Washington Star/Evening Star

The legal grounds on which the Indian government has
based its recognition of the rebellious East Pakistani
government of Bangla Desh - if generally accepted-could
come to haunt many governments, including India's, for a
very long time to come.

I refer to the contention, spelled out by Indian Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi, that the government of West
Pakistan and its army had no right to be in East
Pakistan, fighting to hold the eastern section of the
divided country. That is a startling argument.

What Mrs. Gandhi seems to be proclaiming in this case is
an inherent right of secession by a disaffected group
within a nation. She is saying further that a government
has no right to use force to preserve its integrity or
repress rebellion, which is a new idea in international
law with interesting implications.

This argument has nothing to do with the specific
circumstances involved in the Pakistani conflict.

Granted that Pakistan, divided into its East and West
wings by 1,000 miles or Indian territory, is a freakish
kind of country to begin with. Granted also that the
domination of East Pakistan by the West created abnormal
tensions between the two parts Or the country. Granted
finally that West Pakistan precipitated the conflict by
setting aside the results of an election and setting out
to crush a secessionist movement with a brutal show of
force.

It well may be that on a moral basis, Pakistan deserves
to be dismembered, that Bangla Desh deserves its freedom
and that it is very much in the interests of India to
help bring these things about. The fact remains that
until now Pakistan has been regarded by the world as a
single sovereign nation,

(OTHER THAN FOREIGN ASSISTANCE)

In arguing the legitimacy of the "government" of Bangla
Desh, Mrs. Gandhi piously quotes Thomas Jefferson to the
effect that it is "supported by the will of the nation,
substantially expressed." What she chooses to ignore is
that, until now, there has been only one nation-and it
is called Pakistan.

Until now, furthermore, it has generally been accepted
that it is the right of a sovereign nation to preserve
its integrity at any cost. Many nations, including our
own, have fought for the principle. Certainly, if this
right were to be generally denied, plenty of countries
would be in serious trouble.

For the fact is that there are hundreds of secessionist
movements all over the world with more or less
legitimate grievances against their governments. If
these movements are encouraged to the extent that Mrs.
Gandhi implies they should be, the centrifugal forces
set in motion could easily get out of control.

Particularly among the new and underdeveloped nations,
the principle of separatism and indiscriminate self-
determination can lead to chaos. In a continent like
Africa, for instance, national boundaries reflect little
more than the outlines of former European colonial
empires, and tribal rivalries generally outweigh any
concept of national loyalty. The experiences of Katanga
and Biafra have shown quite clearly where the right of
secession is likely to lead.

But surely of all countries in the world India itself is
the most vulnerable to the doctrines that Mrs. Gandhi is
preaching at this point .

For India is an incredible hodgepodge of races,
languages, and religions, bound together rather
tenuously by the idea of the nation-state. Its 600
million people speak a total of 1,652 mother languages
and practice six different major religions. For
centuries the history of India has been one of communal
strife over differences of race, religion and language.

Nor has the Indian government, since gaining its
independence in 1950, shown much patience with
secessionist movements within its own boundaries.
Periodic revolts in Moslem-dominated Kashmir and in the
Naga hill district of Assam have been bloodily
suppressed. Despite appeals from the United Nations,
India has never permitted n plebiscite in Kashmir to
settle its dispute with Pakistan over the area. The
substantial will of the local population has been
consistently ignored in New Delhi.

So it might be safer for everyone concerned if India
stopped pretending that any high moral or legal
principles have been involved in its attack on Pakistan
or that the legitimacy of the government of secessionist
Bangla Desh is self-evident. What we are witnessing on
the subcontinent is a ruthless power-play in the most
classic tradition. And clothing it in sanctimonious
language changes nothing whatever.