Sovereignty and negotiability

Sovereignty and negotiability

— Col (retd) Manoranjan Goswami

“SSovereignty” is a word extensively in use now and much abused and misunderstood also. With any experience to peace dialogue with ULFA, both the Government and the insurgent group says, on one side the talks must be within the bounds of Indian sovereignty, and on the other, that the talks must include sovereignty as a demand and condition for talks. What is sovereignty – a question which seems to have been lost in sight, is something which one must go into some detail before we talk on it as a matter of course. Can we discuss sovereignty with any group, insurgents or otherwise, and if we really can or cannot, why so. In one sentence, sovereignty cannot be a point of discussion or deliberation in any talks.A nation is an entity born through history and whatever we do, talk and dream about globalisation, the fact remains and shall always remain that concept of “nation” will be the binding force of history and geography of this world. “Nationhood” is the philosophy which the youths must cherish and respect. We cannot forget what a nation is and we cannot forget the most sacred word attached to it and that is, ‘sovereignty’.Black’s law dictionary (most authentic law dictionary) says sovereignty is the supreme power by which any citizen is governed and lies on the person or persons of the state or the body to whom there is politically no superior. It is the supreme uncontrollable power and has absolute right to command. Quoting some other authorities, sovereignty is the combination of all powers that a state is vested with. Sovereign state is one which governs itself independently of any foreign power. India is such a sovereign state and declared so in the Constitution’s preamble itself. And where does India’s sovereignty lie? It is the Constitution which guides and dictates the rights and obligation of each organ of the Government. It also limits the power of all, including what people can do or cannot or even what the state can or cannot do. At the same time it is the Parliament who makes laws which includes the law relating to the Constitution and its amendment too. And yet again, it is the people who elect their representatives to guide the destiny of the nation for five years through adult franchise. And then, it is the judiciary who says what parliament can or cannot do through their power to interpret the law and the Constitution. In this jumble, the question does come which is the supreme power who is subordinate to none? That is, where does sovereignty lie so far as India as a country is concerned? Scholars and constitutional luminaries have come to one conclusion that it is the people who are supreme in relation to democratic India. It is the people of the country ultimately, whose will shall be honoured and respected. Sovereignty of India as a nation is on the people of India. India’s sovereignty is people’s sovereignty. When we talk of the Constitution, in India, we must talk of ‘constitutionalism’ also. Such is the scheme of our Constitution that popular sovereignty overtakes the unhindered power of Government as well in the sense that so far as some rights are concerned, it cannot be denied to the people whoever is in the seat of power. That is what is called Fundamental Rights, right over all rights. India is a sovereign country with an elaborate, sacred and most comprehensive scholarly Constitution which has defined the power and limitations of each organ of the country, including that of the Government too.With the above frame of governance guided by the Constitution of India, the ultimate power who is subordinate to none is the people of the country. Therefore, sovereignty lies with the people. That does not mean that a section of people also have the right to give away a part of land or in other word, ‘the right to secede’. The geography of the Union of India cannot be changed or altered by any Government except for realignment of internal boundaries, if absolutely needed. Indian nationhood is not identified by history only, but the geographical boundary is a part of it – unalterable, unchangeable and non negotiable. Whether it is people of Kashmir, or Nagaland or Assam or for that matter any state, a section of people do not have the sovereign power nor the state has to decide whether that part should remain with India or go out of India. The sovereignty with which we are bound to each other in the country cannot be negotiable.Now, relating the above concept of sovereignty to ULFA’s demand, can the Government in power for the time being or whoever comes in future, discuss, deliberate and decide whether or not a part of the country, such as Assam, can be allowed to be seceded from the mainland and allowed to be a different country altogether. There may be many a provisions in the Constitution which allows devolution of power or limited autonomy, but there is no provision in the Constitution where the Government can allow a part of the country to go out flesh and blood from the map of India. The Constitution also cannot be amended to accommodate any such desire unless people of India as a whole ask for it. Whether it is Nagaland, Kashmir, Assam or any part of India, this power is not delegated to the Government by the people, the ultimate sovereign. We should therefore have no doubt that if the agenda of discussion is whether Assam remains a part of India, this cannot be discussed, because the Government has no power to accede to it. Secondly, some sources suggest and they are definitely a sizable number, that the Government may not agree ‘ultimately’, but there is no harm to keep it as a point for discussion if that helps to bring both the parties to the discussion table. That is not an honest approach. Discuss sincerely and act sincerely – that should be the spirit for both the parties. If the question of relinguishing sovereignty cannot be acceptable under any circumstances or if that is beyond the power of any Government, it is right and proper that sovereignty cannot be negotiable and cannot be a part of discussion. Sovereignty gets transferred or relinqui-shed only through war, and that is a fact of world history.Force and conflict within may disintegrate a country as it has happened in Soviet Russia in the beginning of the 90s, but Russia did not break up through any negotiation. The Government of India, whoever may be in the seat of power, cannot discuss the issue of breaking away from the country under its power.Now the question arises how far the tough conditions laid down in the last Unified Command meeting as precondition for talks is acceptable. Before we go into those conditions, it is probably a fact that the Army has taken a tough stand and advised the Government to be so. The Army, however, seems to have ignored and so the Government issuing these directives, that a continous attrition and clashes between ULFA and the state is not conducive for progress of Assam. Show of strength is not the desirable goal or destiny of the people, but peaceful environment definitely is, whether they are businessmen, students or workers. The insurgent groups may not win any battle and may even avoid coming into direct clashes with the Army at any place, but they can cause tremendous pain and hardship to the common man in the street. This has to be avoided, and the Government, without compromising on sovereignty, may use little tact and may ignore some indulgence by the insurgent groups here and there not as a sign of compromise but as an approach for a larger cause.

Source: assam tribune editorial 21.06.08