UNIVERSAL BENCHMARK _ THE CASUALTY

The de-hegemonic evangelism which would launch frontal assault on the philosophy of cataclysm and hegemony would be prejudicial one way or other, unless one records and re-affirms the widely approved benchmark of human rights standard setting and principles of good governance in equal measure either in the context of liberal democracy or, left- of- the- centre system .

No other fundamental human rights could ever be exercised until and unless the people in the AANSGT or, dependent territories or, colonial areas are first allowed to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination . In the nation- building process of Indian republic of 1950, peripheral areas in the Indo-Myanmar region have been acquired by the administration without holding popular plebiscites and taking the people into confidence by way of officially assessing their consent to be taken over and governed.

Princely states of early Hindusthan or Moghul empire found the least difficulty in joining the dominion or later day republic. The federating process happened to be smooth and nostalgic; however, resistance occurred in the case of AANSGT in the NES [north –eastern region of India]. The questions remain hitherto unresolved albeit suppressed under tedious statecraft.

The historical imperative of properly addressing the national questions have to confront the Indian nation- building process in acquired territories. Firstly, the government of India with its excellent reasons contest the national liberation movements in the NES as separatist forces that undermine the territorial integrity of the country . Secondly, the national liberation authorities in the region contest the above stance as a colonial pretence of the imperialist India and resist the Indian defense forces by way of guerrilla resistance.

The West as usual, had never seen human causes beyond their western interests only and had never tried to play a peace broker in places where both Marxist rule and hydrocarbons are found missing. They love the Arab oil as long as the subterranean stocks are not exhausted. This is again a demonstration of poverty of Western philosophy. The international community simply ignores the conflicts and eludes responsibility.

The Gandhian state of India while proclaiming itself as the natural democratic ally of the USA, particularly after the 1991 liberalisation period and by conducting naval warfare, military exercises in Bay of Bengal in September 2007 has projected itself as a junior partner of a defacto and imagined Asian- NATO so as to invite Asian militarization in one form or another and inaugurate China-USA cold war in the mid-21st century. Tiny Himalayan states and micro states like Bangladesh may undergo the cold war unrest in the region thereby putting at stake, the developmental agenda.

Militarisation of the civil society coupled with the imminent cold war environment in Asia- pacific are likely to push out the human rights agenda and human security commitments as the back burner. The myopic third world academics , opinion makers and political decision- makers have to address to these vital human causes inspite of operating as the conventional neo-colonial human sources and instrumentalities.

As the sine qua non of the individuals and people willing to exercise their fundamental individual human rights has been a victim of poverty of philosophy, the fundamental human freedoms queue at the end of the traffic jam. The much talked about conflict-resolution of the epoch has given stress to democratic and people friendly mechanisms whatever. One of the most efficient and peace conducive instrumentalities, among others, is the resort to plebiscite on the political status of people or, the status plebiscites.

The international law and international relations had been consistently favourable to the resort to the peaceful, democratic method ,in the course of conflict-resolutions. Henry Kissinger armed with his unprecedented Vietnam statecraft, in his Diplomacy had categorically stated that guerrillas could not be given a decisive defeat even by the USA. If conflict-resolution is taken seriously by the parties in conflict, plebiscite could be instrumental.

The contemporary state practices in regard to resorting to plebiscite as a credible, democratic mechanism of peaceful conflict- resolution of chronic national issues of vital importance give evidence to the strong possibility of reaching out to durable and fair solutions across the five continents.

In the past, during the epoch of the League of Nations too, as many as fifty two plebiscites had been conducted. Judicial settlement of disputes and armed conflicts might have been chosen ways of advancing international relations, yet the plebiscite had never been made a second choice by several rational actors in international relations. The applied science of international law and relations demonstrate the success story of plebiscites. Proven cases testify the mechanism as reliable and democratic.

The British system which the modern Indian system has very closely followed for historical reasons, among others, could work out Good Friday Agreement in April,1998 in order to resolve nearly a century-old British-Northern Ireland armed conflicts with the USA as a guarantor, and has also allowed its province Scotland to resort to plebiscites in 1956, in March 1979, in 1997 and to hold one more possibly in the year 2010, which may terminate three century- old merger.

Indian decision makers could look towards Scottish example inspite of drawing inspiration from the statecraft of Idia Amin or President Milosveic et. al. Poverty of philosophy or enhanced imperial thought may block the creativity of the rulers and their conscience.

The USA, which India looks up as the natural democratic ally, also did not hold up the conducting of a series of Plebiscites in its commonwealth Puerto Rico in 1967,1991, 1993 and in 1998. A fifth Puerto Rico status plebiscite has not been rules out. The people freely express their wishes about their political and economic status and no democratic government of significance would stall the people to exercise their inalienable right to express wishes freely.

Puerto Rico case would emulate Indian leadership who had far too long had the hand in armed hostilities. Canada too followed suit in allowing Frankophone Quebec to conduct plebiscites in 1980 and for the second time in 1995. Even the Canadian supreme court in 1998 juristically endorsed plebiscite in Quebec, and the Indian supreme court could take similar positions inspite of taking the assumed stance of political hardliner.

The third referendum as regards the status of Scotland would be conducted in 2010 in the United Kingdom and the parties have geared up their poll preparations without any inhibition from the British government. The government of India could also seek supreme court’s advisory opinion on the subject in order to terminate the hostilities in the NES, among others.

Successful plebiscites had been performed in Montenegrin in Europe in 2006 and also in East Timor[Timor Liste] in Asia in 1999.

In Africa, even after the lapse of the MINURSO mandate of the UN, the Western Saharan plebiscite has been merely deferred . In India, plebiscite had never been an ordinary folk tale. The government of India had performed plebiscite in Junagardh on 20 Febreuary,1948 in order to ascertain the peoples’ choice of either acceding to Indian dominion or to Pakistan.

The select plebiscites substantially demonstrate the successful and peaceful resolution of deep conflicts which rational actors resort to with honest convictions. However, war mongers would not pay heed to peaceful methods of conflict resolutions, of which the plebiscite is the most democratic device so far.



Read Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 |