Description
This paper challenges Eurocentric epistemologies entrenched in conventional theories of secession by integrating feminist and postcolonial perspectives. Eurocentric viewpoints often neglect post-colonial experiences, impeding a comprehensive understanding of secession. The post-decolonization era, marked by numerous contested secessions, necessitates a re-evaluation of how the right to secede is justified. Despite the prevalence of violent secessionist politics in the developing world, this aspect remains underexplored, underscoring the urgency for inclusive theorization. Employing feminist and postcolonial lenses—particularly in the context of successful and contested secessions—the paper exposes the limitations of existing theories in acknowledging imperial histories, decolonization processes, and arbitrary divisions of diverse postcolonial states. Using a feminist lens, this paper challenges the normative justifications offered by theories of secession, for reshaping the arbitrarily drawn boundaries through secession. The paper also scrutinizes Western notions of nationalism, foundational to the normative justifications for secession, revealing their inadequacy in capturing the intricacies of non-Western societies. Drawing heavily on Rabindranath Tagore's perspective on nationalism, the study illustrates how diverse viewpoints can challenge traditional Western conceptions. By detaching the epistemic basis of secession theories from their Eurocentric context, this paper explores normative questions on secession from a more inclusively informed standpoint, especially when the feminist lens changes the way one can see secession—which has either been permitted more liberally or restricted by Western liberal political philosophers.
The paper unfolds through a critical examination of secession theories classified into three categories—nationalist, liberal democratic, and remedial right-only theories. Rooted in the liberal tradition, these theories endeavor to address the normative query: should groups be permitted to secede? Collectively permitting secession, they vary on grounds and levels of permissibility, forming a spectrum ranging from utmost permissiveness to those imposing limitations and constraints upon secession, where secession is not readily sanctioned. This paper challenges the foundational assumptions and premises underpinning secession, particularly the concept of identity, which serves as the basis for asserting group rights against the parent state. Post successful transformation into a collective identity as a nation, the goals of secession encompass the preservation of culture, enhanced democracy, increased freedom, and liberty, escape from violence and oppression, protection of identity, or the establishment of a distinct nation. Utilizing Rabindranath Tagore's seminal work, Ghare Baire (Home and the World), my paper endeavors to apply a feminist lens to secession. A feminist reading of Ghare Baire reveals how secessionist movements can be oppressive for individuals within the group, leading to their marginalization, such as Muslim traders or impoverished individuals during the Swadeshi Movement (Self-rule Movement). The construction of a dominant identity for nationalism marginalizes these individuals. Tagore critiques such forms of nationalism as Eurocentric and cautions against their universal adoption due to their exclusionary and oppressive nature. Examples include the shift from a Hindu/Muslim to a Bengali identity in Pakistan and the current claims of a distinctive identity by the Chakmas/Hajongs within Bangladesh and India after finding themselves forced to assimilate or excluded in/by the larger seemingly homogenous identity. The paper contends that what forms the basis for achieving a goal often becomes the goal itself.
Secession theories furnish arguments justifying secession from a Eurocentric context. The diverse pluralities within a seemingly homogeneous group only surface post-secession, as exemplified by post-colonial states engaging in secessionist activities even after establishing internal autonomous states. The recent case of Manipur illustrates the necessity of a feminist lens, which my paper provides.
The argument unfolds in two layers: firstly, it offers a feminist reading of Tagore's understanding of nationalism and illustrates how secessionist movements can be exclusionary and violent. Secondly, during and after the secession process, a tendency for hierarchization of identities emerges, with gender often occupying the lowest rung. Through the application of a feminist lens, the paper seeks to elucidate other forms of marginalization occurring during secession, exacerbating fragmentation. The feminist critique not only challenges the Eurocentric context to which secession theories are tethered but also reveals that even within a post-colonial context, secession is often exclusionary.
