By David Buhril
In a recent conference on “State Violence and Women: Survivors, Defenders and Leaders”, organised by The Other Media in Delhi, various women’s organisation from the disturbed areas of North East as well as Jammu and Kashmir expressed shared concern on the growing militarisation that impacted women miserably. Human rights violations, which is illustrative of the situation in these region, was discussed at length. Demilitarisation was collectively seen as the viable solution to check the excesses of human rights violations.
While the negativities of “acute militarisation” was heavily stressed, followed by uncontested resolution for demilitarisation, there are also growing voices from the same disturbed compartments that demands for militarisation. These voices were hardly raised or represented in the hallowed seminars and conferences. The “disturbed areas” has stirred a more disturbing situation where representations on the various issues that it confronts failed to be collective. Meanwhile, Defence Minister’s firm stand on having no immediate intention to repeal AFSPA would enhance the tone of these ex-pressions to gain conflicting momentum. The persisting realities, if it continue with all its negativities would not only involved the state forces as perpetrators, but also the non-state armed actors too. That will become a point where concern for demilitarisation would also be followed by equal concern for militarisation. Manipur stands in the crossroad where the civil societies are cornered to identify which of the necessary evil would suit them. The Leviathan could not help much, but watched the other actors run a parallel government in the growing liberated zones despite the democratic staple of elections with questionable suffrage system. Faced with this, the demand is for demilitarisation as well as militarisation too.
In the early part of 2006, Hmar organisations demands for the presence of security forces and in some it demands for permanent military post in several Tipaimukh villages in Churachandpur, Manipur. Similarly, various Kukis organisations have been continuously demanding for the setting up of permanent military bases at New Samtal and Khengjoi block in Manipur’s Chandel district. Moreover, Mani Charenamei, MP, Outer Manipur, after visiting Moreh on June 20, 2007, met the Home Minister on July 4 and demands for securitisation of Chandel’s Moreh on the lines of the Kuki organisation demands. The MP asked the Home Minister to sent more central security forces to flush out the underground elements from the border areas and set up security camps at New Samtal, Molcham, Gamphajol and Yangonlen. His demands also include permanent stationing of central security force for maintaining law and order in Chandel’s Moreh. Not only that, the MP also demanded for replacing the IRB by the Central Security Forces. The MP said that these demands are of utmost necessity keeping in view the genuine problems of the tribal population of Chandel district in general and the Kuki’s in particular. Not only that after the rape of lactating women at T Phaijol village by militants on July 10, 2007, the Kuki Students’ Organisation immediately demand for establishing an Assam Rifles post at T Phaijol village in Churachandpur. All these voices strongly inclined towards militarisation.
There are many inescapable questions that recently grow from the affected peoples perspectives, which contradicts the otherwise growing movement for demilitarisation. While questioning that “collective representation” becomes inevitable, generalising the North East context would be a mistake, despite the shared draconian law.
Meanwhile, the joint resolution drafted by the group of women on July 8,2007 stated, “We have lost entire generations to the war unleashed by unbridled power given to the security forces…The impact on our lives over decades of militarisation has been particularly acute…We also understand that the state has encouraged non-state actors as a part of its counter insurgency operations leading to further undermining of democratic rights of people.” Their demand also includes for the repeal of AFSPA and all other draconian laws and demilitarisation in Jammu and Kashmir and North Eastern states.
As conflicting voices grows, it is getting complicated to identify the real interest that would represent the people’s interest. Earlier, there were voices for the repeal of AFSPA that was followed by the same not to withdraw the army from Manipur. While the authorities are cornered to find the balancing act suitable for a more humane situation in the face of the growing movements for the repeal of AFSPA, the NGO’s, and people’s representatives are confronted with the challenge of identifying a clear stand beyond the loud assertion that it is championing. The NGO’s cannot afford to sacrifice its credibility by raising voices that goes against the interest of the people. Even though many of the seemingly representative organisations have failed to be representative of the people or the issues, the core interest of the unrepresented people cannot persist. A negotiation with the new development and changing realities has to be made so as to develop new working principles in the interest of the people that it stand to represent. The error would be to see multiplying actors with no relation to the demands and challenges of the grass rooted people.
Representative form overtakes and differentiates from the portrayal. Not only that, the techniques of form also overtakes the representative form. The question is, are we still representing or representative? The growing voices for militarisation cannot be seen as a calculated move to negate the popular movement for demilitarisation. It is not. It is rather a desperate and distressed voice. However, it raises the otherwise realities of the usually unrepresented constituencies that are negotiating the threat of the same militarisation too. What matters to them is the same issue of militarisation and its threat. The actor did not seem to matter much when the threat equally gnaws into all aspects of their life. A hesitation or a softer approach to the relative militarisation would be a botch for any activists who are straining excessively to curb state sponsored militarisation alone. A comparative look at Iraq’s alarming prospect with demilitarisation should also caution anyone to be cautious, as small arms have already flooded the disturbed areas in the North East. A long-term approach has to be whetted out by striking a balance with the peoples interest after weighing the contextual demands and challenges. Otherwise, it would be a confusing war of slinging contradictions.
In a recent conference on “State Violence and Women: Survivors, Defenders and Leaders”, organised by The Other Media in Delhi, various women’s organisation from the disturbed areas of North East as well as Jammu and Kashmir expressed shared concern on the growing militarisation that impacted women miserably. Human rights violations, which is illustrative of the situation in these region, was discussed at length. Demilitarisation was collectively seen as the viable solution to check the excesses of human rights violations.
While the negativities of “acute militarisation” was heavily stressed, followed by uncontested resolution for demilitarisation, there are also growing voices from the same disturbed compartments that demands for militarisation. These voices were hardly raised or represented in the hallowed seminars and conferences. The “disturbed areas” has stirred a more disturbing situation where representations on the various issues that it confronts failed to be collective. Meanwhile, Defence Minister’s firm stand on having no immediate intention to repeal AFSPA would enhance the tone of these ex-pressions to gain conflicting momentum. The persisting realities, if it continue with all its negativities would not only involved the state forces as perpetrators, but also the non-state armed actors too. That will become a point where concern for demilitarisation would also be followed by equal concern for militarisation. Manipur stands in the crossroad where the civil societies are cornered to identify which of the necessary evil would suit them. The Leviathan could not help much, but watched the other actors run a parallel government in the growing liberated zones despite the democratic staple of elections with questionable suffrage system. Faced with this, the demand is for demilitarisation as well as militarisation too.
In the early part of 2006, Hmar organisations demands for the presence of security forces and in some it demands for permanent military post in several Tipaimukh villages in Churachandpur, Manipur. Similarly, various Kukis organisations have been continuously demanding for the setting up of permanent military bases at New Samtal and Khengjoi block in Manipur’s Chandel district. Moreover, Mani Charenamei, MP, Outer Manipur, after visiting Moreh on June 20, 2007, met the Home Minister on July 4 and demands for securitisation of Chandel’s Moreh on the lines of the Kuki organisation demands. The MP asked the Home Minister to sent more central security forces to flush out the underground elements from the border areas and set up security camps at New Samtal, Molcham, Gamphajol and Yangonlen. His demands also include permanent stationing of central security force for maintaining law and order in Chandel’s Moreh. Not only that, the MP also demanded for replacing the IRB by the Central Security Forces. The MP said that these demands are of utmost necessity keeping in view the genuine problems of the tribal population of Chandel district in general and the Kuki’s in particular. Not only that after the rape of lactating women at T Phaijol village by militants on July 10, 2007, the Kuki Students’ Organisation immediately demand for establishing an Assam Rifles post at T Phaijol village in Churachandpur. All these voices strongly inclined towards militarisation.
There are many inescapable questions that recently grow from the affected peoples perspectives, which contradicts the otherwise growing movement for demilitarisation. While questioning that “collective representation” becomes inevitable, generalising the North East context would be a mistake, despite the shared draconian law.
Meanwhile, the joint resolution drafted by the group of women on July 8,2007 stated, “We have lost entire generations to the war unleashed by unbridled power given to the security forces…The impact on our lives over decades of militarisation has been particularly acute…We also understand that the state has encouraged non-state actors as a part of its counter insurgency operations leading to further undermining of democratic rights of people.” Their demand also includes for the repeal of AFSPA and all other draconian laws and demilitarisation in Jammu and Kashmir and North Eastern states.
As conflicting voices grows, it is getting complicated to identify the real interest that would represent the people’s interest. Earlier, there were voices for the repeal of AFSPA that was followed by the same not to withdraw the army from Manipur. While the authorities are cornered to find the balancing act suitable for a more humane situation in the face of the growing movements for the repeal of AFSPA, the NGO’s, and people’s representatives are confronted with the challenge of identifying a clear stand beyond the loud assertion that it is championing. The NGO’s cannot afford to sacrifice its credibility by raising voices that goes against the interest of the people. Even though many of the seemingly representative organisations have failed to be representative of the people or the issues, the core interest of the unrepresented people cannot persist. A negotiation with the new development and changing realities has to be made so as to develop new working principles in the interest of the people that it stand to represent. The error would be to see multiplying actors with no relation to the demands and challenges of the grass rooted people.
Representative form overtakes and differentiates from the portrayal. Not only that, the techniques of form also overtakes the representative form. The question is, are we still representing or representative? The growing voices for militarisation cannot be seen as a calculated move to negate the popular movement for demilitarisation. It is not. It is rather a desperate and distressed voice. However, it raises the otherwise realities of the usually unrepresented constituencies that are negotiating the threat of the same militarisation too. What matters to them is the same issue of militarisation and its threat. The actor did not seem to matter much when the threat equally gnaws into all aspects of their life. A hesitation or a softer approach to the relative militarisation would be a botch for any activists who are straining excessively to curb state sponsored militarisation alone. A comparative look at Iraq’s alarming prospect with demilitarisation should also caution anyone to be cautious, as small arms have already flooded the disturbed areas in the North East. A long-term approach has to be whetted out by striking a balance with the peoples interest after weighing the contextual demands and challenges. Otherwise, it would be a confusing war of slinging contradictions.
No comments:
Post a Comment