, which could include the participation of the powers, leading at least to a great regional war.

3. Today we have a revolutionary situation, and only with communist parties can there be revolution

At present, there is a revolutionary situation at global level, with the differences, levels and specifications that may occur in regions or countries, depending on the cases. In this situation we have the revolutionary struggles, the very courageous struggle of all Philippine’s people with his leaders, we gave them our very warm greetings and wish them a big success, we have also revolutionary struggle in India, and anti-imperialist struggles (Afghanistan for example), the imperialist’s aggressions in Libya and Syria, the great mobilizations in the bourgeois struggles for power in the Arab world; and in another level, the equally large mobilizations in Europe and in the U.S.A. against the consequences of the current general economic crisis, among which the stirring struggles of Greek people stand out; and we must add the struggles of Brasil, the Chilean students for free education, as well as similar struggles of the Colombian, Argentinean peoples, etc. Finally, we should bear in mind, the great struggle that is already developing against concentration of land property, the struggle for water and against mining also in our Latin America, part of which is being waged in Peru. All these show the progress of a revolutionary situation throughout the world fuelled in recent years by the economic crisis.

We begin by understanding revolutionary situation as the essential objective basis established by Lenin so that a revolution could become a reality, found in his writings: “Left-Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder”.

“For revolution it is not enough that the exploited and oppressed masses are aware of the impossibility to continue living as they live and demand changes; for revolution it is necessary that the exploiters can no longer live and rule as they are living and governing. Only when those from ´underneath´ don´t want and those from ´above´ can’t continue living as before, only then can revolution succeed.”

But besides this objective basis for a revolutionary situation, in order to really establish and lead revolution what is needed, is mainly a Party, and in the case of a revolution led by the proletariat, what is indispensable is the existence of a Communist Party able to lead the process. And that’s the main thing and what is indispensable; and was it does not exist, that’s why revolution does not materialize. This is the subjective and main element for revolution to take place. Something very different, but some people might link this to what was said above about the success of revolution, that is what concerns the so-called “failure of socialism” that renegades, bourgeoisies and their servants advocate. The question is, as we, are well aware of: without a Communist Party there will be no revolution and people will have nothing.

II. Peru’s political situation

1. The Peruvian economy is sustained on exploitation and oppression, on the growing concentration of capital and on a new primitive accumulation.

Today the Peruvian society is a capitalist society, dependent on imperialism and with semi-feudal surviving remains. The economic system develops upon this characteristic, which is fed by exploitation and oppression, on the increasing concentration of capital and on a new primitive accumulation.

And what are the circumstances of the Peruvian economy? If we take what the World Bank raises regarding this, we would consider some of its criteria, those which confirm what we uphold here: “In the last 20 years Peru has experienced great changes in the economic field… during the last decade a pattern of high and sustained growth has been initiated … something that had not taken place on regular basis in Peru in the last 50 years”; further on it states: “During these last five years Peru has made great advances in its development with high growth rates, low inflation, macroeconomic stability, great accumulation of international reserves, reduction of domestic debt…which was only temporarily stopped by the global economic crisis… the recovery of Peru in 2010 has been outstanding and the economy is growing at high rates just as those reached before the global deceleration.” And it adds harshly: “However… not all is good news… the informal employment rate scarcely fell. Moreover, for the level of income per capita in Peru the results in some areas of human development and infrastructure are not what were expected and Peru is found in the bottom third among the countries of the region with regards to ensuring equal opportunities for all… and there still remains an important task to be accomplished in order to reduce poverty and above all to reduce inequality”. The report proposes “the need to continue with a process of development based on the current model with high and sustained growth, but with greater inclusion” and also “to focus on three critical tasks: the improvement of skills (human capital), the expansion of infrastructure (physical capital), and the strengthening of governance”.

For some analysts such as Mr. Carranza, former Minister of Economy, this is the best period in the history of Peruvian economy. However, for everybody it is clear that not everything is good news for they have recorded inequality, poverty and fragility supplying opportunities for everybody; this cannot be otherwise, since this type of growth favours only a few because capitalism is based on the surplus value which implies squeezing the working class like lemons who´s the one that produces it, that is, the profit of a few is sustained in the exploitation of many, although now a days nobody wants to talk about the essence of capitalism which later became imperialism and manifests itself in globalization.

Felix Jimenez, project adviser of the nationalist government recently wrote: “our economy in the last two decades is more of a primary and outsourcing type and less manufacturing” and the “the current style of growth is functional to social exclusion and inequality”.

And if we would review the information from the Central Reserve Bank of Peru we would read about the huge profits of foreign investors, obviously large imperialist monopolies, it says: “Between 2003 and 2011 foreign companies repatriated profits for 59 billion dollars, including reinvestments for 33 billions.”

Thus, this is the economic, social, political and ideological system that Ollanta Humala´s government maintains and defends as we stated on July 28 and, as is of public domain, he strives to resolve.

2. Ollanta Humala’s government is carrying out a right-wing policy.

As the facts show and we have been taking note of this since the election campaign, Ollanta Humala is a rightist, and even more, the government led by him is a right wing government, hence what we state above: he maintains, defends and develops a capitalist exploiting system in service of grand bourgeoisie and imperialism.

Due to the absence of a political party that would implement his economic and political plan he promotes the militarization of the regime, this can be seen mainly in the strengthening of the role of the army, in its repressive measures, in the proposals or decrees the Executive emanates, in the control of the popular protests, in the laws restricting rights, that were given, were enforced and those that will be applied. He is carrying forward a right wing policy, specified by first repressing and only afterwards calling for dialogue in his own terms.

The extreme right sector promotes a repressive offensive for the immediate implementation of their plans and the achievement of their objectives, mainly economic ones, for primitive accumulation.

The bourgeois left wing in its diverse groups and different degrees still hopes that Humala is going to return to his “great transformation” plan or at least to some of it. In addition, each group is already trying to organize and prepare itself for future elections; but more so, each one is trying to use the people´s struggle for its own benefit.

3. People’s struggle continues to develop massively.

Today, the struggle of the miners is of utmost importance; the essence is the profit obtained from gold whose price continues to rise. Conga is in the second stage of its struggle and is of great importance because it has to do with mining. The fight against the concentration of land, water and against the expansion of mining activity will not only be of importance at national level.

All of this is important but we must not ignore the struggle for the three banner issues: wages, working hours and working conditions; unemployment remains a main issue; and dispossession which is essential.

III. People’s struggle in the world: Huge demonstrations against global economic crisis

It is important to emphasize the immense popular mobilizations against the consequences of global economic crisis; millions have been mobilized, and have targeted mainly the Banks, questioning the political parties that support the system, expressing their awareness by rejecting the prevailing order, etc. All of this is positive; but the negative side of this is, what ideology guides them? and obviously it is not the proletariat´s; for they do not see the need to organize themselves, except during their large assemblies; and they belittle the working class’ mobilizations. In short, the problem is the lack of a policy that establishes a leadership, a concrete organization that sets the goals. Protests alone are not sufficient.

In Peru, something similar is happening, there is a massive popular struggle which is taking place although the struggle does not place power in its agenda, but the struggles specifically are against the violation of their rights and freedom and against the effects of the plan for new primitive accumulation which depletes the working class, the people and natural resources. But what they try is to deny, contain or divert this popular struggle using their social plans or a heavy-hand against it or try dialoguing at their own convenience, but always enhancing their repressive policy and far more as we are observing now, by using the so-called “terrorism”, enlarging it making it reach up to the sky, in addition concealing or outwearing it and in that way preventing the development of the people´s path and not allowing revolution to ignite and acquire prestige.

IV. The proletariat and its current situation

The proletariat supports the greater weight of the crisis, a gigantic unemployment, a significant reduction of wages and a loss of rights won from decades of struggles. The proletariat also fights and combats but in very complex conditions, since today its ideology, the socialism which was built, the organization that was constructed are being questioned, and within its own organic forms mainly their parties, the Communist Parties are being denied.

Furthermore, after all that reactionary offensives let’s ask ourselves, which class has a history of struggle more heroic and has created higher political organizations; and mainly, which class has built a society that has served the people and the masses as the socialist society has in its brief sixty-six years under proletariat´s power and the leadership of the Communist Party?, which ideology can really deny and proclaim its superiority in comparison to marxism-leninism-maoism.

These last three issues mentioned are and will be, against all odds, big historical epics that not only astonished the past but are an imperishable example for the future and glorious path that the proletariat under the leadership of its Communists Parties, will have to continue until they concrete their unwavering goal: the building of communism all over the Earth.

Today, therefore, it is up to communists to place Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the scientific ideology of the proletariat, defending it and applying it to the understanding and solution of the new problems of revolution; it is up to communists to help in the constitution, reconstitution or development of the Communist Parties as parties capable of establishing the path for the unyielding struggle of the masses; it is up to communists to mobilize, politicize and organize the masses merging themselves with their struggles and serving the people wholeheartedly and with absolute disinterest. Only then, with a Communist Party and masses, will it be possible to lead the revolution towards the goal: communism.

Today more than ever when global reaction and imperialism seek to destroy the Communist Party, the proletariat, their ideology, the revolution; the proletariat is the last class in history; “the proletariat is the largest class in the history of humanity.” It is the most powerful revolutionary class due to its historical scientific ideology, its politics and its force, it can and should unite around itself the overwhelming majority to isolate to the utmost the handful of enemies and attack it”; that “the history of the proletariat is the history of its party, of its ideology, of its revolution”; and, that the 20th century is the century of the world’s proletarian revolution with red banners and sickle and hammer fluttering against the wind, in half of the world, and that the political concretion of the proletarian ideology is what remains as a material reality with all the positive and negative lessons it contains.

This is the reason why today there is an urgent need to put in command Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, as the ideology of the proletariat and to understand that without a Communist Party there can be no revolution.

In the midst of a complex moment for the ideology, the party and revolution, unlike those who lose perspective, who stray from Marxism-Leninism-Maoism questioning its unswerving truths, and abandoning the revolution, accepting bourgeois proposals against the people, defending its system or at the most seeking its reform, from their confusing positions, we are more and more taking the path to big changes. In Peru as several institutions note it: the Communist Party, its leaders, Doctor Abimael Guzman Reinoso, have contributed decidedly to the solution of the new problems of revolution, giving right direction towards the goal of communism with unwavering conviction and deep theoretical solidity, hoisting, defending and applying Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to the current reality of class struggle in our country today for a political solution, general amnesty, and national reconciliation.

They have, and him, after his active 60 years of political activity, rebuild the party and led the most important revolutionary period, the political event of greatest importance in Peruvian history defining in its process that there is a new, third and higher stage in the scientific ideology: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, struggling to being recognize in the world by fulfilling the role of defending it against the reactionary general offensive that qualified Marxism as outdated and the goal of communism as an utopia.

From his grave arrested conditions, he has proposed, in the situation and perspective of Peruvian revolution, to struggle for a new grand stemmed general policy, a fundamental policy, of political solution, general amnesty and national reconciliation, which has obtained important successes.

Reactionary and imperialists forces want to wipe all this success, attacking the scientific ideas which sustain it.

It is precisely because of this that the most recalcitrant Peruvian reactionaries and their followers unleashed a counter-revolutionary campaign placing him as the target pretending to denigrate the proletarian leadership, to destroy his party and to discredit Peruvian revolutionary struggle, in order to impede the progress of his party and the revolution.

For this reason more and more Peruvians condemn, reject and repudiate the counter-revolutionary campaign, the anticommunist campaign, campaign against all Peruvian people and fundamental rights, the campaign against Doctor Abimael Guzman Reinoso, and publicly commits to advance the campaign for General Amnesty and fight for Abimael Guzman Reinoso’s freedom, strengthen links with proletarian internationalism under Marx’s great teaching: Proletarians of all countries, unite!

We are very grateful with the proposal made by the Mexican delegation concerning the situation of our country to be approved by you. Thanks!

CIVIL RIGHTS COMMITTEE OF PERU

Paper submitted for the International Conference for Human Rights and Peace in the Philippines

Quezon City, Philippines
20 July 2013

PANEL 5. Struggle for national and social liberation

By GAUTAM NAVLAKHA
People’s Union for Democratic Rights, India

Please accept my apology for my absence. My note was meant to highlight some features of the issue of “self-determination”, with which I am familiar and also to explain, if there had been an occasion, by answering questions as well as clarifying issues.

In India there has been a divergence in the stance taken by the left and democratic movement on the issue of self-determination of nationalities. While leftists in general are opposed to assimilation, in which minorities or small cultural groups more or less lose their cultural identity, there are differences within left on the issue of what stance to take. One can say that the divide is between those who argue for ‘integration with equality’ versus those who subscribe to ‘separateness with equality’, and the course to be adopted to achieve that. Many of us argue that there are oppressed nationalities, this includes, the tribals, whose desire for equality through separateness, must be respected in order for them to develop and preserve their culture. Thus we argue that while we support the right of nationalities to self-determination, every occasion where separateness is evoked does not necessarily mean secession. Tribals unlike Kashmiris or Nagas or Meitis are not demanding secession, but may want to exercise the right of self-determination to carve out a separate state. On the other hand there are several nationalities based struggles demanding respect for right of self-determination such as in Kashmir or Manipur etc because they oppose forced union within India.

This means that relevance of right of self-determination cannot be disputed whether people want to secede from India or want autonomy within the Union of India. However, I believe right of self-determination is much more than that.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 in its third preamble says that if these rights are ignored, governance becomes tyrannical and the response would be rebellion. The UN Civil and Political Rights uses the phrase “self-determination of people”. I like to read the two proposition together By so doing it widened the concept of self-determination not just for those reeling under colonial rule, or those who became part of a post-colonial State because of quirks of colonial expansion , but also those who were made part of post-colonial States and then having experienced discrimination and suppression were driven to struggle for opting out of Union with India. Furthermore, I believe, it also lends legitimacy for movements demanding even overthrow of present day Indian State. Because its “people” who enjoy the right of self-determination if their inalienable right to life of dignity is jeopardized or the system subjects people to structural violence which can take genocidal or character of mass murder.

In India, for instance, we are confronted with unprecedented scale of malnourishment among children in age group 0 to 6. It is known that two years of malnutrition can cause irreparable damage to cognitive abilities of a child. This means that nearly fifty per cent of India’s children are condemned to a cruel existence. We also know that 43% of Indian women are anaemic.

A person with a body mass index of less than 18.5 is malnourished. According to India’s National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau, 33 per cent of adult Indians have a BMI of less than 18.5. If you disaggregate this, over 50 per cent Scheduled Tribes, 60 per cent of the Schedule Castes (Dalits i.e. the untouchables of India’s caste system) and equally high percentage of Muslims have a BMI of 18.5 or are undernourished. The WHO says that any community of which over 40 per cent population has a BMI of 18.5 per cent is in a state of famine. By that standard, many communities in India are living in a state of famine.

Most people think that genocide has to do with large scale direct killing, but the declaration of the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crimes of Genocide, which was issued on 9^th December 1948, one day before Universal Declaration of Human Rights, tells us clearly that in addition to killing, the creation of ‘physical and mentally hazardous conditions’ which could put the survival of particular communities at risk ‘would also come within the ambit of genocide’. Its Article 2 defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

If one reads the statistics on malnutrition with the one on income disparities, according to which six decades after ‘Transfer of Power’ in 1947, nearly 77% of our working people survive on less than Rs 20 per day, it becomes clear that children of the working class face a cruel and a rather short lifespan. Using the definition above we can indeed say that it is genocidal policy that has been followed. In contrast, after six decades, 100 Indian families own wealth which is equivalent to 25% of the National Income! Yet this painful and a short life span inflicted on our people does not evoke anger and rage simply because it is not a spectacular an event, media is indifferent unless it is an attack on a security force camp or abduction of a gazette officer of the State of India. If someone were to conclude from this that life of a working class Indian is not worth much, how wrong would they be? And if others argue that such a State which condemns overwhelming majority of its people to sub-human existence can not be a State which belongs to people.

So my contention is that right of self-determination is not only a democratic and peaceful way of resolving intractable problems that have defied solution but also the best way in which to ascertain the wishes of the people. It is therefore, Right of self-determination is considered an inalienable right. It is linked to the primary right all of us enjoy or born with namely the “right to life, without which all rights become infructous. Although it is an inalienable right even under liberal jurisprudence, we know that this right is practiced more in breach. By right to life is not meant simply the right to physical survival but also right to a life of dignity which only liberty and equality can provide. Right to self-determination of people, where ‘people’ is historically understood as those who face oppression or exploitation, then becomes a far more comprehensive and vital concept for those who fight for emancipation of their people from forms of class tyranny.

This is not offered to dilute the significance of self-determination but to point out how in India there are a variety of movements which could be placed in this conceptual category, each one deserving to be analysed specifically. Thus in India we have, using this understanding, a variety of self-determination movements. Some such as in Kashmir, Manipur, Nagaland, Assam etc are struggling for their national self-determination. Some others wanting to become autonomous regions within the Union of India. And the third is the revolutionary movement, which is fighting an oppressive and exploitative State.

Take Kashmir for instance. While officially India managed to wrest two third of Kashmir for itself leaving one third for Pakistan. Now sixty six years are long time for learning lessons and to cease being indulgent towards the fallacies, faults and faux pas of the Indian state in obfuscating the issue of people’s aspirations. It is undisputed that gross injustices have been inflicted on the Kashmiri people and they have to live monitored by hostile armed soldiers everywhere around and amidst them.

I doubt any other country can boast of deploying more than 600,000 military (comprising Indian army, para military formations and armed police etc) against a people whose number is 12 million. The ratio of armed soldier to civilian is 1:20.

By all standards Kashmir is an occupied territory. For instance a report [Dead But not Forgotten: Survey of Death Toll in District Baramulla (J&K) 1990-2006] undertaken by Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (www.jkccs.org) pitches a strong argument that: “Article 42 of the Hague Regulations (also called law of warfare) describes occupation as a ‘territory placed under the authority of the hostile army’. In the Fourth Geneva Convention 1949 this is attenuated. Article 2 provides that the convention shall apply even to an occupation that ‘meets with no armed resistance’. The rationale for this was that there is an inherent hostility between the occupant and the occupied. Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides that ‘the benefits under the Convention shall not be affected by any change introduced, as a result of occupation of territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authority of the occupied territory and the occupying power, nor by annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory’. We are convinced that the conditions in J&K match and conform to everything that is juridically invested in the legal term ‘occupation’.”

Moreover, much as ‘secular’ India cringes at the sight of green flag and Islamic slogans it is worth remembering that display of green flags by the oppressed by itself can not take away from them their desire to be free of oppression. Indeed it can be argued that proliferation of green flag or abuse hurled at security personnel is in response to the Hindu majoritarian proclivities of the Indian state. Hindus of J&K did not live for 66 years under hostile military rule. It is true that they have been victims of attacks launched by communal fascist such as Lashkar i Tayaba and Jaish i Mohammed. But these groups thrived thanks to the bigotry displayed by Indian military, who followed a ‘catch and kill’ policy vis a vis Muslims perceived as real or imaginary enemies. Few Hindus have suffered at the hands of government forces in J&K. Nor do they, barring honourable exceptions, show any revulsion at their own Muslim compatriots beings brutally suppressed for decades. Instead there is a tendency among Hindus to identify with the oppressor and not the oppressed. Therefore, it is pointless pretending that this divide is of recent vintage.

Indians look upon J&K, and jealously guard it, as a trophy of war, a conquered Muslim majority territory won by India in a war with Pakistan in 1947-48. We need to ask ourselves why and how India’s constitutional democracy has been abridged and devalued, thanks to a war against a people who were treated as a subject population. Therefore, instead of cowering before the demand of right of self-determination it is time we embrace it, because this offers us the only chance of a peaceful and democratic closure to a 66 year old dispute. It enables every state subject across the Line of Control divided Jammu and Kashmir (between India and Pakistan) as well as religion polarized Jammu and Kashmir an opportunity to make their wishes known.

For decades, ‘good’ people of India claimed that if only the movement for self-determination as in Kashmir or Manipur etc gave up armed resistance Indian state would be willing to hold dialogue with them. When in Kashmir for three years (2008, 2009 and 2010) non violent mass demonstrations began and armed militants declared their decision to silence their guns in civilian areas, Indian state proceeded to crack down on the people and the ‘good’ people acquiesced in that by remaining mute. Long and short of it is that strong arm measure continues to rule the roost. That the Indian state could carry this out, despite the formal presence of a ‘free’ media, a ‘vibrant’ middle class, and an ‘independent’ judiciary goes to show that Indian state exercises tight grip over dissemination of news and information and even autonomous institution of state fall in line once ‘national security’ is invoked.

Finally, it is also necessary for us to accept the difference say between post-colonial States that emerged after second world war in Asia from the 18^th-19^th century European nation-states. Among several reasons that went into making of the nation-state in Europe was also the fact that the European working class through their class organizations could reach historic compromise with Big Capital. Social democrats believed that universal suffrage and their class organizations will soon propel them to power. This made European working class a stakeholder in the existing State.

In contrast, for us in India the British colonialists transferred power to the native Indian Hindu upper class-caste which retained virtually the same State structure and institutions that had served the colonial rule. State remained alienated from people and became an arena of conflict. As a result European experience of State formation in the past two hundred years is vastly different from our experience in south Asia. It is this that accounts for multiple challenges and conflicts that confront the Indian State. It is as though we are going through a bloody and brutal way of forcing Indian nationhood on everyone unmindful of its cost or consequence.

This makes self-determination of people, which allows for nationalities/oppressed communities and working people to decide their own destiny, all fighting their own struggle for right of self-determination. Indeed where armed conflicts have gone on for a long period (decades) and where negotiations have been used by the State to win time/tire out opponents, or talks are deadlocked or can not ensure compliance with whatever solution is reached, then making a reference to the people is the most democratic and peaceful way forward. It is all this which makes right of self-determination so central to us in India.