Central Board of Film Certification

The Central Board of Film Certification is a statutory censorship and classification body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. It is tasked with "regulating the public exhibition of films under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act 1952". It assigns certifications to films, television shows, television ads, and publications for exhibition, sale or hire in India. Films can be publicly exhibited in India only after they are certified by the Board.

Cinema came to India in 1896 when the first show at Watson hotel, Bombay (now Mumbai) by Lumière Brothers was presented in July. As the first film in India (Raja Harishchandra) was produced in 1913 by Dadasaheb Phalke, Indian Cinematograph Act was passed and came into effect only in 1920. Censor Boards (as they were called then) were placed under police chiefs in cities of Madras (now Chennai), Bombay (now Mumbai), Calcutta (now Kolkata), Lahore (now in Pakistan) and Rangoon (now Yangon in Burma). Regional censors were independent. After Independence autonomy of regional censors was abolished and they were brought under the Bombay Board of Film Censors. With implementation of Cinematograph Act, 1952, the board was unified and reconstituted, as the Central Board of Film Censors. Cinematograph (Certification) Rules were revised in 1983 and since then the Central Board of Film Censors became known as the Central Board of Film Certification.

Current certificates

The CBFC currently issues the following certificates:

Certificate	Name	Definition/Notes
U	Universal	Unrestricted Public Exhibition throughout India, suitable for all age groups. Films under this category should not upset children over 4. This rating is similar to the MPAA's G and PG and the BBFC's U and PG ratings. Such films may contain educational, social or family-oriented themes. Films under this category may also contain fantasy violence and/or mild bad language.
UA	Parental Guidance	All ages admitted, but it is advised that children below 12 be accompanied by a parent as the theme or content may be considered intense or inappropriate for young children. This rating is similar to the MPAA's PG and PG-13 and the BBFC's PG and 12A ratings. Films under this category may contain mature themes, sexual references, mild sex scenes, violence with brief gory images and/or infrequent use of crude language.
A	Adults Only	Restricted to adult audiences (18 years or over). This rating is similar to the MPAA's R and the BBFC's 15 ratings. Nobody below the age of 18 may buy/rent an A-rated DVD, VHS, UMD or watch a film in the cinema with this rating. Films under this category may contain adult/disturbing themes, frequent crude language, brutal violence with blood and gore, strong sex scenes and/or scenes of drug abuse which is considered unsuitable for minors.
S	Restricted to any special class of persons	This rating signifies that the film is meant for a specialised audience, such as doctors.

Additionally, V/U, V/UA, V/A are used for video releases with U, UA and A carrying the same meaning as above. UA and S certificates were introduced in 1983.

The Board consist of non-official members and a Chairperson (all of whom are appointed by Central Government). Bharatnatyam dancer, Leela Samson presently presides the Board after Sharmila Tagore,[1][2] who was the longest continuous running Chairperson in the history. Samson is now the 26th Chairperson after the Board's establishment.

The Board functions with its headquarters at Mumbai. It has nine Regional offices each at:

Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Thiruvananthapuram, Hyderabad, New Delhi, Cuttack, Guwahati

The Regional Offices are assisted in the examination of films by Advisory Panels. The members of the panels are nominated by Central Government by drawing people from different walks of life for a period of 2 years.

Chairpersons of the CBFC

 

No.	Name	From	To
1	C. S. Aggarwal	15 January 1951	14 June 1954
2	B. D. Mirchandani	15 June 1954	9 June 1955
3	M. D. Bhatt	10 June 1955	21 November 1959
4	D. L. Kothari	22 November 1959	24 March 1960
5	B. D. Mirchandani	25 March 1960	1 November 1960
6	D. L. Kothari	2 November 1960	22 April 1965
7	B. P. Bhatt	23 April 1965	22 April 1968
8	R. P. Nayak	31 April 1968	15 November 1969
9	M. V. Desai	12 December 1969	19 October 1970
10	R. Srinivasan	20 October 1970	15 November 1971
11	Virendra Vyas	11 February 1972	30 June 1976
12	K. L. Khandpur	1 July 1976	31 January 1981
13	Hrishikesh Mukherjee	1 February 1981	10 August 1982
14	Aparna Mohile	11 August 1982	14 March 1983
15	Sharad Upasani	15 March 1983	9 May 1983
16	Surresh Mathur	10 May 1983	7 July 1983
17	Vikram Singh	8 July 1983	19 February 1989
18	Moreshwar Vanmali	20 February 1989	25 April 1990
19	B. P. Singhal	25 April 1990	1 April 1991
20	Shakti Samanta	1 April 1991	25 June 1998
21	Asha Parekh	25 June 1998	25 September 2001
22	Vijay Anand	26 September 2001	19 July 2002
23	Arvind Trivedi	20 July 2002	16 October 2003
24	Anupam Kher	16 October 2003	13 October 2004
25	Sharmila Tagore	13 October 2004	31 March 2011
26	Leela Samson	1 April 2011	Till Date

राजनीति में जातिवाद

64साल के गणतंत्र के बाद भी आखिर क्या कारण है कि भारत से जाति पर आधारित राजनीति खत्म नहीं हो रही है। अभी जारी उत्तर प्रदेश विधानसभा चुनाव इसका ताजा उदाहरण है। हमने फस्र्ट पास्ट द पोस्ट सिस्टम (एफपीटीपी) यानी जो पहले खंभा छुए वही विजेता या यों कहें कि जो सबसे ज्यादा वोट पाए वह विजेता वाली चुनाव पद्धति अपनाई है। जब हम संविधान बना रहे थे, हमारे सामने कुछ अन्य पद्धतियां भी थीं लेकिन हमने ब्रिटेन के मॉडल को अंगीकार करते हुए इस पद्धति को सर्वश्रेष्ठ समझा। नजीज़ा यह हुआ कि चौधरी के कहने पर वोट देने वाला बारम्बार ठगा हुआ किसान हो या प्रजातंत्र की बारीकियां समझने वाला व्यक्ति; दोनों के वोट समान माने गए। भारतीय समाज में गरीबी, अशिक्षा व सामंतवादी अवशेषों की वजह से इस पूरी अवधारणा को पटरी से उतार दिया गया। एफपीटीपी पद्धति की सबसे बड़ी खराबी है कि यह समाज को विभाजित करती है। विखंडन की यह प्रक्रिया तब तक नहीं रु कती, जब तक कि सबसे छोटा पहचान समूह भी विखंडित नहीं हो जाता। उदाहरण के तौर पर एक विधानसभा क्षेत्र में मान लीजिए नौ प्रत्याशी हैं, जिनमें से आठ को 9000 के आसपास वोट मिले हैं लेकिन नौंवें प्रत्याशी को 9005 हज़ार वोट मिले हैं तो यही प्रत्याशी विजयी घोषित होगा। हालांकि 88 प्रतिशत मतदाताओं ने उसे खारिज किया है। अगले चुनाव में ये सभी आठों प्रत्याशी इस बात की कोशिश में लग जाएंगे कि किसी तरह से छोटे-छोटे पहचान समूहों की भावनाओं को उभारा जाए और कोशिश की जाए कि किस तरह महज छह प्रतिशत वोट और बढ़ाए जाएं ताकि अगले चुनाव में जीत हासिल हो। समाज तोड़क है एफपीटीपी चूंकि यह पहचान समूह धार्मिंक, जातिगत, क्षेत्रीय, उपजातीय व भावनात्मक आधार पर परंपरागत रूप से ही पहले से बने होते हैं; इसलिए राजनीतिक दलों के लिए आसान पड़ता है कि उन्हीं में से किसी एक को अपने साथ जोड़े। एक दूसरी दुारी यह भी है कि नए और तार्किक आधार पर पहचान समूह बनाना; मसलन, विकास के मुद्दों के आधार पर पेशेवरों का ग्रुप बनाना मशक्कत का कार्य होता है। इसलिए राजनीतिक पार्टयिां पहले विकल्प को चुनती हैं। राजनीतिशास्त्र के सर्वमान्य विश्लेषणों के मुताबिक अशिक्षित व अतार्किक समाज में भावनात्मक मुद्दे अचानक ही तेजी से उभरते हैं और कई बार इतने प्रबल हो जाते हैं कि मूल मुद्दों पर भारी पड़ते हैं।

पूरी विधिमान्य और तार्किक व्यवस्था को या संवैधानिक संस्थाओं को अपने अनुरूप ढ़ालना शुरू कर देते हैं। 1984 में शुरू हुए राममंदिर के लिए उबाल को इसी संदर्भ में देखा जाना चाहिए। लेकिन चूंकि भावनात्मक मुद्दे अतार्किक सोच व पहचान समूह के आधार पर ही होते हैं। इसलिए दूसरा राजनीतिक दल फौरन ही कोई अन्य भावनात्मक मुद्दा और इसी बड़े पहचान समूह में से एक छोटा पहचान समूह पकड़ता है।1984 के राममंदिर-जनित हिंदू एकता की प्रतिक्रिया के रूप में मंडल कमीशन सामने आता है और हिंदुओं में ही एक नए पहचान समूह (हालांकि यह पहचान समूह पहले से ही सुषुप्त लेकिन अस्तित्व में था) को राजनीतिक पार्टयिां उभारना शुरू करती हैं। लिहाज़ा, 1990 तक आते-आते देश बैकर्वड और फॉर्वड में बंट जाता है। बात यहीं तक नहीं रु कती। इसी के साथ शुरू होता है, जातिगत राजनीति का जबर्दस्त तांडव और तब होता है- कांशीराम, मुलायम सिंह यादव, लालू प्रसाद की राजनीति का अभ्युदय जिसे नाम दिया जाता है-सामाजिक न्याय वाली पार्टयिां। सिलसिला यहीं नहीं रु कता। आंध्र प्रदेश में कम्मा और कापू पूरी तरह से तलवार तान लेते हैं। कर्नाटक में लिंगायत और वोक्कालिंगा अलग हो जाते हैं। उत्तर भारत में यादव-कुर्मी बंट जाते हैं, ब्राह्मण-ठाकुर बंट जाते हैं। सिलसिला इतने से भी नहीं रु कता। पसमांदा मुसलमान और अशरफ मुसलमानों को अलग करने की कोशिश की जाती है, पिछड़ों और अति-पिछड़ों के बीच एक नया पहचान समूह बनाने का उपक्रम होता है और यहां तक कि दलितों में भी एक महादलित पहचान समूह खड़ा करने की कोशिश की जाती है। चर्मकार को पासी से अलग करने का प्रयास होता है। जनस्वीकार्यता की उपेक्षा राजनीतिशास्त्र की अवधारणाओं का एक अन्य पहलू होता है जिसके तहत प्रजातंत्र में राजनीतिक दल की स्वीकार्यता की एक शर्त होती है कि उसका अपना एक कैडर हो जो नीचे तक जाकर जनता से अपनी बात कहे लेकिन भारतीय लोकतांत्रिक व्यवस्था में कुछ राष्ट्रीय राजनीतिक दलों को छोड़ कर किसी क्षेत्रीय दल ने यह जहमत उठाना गंवारा नहीं किया। उसका कारण यह था कि कैडर खड़ा करने के लिए सैद्धांतिक संबल की ज़रूरत होती है, जिसका क्षेत्रीय दलों में सर्वथा अभाव रहा। इस अभाव को पूरा करना बहुत आसान था, जब इन पार्टयिों के नेताओं ने पहचान समूह के साथ अपने को जोड़ा और उनमें सशक्तीकरण की एक झूठी चेतना जगाई। अगर ‘मंदिर वहीं बनाएंगे’ के नारे से भाजपा ने अपनी दुकान खड़ी की तो मुलायम ने अपने आदमियों से ‘परिंदा भी पर नहीं मार पाएगा’ कहलवाकर अपनी राजनीति रातों- रात चमकाया। ‘तिलक-तराजू-तलवार’ का नारा इसी दौर में आता है। मुलायम सिंह ने अपने शासनकाल में पीएसी की भर्ती में यादवों को भरना शुरू किया। बसपा सुप्रीमो मायावती ने मंच से कहना शुरू किया- देखो आज जिले के इतने कलक्टर और इतने कप्तान दलित वर्ग के हैं। लालू प्रसाद ने भरे दरबार में सवर्ण चीफ सेक्रेटरी को जब बड़े-बाबू कहते हुए उपहास के लहजे में बोला तब उनका एक बड़ा वर्ग जो सदियों से दबा-कुचला था, अचानक से अपने को सशक्त समझने लगा। हेलीकॉप्टर से उतरकर लालू प्रसाद यादव ने चुनाव के दौरान यादव बाहुल्य राघोपुर की एक जनसभा में सिर्फ तीन मिनट का भाषण दिया। अब यहां पेड़ से ताड़ी उतारते हो तब कोई टैक्स तो नहीं मांगता।

उत्साहित भीड़ का जवाब था-ना साहिब। लालू ने दूसरा सवाल दागा-नदी से मछली मारते हो तब कोई सरकारी आदमी कुछ कहता तो नहीं। जनता से जवाब आया-जी, नाहीं। लालू यादव की अगली सलाह थी-खूब ताड़ी पियो, मछली खाओ, मस्त रहो। हेलीकॉप्टर का रॉटर नाचा और लालू यादव उड़ गए। उस विधानसभा से उनको जबर्दस्त जीत हासिल हुई। सशक्तीकरण के भ्रम से उबरना शुरू हुआ सशक्तीकरण की झूठी चेतना के लिए सामाजिक न्याय के इन पुरोधाओं ने राज्य के संवैधानिक व कानूनी संस्थाओं को तोड़ना-मरोड़ना शुरू किया। नतीज़ा यह हुआ कि कप्तान व एसपी अपमान से बचने के लिए सजदे के भाव में आ गए। कलक्टर और एसपी ने चप्पल उठाना शुरू किया, सार्वजनिक अवसरों पर मंत्री-मुख्यमंत्री के सामने हाथ बांधे खड़े रहने लगे और लगा कि पूरा शासन और कानूनी व्यवस्था इन तथाकथित सामाजिक न्याय के पुरोधाओं की चेरी हो गई है। इसी बीच दो राष्ट्रीय पार्टी कांग्रेस और भाजपा ने अपना राजनीतिक धरातल छोड़ना शुरू किया। स्थिति यहां तक आ गई कि उत्तर प्रदेश में कांग्रेस के वोट महज सात से आठ प्रतिशत रह गए तो बीजेपी के 14 से 16 प्रतिशत। अगर देश भर में देखें तो जहां कांग्रेस 2009 के चुनाव में 27 प्रतिशत वोट हासिल कर सकी वहीं बीजेपी सिर्फ 18 प्रतिशत। उधर, दूसरी तरफ क्षेत्रीय दलों को लगभग 40 प्रतिशत वोट मिले। दरअसल, समाज को बांटने वाले खेल की शुरुआत करने के बाद भाजपा और कांग्रेस खुद ही बाहर हो गई। लेकिन समाजशास्त्रीय अवधारणाओं के हिसाब से भावनात्मक मुद्दों की राजनीति की एक मियाद होती है। अगर किसी पहचान समूह की तर्कशक्ति व शिक्षा का स्तर शुरू से ही अपेक्षाकृत बेहतर रहा है, तब वह जल्दी ही समझ जाता है कि सशक्तीकरण झूठा था, भावनाएं सिर्फ अपनी रोटी सेंकने के लिए जगाई गई थी और तब उसका मोहभंग होता है। बिहार में यही हुआ। उत्तर प्रदेश में भी जिन-जिन जिलों में दलित शिक्षा बेहतर हुई है, वहां बहुजन समाज पार्टी को अपेक्षाकृत कम मत मिले हैं।

अब राज धर्म, राजनीति शास्त्र , राजनीति धर्म . समय के साथ बदलते स्वरुप एक दूसरे में ऐसे मिल गए कि अंतर करना कठिन हो रहा है. राजनीति में जातिवाद का क्या अर्थ ? जातिवाद अब धर्म हो गया है तो यह भी उसी श्रेणी में खड़ा हो गया जिसमे राज धर्म, राजनीति धर्म व अन्य कोई धर्म. अब जब व्यवस्था बन गयी है तो चाहें कोई क्षेत्र हो राजनीति ही क्या प्रत्येक क्षेत्र में जाति वाद तो रहेगा. एक जाति का परिवार अपनी ही जाति के परिवारों के साथ अपना समाज बनता है. आपस में रिश्तेदारी करते हैं, सुख दुःख बांटते हैं, वक्त पड़ने पर एक दूसरे के लिए खड़े होते हैं. मदद भी करते हैं, जब हम अपनी जाति के लिए लाभ पहुचाने और तमाम सामाजिक कार्य एवं दायित्वों का निर्वहन कर रहे हैं तो राजनीति के लिए यदि कोई अपनी जाति का समर्थन करता है और अपनी जाति से समर्थन मांगता है या अपेक्षा रखता है तो ये किस प्रकार से अव्यवहारिक अथवा निंदनीय हो सकता है.

छोटा सा उदाहरण लीजिये जब हमें कोई लाभ प्राप्त होता है तो उसको हम अपने परिवार में सर्व प्रथम बांटते हैं. मनुष्यों की बात तो छोड़िये पशु जिन्हें हम निरीह प्राणी मानते हैं वे भी अपने समूह को ही प्रत्येक क्षेत्र में प्राथमिकता देते हैं. एक साथ झुण्ड में खड़े होते हैं, खाने पीने में भी अन्य वर्ग के पशुओं के स्थान पर अपने ही वर्ग के पशुओं को साथ रखते हैं फिर भी ये निरीह प्राणी हम से श्रेष्ठ हैं क्योंकि ये हमारी तरह अपनी जाति में उप जातियों, वर्ग में  में नहीं बटें हैं. हम लोग तो अपनी ही जाति में कई वर्गों एवं उप जातियों में बटें हैं और आपस में ही एक दूसरे को हेय द्रष्टि से देखते हैं. कभी कभी तो जाति संघर्ष भी हो जाता है. अपने साथ साथ दूसरों के जीवन को नरक बना देते हैं.

अपने भी दिल पर हाथ रख कर सोचें. क्या अभी हमारे विचारों में कहीं भी कुछ बदलाव करने की हूक उठी है या जो हम करें वो ठीक पर जब दूसरा करता है तो कष्ट होता है, ये दोहरा मापदंड क्यों. यदि राष्ट्र के हित के लिए किसी भी प्रकार के बदलाव कि आवश्यकता महसूस करते हैं तो खुले दिल से क्यों नहीं करते. जब घटना स्वयं के साथ घट जाती है तब ही क्यों प्रगतिशील विचार धारा वाले बनते हैं, तब क्यों आदर्श बघारते हैं . मैं यह नहीं कहता कि ऐसा किया जाये . सबको अपने अपने ढंग से सोचने एवं जीने का अधिकार है पर जहाँ राष्ट्र हित की बात हो तो जाति का आधार लेना राष्ट्र हित में लिए जाने वाले फैसलों को प्रभावित करता है जिसका खामियाजा सबको ही भुगतना पड़ता है.

भले ही राजनीति में जातिवाद की जड़ें बहुत गहरी हैं पर राष्ट्र हित में इसमें मट्ठा डालने की नितांत आवश्यकता है. भले ही हम सामाजिक व्यवस्था के अंतर्गत जाति प्रथा से बाहर न निकल पायें. हालांकि इसकी शुरुआत हो गयी है, पर राष्ट्र हित में हमें अपने विवेक का प्रयोग करना ही होगा, धर्म , जाति, उप जाति, वर्ग जो भी हो उससे निकल कर. तभी हम मजबूत होंगे और सुखी होंगे और साथ ही हमारा राष्ट्र भी.

ASEAN

 The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, was established on 8 August 1967 in Bangkok, Thailand, with the signing of the ASEAN Declaration (Bangkok Declaration) by the Founding Fathers of ASEAN, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Brunei Darussalam then joined on 7 January 1984, Viet Nam on 28 July 1995, Lao PDR and Myanmar on 23 July 1997, and Cambodia on 30 April 1999, making up what is today the ten Member States of ASEAN.

AIMS AND PURPOSES

As set out in the ASEAN Declaration, the aims and purposes of ASEAN are:

• To accelerate the economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region through joint endeavors’ in the spirit of equality and partnership in order to strengthen the foundation for a prosperous and peaceful community of Southeast Asian Nations;
• To promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries of the region and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter;
• To promote active collaboration and mutual assistance on matters of common interest in the economic, social, cultural, technical, scientific and administrative fields;
• To provide assistance to each other in the form of training and research facilities in the educational, professional, technical and administrative spheres;
• To collaborate more effectively for the greater utilisation of their agriculture and industries, the expansion of their trade, including the study of the problems of international commodity trade, the improvement of their transportation and communications facilities and the raising of the living standards of their peoples;
• To promote Southeast Asian studies; and
• To maintain close and beneficial cooperation with existing international and regional organisations with similar aims and purposes, and explore all avenues for even closer cooperation among themselves.

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

In their relations with one another, the ASEAN Member States have adopted the following fundamental principles, as contained in the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) of 1976:

• Mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, and national identity of all nations;
• The right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coercion;
• Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another;
• Settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful manner;
• Renunciation of the threat or use of force; and
• Effective cooperation among themselves.

ASEAN COMMUNITY

The ASEAN Vision 2020, adopted by the ASEAN Leaders on the 30th Anniversary of ASEAN, agreed on a shared vision of ASEAN as a concert of Southeast Asian nations, outward looking, living in peace, stability and prosperity, bonded together in partnership in dynamic development and in a community of caring societies.

At the 9th ASEAN Summit in 2003, the ASEAN Leaders resolved that an ASEAN Community shall be established.

At the 12th ASEAN Summit in January 2007, the Leaders affirmed their strong commitment to accelerate the establishment of an ASEAN Community by 2015 and signed the Cebu Declaration on the Acceleration of the Establishment of an ASEAN Community by 2015.

The ASEAN Community is comprised of three pillars, namely the ASEAN Political-Security Community, ASEAN Economic Community and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community. Each pillar has its own Blueprint, and, together with the Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) Strategic Framework and IAI Work Plan Phase II (2009-2015), they form the Roadmap for and ASEAN Community 2009-2015.

ASEAN Summit

• Twentyfirst ASEAN Summit, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 18 November 2012
• Twentieth ASEAN Summit, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 03-04 April 2012
• Nineteenth ASEAN Summit, Bali, Indonesia, 14-19 November 2011
• Eighteenth ASEAN Summit, Jakarta, 7-8 May 2011
• Seventeenth ASEAN Summit, Ha Noi, 28-30 October 2010
• Sixteenth ASEAN Summit, Ha Noi, 8-9 April 2010
• Fifteenth ASEAN Summit, Cha-Am Hua Hin, Thailand, 23-25 October 2009
• Fourteenth ASEAN Summit, Cha-am, Thailand, 26 February - 1 March 2009
• Thirteenth ASEAN Summit, Singapore, 18-22 November 2007
• Twelfth ASEAN Summit, Cebu, Philippines, 9-15 January 2007
• Eleventh ASEAN Summit, Kuala Lumpur, 12-14 December 2005
• Tenth ASEAN Summit, Vientiane, 29-30 November 2004
• Ninth ASEAN Summit, Bali, 7-8 October 2003
• Eighth ASEAN Summit, Phnom Penh, 4-5 November 2002
• Seventh ASEAN Summit, Bandar Seri Begawan, 5-6 November 2001
• Fourth Informal Summit, Singapore, 22-25 November 2000
• Third Informal Summit, Manila, 27-28 November 1999
• Sixth ASEAN Summit, Ha Noi, 15-16 December 1998
• Second Informal Summit, Kuala Lumpur, 14-16 December 1997
• First Informal Summit, Jakarta, 30 November 1996
• Fifth ASEAN Summit, Bangkok, 14-15 December 1995
• Fourth ASEAN Summit, Singapore, 27-29 January 1992
• Third ASEAN Summit, Manila, 14-15 December 1987
• Second ASEAN Summit, Kuala Lumpur, 4-5 August 1977
• First ASEAN Summit, Bali, 23-24 February 1976

ASEAN Chair

According to Article 31 of the ASEAN Charter, the Chairmanship of ASEAN shall rotate annually, based on the alphabetical order of the English names of Member States. A Member State assuming the Chairmanship shall chair the ASEAN Summit and related summits, the ASEAN Coordinating Council, the three ASEAN Community Councils, relevant ASEAN Sectoral Ministerial Bodies and senior officials, and the Committee of Permanent Representatives.

Brunei Darussalam theme for its ASEAN Chairmanship in 2013 is "Our People, Our Future Together".

ASEAN plus Three

Leaders of each country, particularly Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, felt the need to further integrate the region. Beginning in 1997, the bloc began creating organizations within its framework with the intention of achieving this goal. ASEAN Plus Three was the first of these and was created to improve existing ties with the People's Republic of China, Japan, and South Korea. This was followed by the even larger East Asia Summit, which included these countries as well as India, Australia, and New Zealand. This new grouping acted as a prerequisite for the planned East Asia Community, which was supposedly patterned after the now-defunct European Community. The ASEAN Eminent Persons Group was created to study the possible successes and failures of this policy as well as the possibility of drafting an ASEAN Charter.

In 2006, ASEAN was given observer status at the United Nations General Assembly. As a response, the organization awarded the status of "dialogue partner" to the United Nations.

Free Trade

In 2007, ASEAN celebrated its 40th anniversary since its inception, and 30 years of diplomatic relations with the United States. On 26 August 2007, ASEAN stated that it aims to complete all its free trade agreements with China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand by 2013, in line with the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community by 2015. In November 2007 the ASEAN members signed the ASEAN Charter, a constitution governing relations among the ASEAN members and establishing ASEAN itself as an international legal entity.[citation needed] During the same year, the Cebu Declaration on East Asian Energy Security was signed in Cebu on 15 January 2007, by ASEAN and the other members of the EAS (Australia, People's Republic of China, India, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea), which promotes energy security by finding energy alternatives to conventional fuels.

On 27 February 2009 a Free Trade Agreement with the ASEAN regional block of 10 countries and New Zealand and its close partner Australia was signed, it is estimated that this FTA would boost aggregate GDP across the 12 countries by more than US$48 billion over the period 2000–2020. ASEAN members together with the group’s six major trading partners – Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea – are slated to begin the first round of negotiations on February 26–28, 2013 in Bali, Indonesia, on establishment of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.

Conflict in Northeast India: Issues, Causes and Concern

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.