[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[House]
[Page 15769]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           RESPONDING TO SECESSIONIST ARGUMENTS AGAINST INDIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. 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.

                              {time}  2340

  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 idealogical 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 
idealogical 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.

                          ____________________