Congressional Statements
Rep. Frank Pallone (NJ) responds to secessionist
arguments against India
Statement in House of Representatives
August 2, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor tonight to respond to statements
made by some of my colleagues in their extensions of remarks on July 24.
Their reference is to various secessionist movements in India. My colleagues
suggest that Muslims in Kashmir and Sikhs in Punjab, among other religious
and ethnic groups in certain Indian states, have the right to separate
their states from the Indian Nation. They seek the United States' support
for secession. But their theory is not based on the American experience.
These critics deem the recent landmark summit between India and Pakistan
a failure because it did not produce any substantive agreement over Kashmir.
They argue that Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee's refusal to speak extensively
on Kashmir was a testament to India's contempt for democracy. Mr. Speaker,
I would like to draw a parallel between India, the world's largest democracy,
and our own democracy in the United States. We cannot forget the principles
on which this Nation was founded and the war we fought to maintain these
principles, for it was in the Civil War that the Union fought to keep
the South from seceding and to keep this Nation united.
It was South Carolina's act of secession that was fiercely battled on
American soil to keep the United States together at any cost. Americans
refused to give in to the South's secession on ideological grounds and
vehemently denied any right to secession based on the Constitution or
the American historical experience. The framework of this Nation is founded
on the fundamental notion that States cannot secede.
My colleagues condemned India for trying to keep the Nation together.
India is a model for democracy in the South Asia region. India is supporting
the same ideals that shaped the history and success of the United States.
We should support India in its opposition to State secession.
Americans cherish the unity and patriotism that we fought so hard to
maintain during the Civil War. India is fighting a battle that America
fought in the 19th century and all for the same outcome: a united country.
My colleagues have made claims that India is not one nation, but rather
a multinational state put together by the British for administrative convenience.
Their claims ignore India's history, its independence movement, and the
principles on which India was founded.
India was founded as a secular state based on an equality of religions.
Secularism is the thread that holds together the fabric of diversity that
characterizes India. Muslims and Sikhs do not need to secede from such
a nation. Secession based on religion or any other ideological principle
goes against the secularism that India stands for, and it is the secularism
that India cannot afford to compromise in its fight for democracy.
Mr. Speaker, a divided India is a recipe for chaos. A peaceful and smooth
transition to a split India is not feasible. With the diverse array of
regions, 18 official languages and 17 freedom movements in India, the
breakdown of India would be disruptive for its people and the international
community. A divided India is more susceptible to outside influence and
the possible resurgence of colonialism. For a country such as India, unity
is its strength.
While a joint agreement may not have come out of the India-Pakistan summit
in July, we must realize that India has a sincere desire to improve relations
with its neighbors. A united and strong India is a necessary prerequisite
for cultivating a positive relationship with not only Pakistan, but all
of South Asia.
|
