The French Constitution of 1791 was written after start of the revolution and the abolition of the monarchy. “Sovereignty is one, indivisible unalienable and imprescriptible; it belongs to the nation: no group can attribute sovereignty to itself nor can an individual arrogate it himself.” The concept was first thought of by Jean Bodin of 16th century France to signal the progress from feudalism to nationalism. In the times of monarchy, the king or the queen was the sovereign and generally described as such. The US declaration of Independence in 1776 was the first document to enunciate sovereignty as an essential element of the new state. There was no monarch or sovereign in the New World.

“Half sovereign” more concerns the quality of effective governance rather than the issue of sovereign per se. Incidentally, the Pakistani Constitution states that its sovereignty belongs to Allah the Merciful. But that does not lend effectiveness of governance to the state ~ whether, the writ of the government runs to the last mile from the capital to the frontiers. Beyond them, the other countries should respect the state if it is to be called fully sovereign and not half.

The 2005 incident of two Naga groups ~ ANSAM and NSF ~ blockading Manipur by choking NH-39 and NH-53 in the State is reminiscent of a siege undertaken in war. Instead of calling in the Army to disperse the involved groups and restoring the normal passages to and from Manipur, the Government airlifted supplies. Home Secretary VK Duggal is reported (The Statesman, August 18) to have said in Manipur on August 17 that it was the State’s internal matter. This was rather like the US Air Force reaching West Berlin in 1961 when the Soviet Union had blockaded the city. In this incident, three independent countries were involved ~ Federal Republic of Germany, the US and the USSR. In the Naga-Manipur episode only one country ~ and therefore a domestic problem ~ was concerned.

In the same year Ms Mamata Banerjee had occasion to throw a sheaf of papers at the Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha. The reason was her protest at the way delimitation of constituencies was taking place in West Bengal. In several constituencies, she had discovered Bangladeshi nationals listed on Indian rolls. It was amazing that foreigners were being enabled to vote in our elections, was her sharp exclamation.

What was happening in West Bengal was not accidental as it had been the policy of the Congress and the Left Front to encourage infiltration, and thus expand their votebank. Had it not been so, how would the ruling party explain its sponsorship of the IMDT Act in Assam and being unhappy at its having been struck down as ultra vires by the Supreme Court only some years ago?

When in April, Maulana Asad Madani pleaded for more privileges for Muslims, Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi had pointed to the Congress’s support for the IMDT Act. Assam was the only state where this law was in force. It was also unique in the world because nowhere did the law place the onus of proving that a suspected infiltrator was so on the complainant. The alleged foreigner has no responsibility to prove his bona fide. Earlier, the Left Front had said that it was a desirable law and should also be introduced in West Bengal. This was a classic case of India abdicating its sovereignty to an immigrant from abroad in order to enlist an electoral supporter.

The inconsistency in Jammu and Kashmir is equally amazing. Years ago, when P V Narasimha Rao was Prime Minister, Parliament had resolved that the whole of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral and unalienable part of India. This included POK. Yet Article 370 of the Constitution continued right until 2019. The State had a separate Constitution and its own flag. A Kashmiri can freely buy property in any part of the country, but non-Kashmiri Indians could not acquire any such thing in Jammu & Kashmir. Yet the Government expected people to believe that we are a sovereign state. The problem of the Constitution begins by calling India a sovereign democratic Republic. Meanwhile, the Government experienced no embarrassment in negotiating autonomy in Jammu and Kashmir with all and sundry, including the various factions of the Hurriyat who were separatists. The Government did not mind the Hurriyat leaders hobnobbing with Pakistani diplomats or with visiting dignitaries from Islamabad. Equally incorrigible was the Government holding talks at home as well as overseas with Naga separatists like Mr T Muivah. A sovereign state would charge every separatist with treason, try him and hang him if proved guilty.

This is clear from the fact that wakfs and Muslim personal law still remain untouched. Collectively, the wakf properties represent the biggest urban landlords in India. The demand for Taj Mahal by the UP Sunni Wakf Board and that for Bibi ka Maqbara at Aurangabad by the Maharashtra Wakf Board is on the ground that these contain qabrs or graves.

A sovereign state should nationalize all their properties as they are deemed to belong to Allah who is supreme and much above any country. Many Islamic countries have over the years abolished their wakfs because they were uneconomic stones hanging around the economies. According to a former Vice-chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia (university) A.A.A. Fyzee, wakfs are a dead hand and utterly uneconomic.

Similarly, Muslim personal laws still continue to be sacred and above the purview of the Constitution. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s view, the Muslim community now appears to have set up Sharia courts known as Darul Qaza in a number of States to adjudicate on matters concerning marriage, divorce, etc.

There are, therefore, two systems of law and justice functioning in the country ~ one Muslim and the other Indian. In the event there is a conflict between the two, the Muslim version prevails. In fact, Article 44 of our Constitution states that ‘the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India’. Seventy years have passed and the citizens are waiting for such a Code.

With the advent of the new government in 2014, the journey towards a full sovereign state appeared to have begun. A surgical strike in Myanmar followed by one on Pakistan at Balakot were signals of hope.

There was an occasion when Bangladeshi Rangers had beheaded several Indian para-military jawans and hung them on wooden poles like just killed animals being taken for roasting. There was no reaction or retaliation from New Delhi.

Gunnar Myrdal would have liked to call such a state a comprehensibly ‘soft’ state. We have not discussed here the factor of corruption which also India had plenty of. It has reduced noticeably in the upper echelons of government and there is a great deal of scope for improvement. But India is no longer the ‘soft’ state it was say five or six years ago.