Home > Opinions > Could carving up provinces happen in China?

Could carving up provinces happen in China?

By Chris Devonshire-Ellis

Chris Devonshire-Ellis in a file photo. File photo/Photographer unknown

Following last week’s news from India that the state of Andhra Pradesh would be split up, with the northern portion going to create a new state of Telangana, I was left to think, could the same thing happen in China?

India is actually a relatively new country, its current form only being finalised several years after the end of British rule. Some regions of India — including that of Telangana — were never actually part of the British rule and remained independent from the British, having sufficient political clout and wealth to maintain erstwhile independence from the Raj, while the most recent Indian State of Sikkim was only formally made part of India in 1975. This last piece of the current Indian jigsaw was formally recognised by the entire United Nations interestingly with the exception of China, which protested as it viewed Sikkim as an independent state and viewed its absorption into India as illegal. That position is linked to the perennial Sino-Indian matter over Tibet, which over the centuries had occasionally claimed part of northern Sikkim as its own as borders waxed and waned.

However recent the actual Union of India is, the current map of China has also only recently been defined following border skirmishes with India (largely over Tibet again), Vietnam and Russia. That said, with Tibet being part of modern China since 1959, both countries have major border areas only properly defined within the last 40 years or so. With such young, and in several cases still disputed, borders to protect and politically justify, the position over borders may not actually be the spark that ignites confusion as has seemingly occurred with Andhra Pradesh.

The answer more likely lies in what some would describe as one of the weaknesses of the democratic system — the right to free speech. The issue over Telangana has been simmering for decades, ever since the then state of Hyderabad was subsumed along with the state of Andhra into contemporary Andhra Pradesh in 1956. Since then, the local Telanganese, with their Islamic background, own language and distinct culture, have felt increasingly marginalised as traders and businessmen, largely Hindus, poured into the state for jobs, commerce and trade. The region is India’s rice basket. And the capital, Hyderabad has become a global centre for IT and software development.

Discontent, a largely parochial train of thought, and a belief that “outsiders” were taking the best of the jobs, income and natural resources is always a magnet for the politically astute, and within India’s democratic framework, dissent began to be fomented and spread. The stakes are high — Hyderabad is India’s fifth largest city. The equivalent behaviour in China would be an errant mayor in Chengdu going on hunger strike to force the State Council to declare part of Sichuan an autonomous region.

However, the Chinese would not put up with such behaviour. Unrest would be quelled, by military force if necessary, and the working apparatus of government swiftly restored. Peace on the streets — as in Lhasa and Urumqi where peace was forcibly restored — and what the Chinese label “social stability” is paramount. Whether the protagonists of democracy like it or not, order is maintained, even if it is under the barrel of a gun.

Therein is the great truth of the political experiment that both India and China represent. While India maintains its democracy and free speech, the riots and unrest in Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad could conceivably boil over into killings, murder and unrest not just in that state, but also in next door Tamil Nadu, where the Tamils are also hankering after greater autonomy. What has begun as a small, one off piece of acknowledgement of the rights of the dispossessed Telanganese has the potential to turn very bloody, very fast. In China, such behaviour would result in a swift crackdown, the patrolling of the streets by the military, and any activists responsible being jailed for a very long time. It’s a classic example of a democratic model against a totalitarian state.

The question these recent events pose therefore is to ask whether an Indian democracy at all costs is preferable to a benevolent, military-backed, one party dictatorship?

Copyright © 2009 Asia Briefing Ltd.

Published in 2point6billion.com