The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 may have been forgotten by many, but it has an important significance and relevance to the topic of this article, so I am beginning from it.
As is well known, after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 the Soviet Union was created in 1922 as a Union of 15 republics, the idea being that in such a union all republics would mutually benefit economically, and would be in a better position to face external dangers. And this idea proved to be correct.
At that time the Russian Republic was the most industrialised and technically advanced among all other nationalities in the Soviet Union, but far from taking advantage of this and exploiting the weaknesses of the non-Russian republics, the Russians gave them all technical help and expertise to industrialise and develop. Russian engineers and scientists voluntarily used to go to the non-Russian republics and train people there in scientific techniques. They set up engineering colleges there and taught there, living the same way as local people, often in tents, and drawing the same small salaries.
The result was that a strong sense of comradeship developed between the Russian people and the non-Russian peoples, because the latter realised that the former were their benefactors. Consequently, when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 during World War II, millions of non-Russian youth, e.g. from the Muslim republics like Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, etc., went voluntarily to fight the Germans, and many gave their lives in the war.
The Russian leader Lenin insisted that in the constitution of the Soviet Union there must be a right given to all nationalities to secede from the USSR if they wished to, because if instead of being helped by the Russians they began to be oppressed by them, they should not be forcibly kept within.
After the end of the war the Russians became oppressors and exploiters of the non-Russians, and this was the main reason for the collapse and disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991.
This historical event has an important lesson for India, which I may explain.
I use the term Greater India for my vision of a reunited India consisting of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (and also any other neighbouring countries which may voluntarily wish to join us).
Greater India is a nation, but has several sub-nationalities, too, e.g. Punjabis, Pakhtoons, Sindhis, Baloch, Bengalis, Kashmiris, Marathas, Tamils, Odiyas, Nagas, etc. Most of the people of these sub-nationalities are poor. It is therefore in the mutual interest of all these sub-nationalities to join hands and help each other, instead of fighting each other in the name of religion, caste, race or language like fools.
Does Greater India have anything in common, any common culture? How can we be united if there is nothing common among us? Are we really one nation?
Greater India is broadly a country of immigrants, like North America. Over 92 per cent of its people are descendants of immigrants (who came mainly from the northwest, though some came from the northeast too). They migrated here seeking comfortable lives.
These immigrants brought their own cultures, religions, languages, etc., which explains the tremendous diversity of India.
With passage of time and by the intermingling of these immigrants a common culture emerged in India, which I have called the 'Sanskrit-Urdu culture’.
So broadly we are one nation, but within us there are several sub-nationalities. What unites us is not only our common Sanskrit-Urdu culture, but also the intense desire of our masses to get rid of the curse of massive poverty and unemployment. We can abolish poverty and the social evils which have plagued us for long only if we unite and launch a mighty historical struggle for our socio-economic emancipation.
Our sub nationalities will remain in Greater India as long as they are not oppressed by others, but if they are, they must have the right to secede, as Lenin envisaged.
Justice Markandey Katju retired from the Supreme Court in 2011.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK.
