The Self-Determination Paradox

Self-Determination: The Right to Govern Oneself

Self-determination is the principle that individuals, groups, or nations have the right to make their own decisions and govern themselves without external interference. This concept is central to the idea of freedom and autonomy, allowing people to determine their political status, pursue their economic and social development, and make decisions that affect their lives on their own behalf.

The concept of self-determination traces back to the European Enlightenment, where philosophers like John Locke argued that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, rather than from divine right or hereditary power. Locke's social contract theory posited that individuals are born with natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property, which governments must protect. If a government fails in this duty, the people have the right to establish a new one. This idea fundamentally shifted views on governance and laid the foundation for the concept of self-determination.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, these Enlightenment ideas influenced key political movements, including the American and French Revolutions, which emphasized the right of people to self-governance. The 19th century saw the rise of nationalist movements across Europe, where ethnic and cultural groups sought to form independent states based on shared identities. Nationalism being the glue that would hold these states together. This was evident in the unification of Italy and Germany and in various independence movements in Eastern Europe.

The 20th century marked the formalization of self-determination in international law, particularly after World War I. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson championed the principle during post-war negotiations, advocating for the redrawing of European borders based on ethnic lines. His efforts led to the creation of new nation-states and the dismantling of empires like Austria-Hungary.

The principle of self-determination was further reinforced after World War II, particularly with the formation of the United Nations in 1945. The UN Charter explicitly recognizes the right of all peoples to self-determination, setting the stage for decolonization efforts in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Throughout the 20th century, self-determination became a rallying cry for oppressed peoples around the world, leading to the end of colonial rule and the emergence of new independent states.

However, while self-determination has been enshrined in international law, its application remains complex and contested. The tension between the right to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity continues to shape global politics, as seen in conflicts over independence and autonomy in regions such as Israel-Palestine, Kosovo, Catalonia and more.

Despite its broad recognition, the application of self-determination is not without controversy. While international law supports the right of people to self-governance, it also emphasizes the territorial integrity of existing states. This has led to tensions between the desire for self-determination and the preservation of existing national borders, particularly in cases where a region or group seeks independence from an established state.

Self-Determination in India

Additionally, many national constitutions around the world recognize the right to self-determination, at least in principle. For instance, the Indian Constitution, in its Preamble, promises to secure liberty and equality for all its citizens, implicitly supporting the idea that people have the right to self-governance.

However, the practical application of this right within national borders is often limited. Governments tend to prioritize national unity and sovereignty over the aspirations of specific regions or groups seeking greater autonomy or independence.

Nationalism takes priority in practice, where propaganda or even violence is used to brute force a level of "unity" amongst a population based on shared characteristics. However, given how diverse human beings are, even within small groups, a government struggles to unify, represent and satisfy everyone. So inevitably, it may choose to pander towards one group at the expense of others, force homogenisation as way to make groups more uniform (and therefore easier to manage) or do both these things. Obviously, this level suppression of natural diversity and freedom doesn't tend to produce positive outcomes. Especially in a place like India where diversity is abundant. In fact, the idea that India has been made into a single nation-state is kind of ridiculous given the scale of its diversity, and perhaps instead, it should have better been considered as a sub-continent made up of many nations rather than just one.

However, India was initially intended to be set up as a federal system, but again, in practice, the level of autonomy each state has in reality varies. As a consequence of these factors, there is currently numerous successionist movements present in various parts of the sub-continent today. Amongst Sikhs, demand for self-determination has been expressed through a demand for an the independent Sikh state of Khalistan. This ambition is rooted in a desire for greater religious and cultural autonomy, driven by a history of injustices and marginalization within the Indian state.

The Sikh Demand for Khalistan: A Case Study in Self-Determination

The call for Khalistan represents a significant demand for self-determination within India. Proponents argue that Sikhs should have the right to govern themselves and protect their religious and cultural identity. However, the Indian government's response has been one of suppression, viewing the demand for Khalistan as a threat to national unity. Constitutionally, while India acknowledges the right to self-governance, it does not extend this to secessionist movements, leading to a complex and often violent conflict between the state and those advocating for Khalistan.

This is a perfect example of the inherent paradox States must deal with by asserting that its citizens have a right to self-determination, but then at the same time trying to ensure there is national unity. Many Khalistanis may look at this at call it out as hypocrisy, and they may be right, but this also raises a critical question: If Khalistanis demand the right to self-determination within India, how would this right be managed within a Khalistan? What would happen if, other groups—such as Jats or areas like Malwa, or even Biharis and other minorities who currently reside in the Punjab region— demanded their own form of self-determination? Would a Khalistan suppress these demands just as India does now, thereby replicating the very injustices it seeks to escape?

This paradox highlights the challenge of reconciling self-determination within a potential Khalistan. If Khalistan were to be established, it would face the same challenges that any state faces: balancing the desires for autonomy among its diverse populations with the need for national unity and stability. The risk of fragmentation, where different communities within the state might seek their own independent governance, could lead to internal conflict and undermine the very foundation of the state.

The Azadist Solution: Self-Determination on Steroids

Azadism's longer-term vision presents a bold and transformative approach to self-determination, taking the concept far beyond traditional models of governance. While federalism—where power is divided between a central government and various regional entities—offers a degree of self-determination, Azadism pushes this idea to its limits, creating a system where self-determination is not merely a right but the core principle of governance.

In Azadism's experimental Stanistan model, power is decentralized and distributed among smaller, autonomous communities known as "Stans." Unlike federalism, where regional borders are often drawn by central governments and are typically based on geographic, ethnic, linguistic or historical factors, Azadism advocates for a more granular and dynamic approach. The borders of these Stans are not determined by a central authority but by market-based mechanisms, as per the principles of supply and demand. In essence, people would be better able to "vote with their feet", joining Stans that align with their own personal values, needs, and desired way of life.

This system creates a "marketplace for governance", where each Stan operates under its own constitution or contract, offering different models of living and governance. These contracts specify the unique laws, regulations, and societal norms that apply within each Stan, giving individuals the freedom to choose from a range of options, the governance model that best suits their unique preferences. This could range from highly libertarian communities with minimal government intervention to more structured environments with specific social or economic systems like a socialist commune.

The unifying thread across all Stans is the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), which prohibits the initiation of force or coercion against others.

This principle ensures that while each Stan may govern itself according to its own rules, the fundamental rights of individuals to live freely are always protected. Voluntary participation and freedom to exit is key to this system. No Stan can impose its laws on anyone that does not consent, nor can it conduct activities that effect third parties without their consent either. This would be a breach of the NAP, and therefore this is where the central government (if there is one), focuses its energy on enforcing.

In this Stanistan model, the concept of borders is radically redefined. Unlike traditional nation-states, where borders are rigid and often contested, Stans in a Stanistan system are flexible, dynamic, and determined by market forces rather than by central government decree. A Stan could be anything from a small commune or village to an expansive city-state. Each Stan sets its own rules regarding immigration, governance, and resource management, all of which are clearly outlined in its contract or constitution.

The evolution of a Stan begins with the purchase of land and a clear purpose. For example, a group might purchase a plot to create a sustainable farming community. If the Stan manages its resources efficiently and provides a desirable way of life, it can attract more participants who bring additional skills and talents, allowing the Stan to expand. This expansion could involve acquiring more land, but it doesn't have to be contiguous. Stans can have multiple, non-contiguous properties connected by shared goals and governance structures. Some Stans may decide not to expand at all and stay as a small, gated community.

However, the Stanistan model goes even further by decoupling the concept of a Stan from physical territory. In Azadism, a Stan is defined by the contract that its participants agree to, not necessarily by the land they occupy. This means that multiple Stans can coexist within the same geographical area, with individuals adhering to different contracts living side by side. For instance, a Muslim who follows a Sharia-based contract can live next to a Hindu who adheres to a different spiritual or cultural contract. The key is that these contracts are voluntary, and adherence is based on the individual’s choice, not on where they live.

This arrangement allows for maximum flexibility and respects the diverse needs and values of individuals. Since participation in a Stan is voluntary, and people are free to exit if they no longer find the arrangement suitable, the marketplace for governance remains competitive and responsive to the needs of its participants. If a Stan becomes too restrictive or fails to meet the needs of its members, they can leave and either join another Stan that better suits them or start their own.

The role of the central government (if one exists at this stage) is primarily to enforce the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and to resolve disputes when a breach occurs. For example, if one participant in a Stan imposes their rules on another without consent, this would be a violation of the NAP. The central government’s justice system would then intervene to uphold the rights of the individuals involved. This ensures that while Stans are free to govern themselves, they do not infringe on the freedoms of others to do the same.

In this way, the Stanistan model embodies the ultimate form of self-determination—what can be described as "self-determination on steroids." It not only allows individuals and groups to govern themselves according to their own values and preferences but also provides a framework where multiple forms of governance can coexist peacefully. This solves the paradox of self-determination in a diverse society by allowing each group to exercise its right to self-governance without imposing on others.

The Stanistan model, therefore, offers a powerful solution to the challenges of self-determination. It recognizes that people have diverse needs and preferences that cannot be adequately addressed by a one-size-fits-all approach to governance. By allowing people to choose or create the Stan that best aligns with their values, Azadism ensures that self-determination is not only protected but is the very foundation of societal organization.

Conclusion: Toward a Truly Self-Determined Society

In conclusion, Azadism transforms self-determination from a theoretical ideal, often merely reduced to lip service, into a practical reality that a nation (of nations) can embed more consistently into its fabric. By decentralizing power and creating a "marketplace for governance", it allows individuals and communities to fully exercise their right to self-governance in a way that is dynamic, flexible, and truly reflective of their diverse needs and aspirations. Whether this be individuals choosing for themselves which group they would like to join and be governed by, or experimenting with their own model! Azadism not only respects individual autonomy but also fosters a society where liberty and diversity are paramount. In an Azadist society, governance is fluid, responsive, and truly reflective of the will of the people.

If the Guru Khalsa were able to spearhead such an approach to Statecraft, we may be the first to solve the national-unity/self-determination dilemma that so many others struggle with.

And we don't have to completely throw out the baby with the bathwater from prior systems either. You can still retain an semblance of nationalism, and remain formatted as a nation-state too. But instead of unifying on the basis of shared characteristics related to race, religion or region, you would establish the NAP as your unifying national principle. You don't need a national flags, anthems, or any of these tools for propaganda that is forced down the throats of citizens in their respective nations. You just need a shared adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle. The state apparatus would be designed to uphold this primarily. Within the nation however, may be room for countless communities coming together on any basis they like (provided the NAP isn't breached in the process), as per the Stanistan model.

This approach to Statecraft can be applied even today to reform existing nations or build potential new ones.

If India is able to radically reformat itself in such a way, it would put an end to all successionist movements by assuring them their freedoms to operate autonomously. It would end its hypocrisy and truly shake off the European colonial legacy that it claimed to have gained independence from in 1947. In reality, this was no independence. This was self-determination for a new set of political elites at the expense of the self-determination on the wider people of the whole subcontinent.

For those completely disillusioned to the idea of reforming India, then what was discussed here is still wholly relevant. There is no point setting up a new nation-state if it is just going to be the same as what it was before but with a Sikhi-theme instead. Treat it as an opportunity to do Statecraft right, based on sound principles. But you can only do this if you recognise and learn from both the failures and successes of those who came before.

If your priority is truly self-determination, then don't just establish a new system, with a new set of central planners aiming to blindly micromanage the matters of other people's lives and applying a one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, develop a system of systems where independent developers can fail fast, learn from their mistakes and each other, iterate, and design Stans that better cater for the people they serve more directly. A Stanistan model establishes an environment of liberty, an ecosystem of diverse experiments in Statecraft, where a new nationalism could be rallied around, but this time on the basis of the NAP rather than some of arbitrary characteristics we have been using thus far.

Unity not uniformity. Diversity not divisiveness.

For more on this Stanistan idea, visit our Vichaar Repos on the subject at www.azadism.co.uk/bunga.