Introduction
The Northeast region of
India comprising of eight states – Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh,
Mizoram, Tripura and Sikkim – a region poorly connected to the Indian mainland
by a small corridor, and surrounded by many countries such as Bhutan, Myanmar,
Bangladesh and China, is the setting for a multitude of conflict that
undermines the idea of India as a prosperous and functioning democracy.
For instance, the Naga
insurgence, which started in the 1950s, known as the mother of the Northeast
insurgencies, is one of the oldest unresolved armed conflicts in the world. In
total, Manipur, Assam, Nagaland and Tripura have witnessed scales of conflict
that could, at least between 1990 and 2000, be characterised as low intensity
conflicts. However, it must also be mentioned that internal conflicts have been
a permanent feature of the Asian political landscape since 1945, of which
post-colonial India is no exception. Currently, most of the states in the
region are affected by some form of conflict, expect for Arunachal Pradesh,
Mizoram and Sikkim in which the situation is at the moment relatively stable.
The reasons for the respective conflicts are wide ranging from separatist
movements, to inter-community, communal and inter-ethnic conflicts.
Unfortunately, the data and
information on the region is not sufficiently analyzed and communicated between
the region and the Centre, contributing to further misinformation,
mismanagement and alienation. At another level, conflict in the region has been
an all pervasive phenomena, and in its violent form, it has not only affected
the territorial and political sovereignty of the Indian state, but also the
life of the various people living in the region in incomprehensible and
inexplicable terms. In a drastic and dreaded sense, there is a “culture” of
conflict and unfortunately, people have submitted to such an existence.
However, amidst the widespread sense of helplessness, there is also an
overwhelming desire and force to be free from such a situation of conflict
which cripples the people from all sides.
To gain a holistic
understanding of the problem that has historical and contemporary dimensions,
it is important to assess and understand the various facets of the problem that
interact with each other.
Historical reasons for the
conflict
The historical connections
among the traditional tribes in the Northeast are largely of
Tibeto-Burman/Mongoloid stock and closer to Southeast Asia than to South Asia.
It is ethnically, linguistically and culturally very distinct from the other
states of India. Though cultural and ethnic diversity per say are not causes
for conflict, but one of the major problem areas is that the Northeast is
territorially organized in such a manner that ethnic and cultural specificities
were ignored during the process of delineation of state boundaries in the
1950s, giving rise to discontentment and assertion of one’s identity. Whereas, the
colonial rulers took nearly a century to annex the entire region, and
administered the hills as a loose ‘frontier area’, with the result, that large
parts of the northeastern hill areas never came in touch with the principle of
a central administration before.
Hence, their allegiance to
the newly formed Indian nation-state was lacking from the beginning –
accentuated by the creation of East Pakistan (today’s Bangladesh) – which meant
the loss of a major chunk of the physical connection between mainland India and
Northeast India. Interestingly, 99 percent of the Northeast’s boundaries is
international and only one percent is domestic boundary.
Issues of governance
The Indian government’s past
and ongoing processes of national integration, state-building and democratic
consolidation have further aggravated the conflict scenario in the region. For
instance, the eight states comprising the Northeast is populated by nearly 40
million inhabitants who vary in language, race, tribe, caste, religion, and
regional heritage. Therefore, most often, the clubbing of all these states
under the tag of ‘northeast’ has tended to have a homogenizing effect with its
own set of implications for policy formulation and implementation; not to
mention local aversion to such a construct.
The politico-administrative
arrangements made by the Centre have also been lacking. For instance, the
introduction of the Sixth Schedule Autonomous Councils (currently there are ten
such Councils in the region and many more demanding such status) ended up
creating multiple power centers instead of bringing in a genuine process of
democratization or autonomy in the region. Moreover, Para 12 (A) of the Sixth
Schedule clearly states that, whenever there is a conflict of interest between
the District Councils and the state legislature, the latter would prevail. It
is even alleged that it is “a mere platform for aspiring politicians who
nurture ambitions to contest assembly polls in the future” (Teresa Rehman,
Tehelka, 30 January 2009).
The AFSPA (Armed Forces
Special Power Act) for instance, shows the inability and reluctance of the
government to solve the conflict with adequate political measures. The AFSPA
was passed on 18 August, 1958, as a short-term measure to allow deployment of
the army to counter an armed separatist movement in the Naga Hills, has been in
place for the last five decades and was extended to all the seven states of the
Northeast region in 1972 (with the exception of Mizoram). It was part of a
bundle of provisions, passed by the central government, to retain control over
the Naga areas, in which the Naga National Council (NNC) demanded further
autonomous rights. The AFSPA became a powerful measure for the central and the
state government to act against actors challenging the political and
territorial integrity of India. As a result, the Indian army for the first time
since its independence was deployed to manage an internal conflict. But,
instead of resolving the problem, it led to an ongoing escalation of the
conflict by bringing it on a military level. The regular violations of human
rights has led to a radicalization and militarization of the region and
weakened also the supporters of a political solution. According to the Human
Rights Watch Report (August 2008), “The Act violates provisions of international
human rights law, including the right to life, the right to be protected from
arbitrary arrest and detention, and the right to be free from torture and
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. It also denies the victims of the
abuses the right to a remedy.” A fact-finding commission, appointed by the
government in 2004, complained that the “AFSPA has become a symbol of
oppression, an object of hate and an instrument of discrimination and
highhandedness”.
Though the conflict in the
region is mired with complex political-economic issues, such as, struggle over
natural resources, migration related issues, displacement, social exclusion,
and so on, according to Dr Clemens Spiess, “the politics of identity lie at the
heart of the bigger part of the current conflict constellations in the
Northeast”.
Foreign Policy imperative
India’s ‘look east policy’
which was formulated in 1991 on the heels of India’s economic liberalization,
was a foreign economic policy initiative towards South East Asia. The Northeast
which is geographically situated between mainland India and Southeast Asia is
supposed to have had immense developmental benefits as a result of this
initiative and hence, have synergy effects on reducing poverty in the region;
as well as on insurgency and armed conflict. The region’s diverse natural
resources, rich bio-diversity and enormous hydro-electricity potential, among
others, could also help to overcome the widespread feeling of backwardness
among the inhabitants of the Northeast. But there is also increasing argument
made that the impact of increased introduction of market imperatives in the
traditional society of the region would have irreversible impact on the
people’s culture and life and it would also lead to increased settlement of
mainland people to the northeast. Thereby it is of high importance, that the
announced opening will take place in a regulated frame and through cooperation
with the local people, otherwise it could aggravate the tensions between the
center and the region.
The government has also
faced criticism in the way in which it has been looking at the Northeast as an
issue of territorial security rather than development per say. The fear of a
growing Chinese influence, as well as, increasing cross-border terrorism
(Myanmar, Bangladesh) in the region are some of the factors cited as reasons
for limiting India in its attempt to open the region.
Outlook
To conclude,in the words of
Clemens Spiess, the various problems and conflict constellations in the
Northeast “represent(s) durable challenges to the integrative and accommodative
capacity of Indian democracy”. The HBS India programme on ‘Democracy and
Conflict’, of which the Northeast is an important component, focuses mainly on
the Northeast region of India and aims to support, facilitate and contribute to
civil society engagement, participation, and intervention in the region with
regard to conflict prevention. Thereby, facilitating intermediation between the
various stakeholders involved in the diverse conflict constellations in the region,
be it the public, civil society activists, state representatives, journalists,
academicians and researchers; and contributing to the promotion of integration
and socialisation into a democratic political culture through dialogue and
civic education. The overall objective of the HBS programme is to promote the
peaceful coexistence of conflict affected ethnic groups through strengthened
democratic processes, with gender being a cross-cutting issue.
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें