SHILLONG NOTES / PATRICIA MUKHIM
No rebel leader since Nelson Mandela has received so much publicity as Thuingaleng Muivah, general secretary of the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN-IM). In an interview with Karan Thapar on BBC?s Hard Talk (April 29), Muivah displayed extraordinary traits of diplomacy. He was intransigent on the Naga demand. Each time the seasoned warrior was drawn into controversial territory such as the integration of all Naga-inhabited areas of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur, he dug in his heels deeper to reinforce the historicity of the demand and assert its legitimacy.
A day later, a leading light of the NSCN (K), Kughalu Mulatonu, also spoke to NDTV and said that the Government of India was making a mistake by talking to only one faction of the underground group. So where does this place the Naga peace process? Muivah is intractable on the demand for a sovereign status for Nagaland. He was willing to concede that currency, external affairs, defence and communications be left with India. Other issues that are normally on the concurrent list of the Constitution, such as environment, forests, education, should be entirely under Kohima. Interestingly, Muivah?s position is that the Indian army and Nagaland should engage in a joint defence of Nagaland if its borders are threatened but the reverse would not hold true, meaning that Nagas would not jointly defend India if it were threatened externally. When Naga interests are affected then the external affairs ministry must consult Nagaland before taking any decision.
Tall demands
Demands placed forward by the NSCN (I-M) seem like a tall order for any nation-state to address. But perhaps what is gradually taking shape is the idea that India cannot be a nation state at all, but, a nation comprising several states, each one with its unique history, culture, language and peoples. No nation state can concede to a demand such as that of the NSCN (I-M)?s because doing so would lead to its complete disintegration. A nation-state has some features, one of which is homogeneity of language, culture and race. Indians comprise so many racial groups that the diversity cannot be wished away. Indians can only presume to be one. They do not innately feel the oneness. Every once in a while, past history sneaks outs and asserts its superiority over people?s psyche. More often than not this assertion of history is linked to the desire for greater political autonomy. When that happens, history is sought to be rewritten by every ethnic group in this country and more so in the Northeast.
Problems arise when what the ethnic groups claim as their history is inconsistent and exclusive. In the absence of written history, every ethnic group claims to possess a rich oral tradition and a unique history. But excessive dependence on oral tradition tends towards exaggeration. The exaggerations are somehow incompatible with modern historical traditions and certainly at great odds with the notion of globalisation.
Reclamation and recasting of state boundaries cannot happen without serious consequences. One of the problems of rewriting history is that borders and territories as well as inhabitants of those territories are not constant. Naga ?claim? over areas in Assam extend from Dibrugarh to Silchar. In Arunachal Pradesh, the Nagas are laying claim to two of the biggest districts ? Tirap and Changlang and in Manipur the Naga territories would include the districts of Senapati, Ukhrul and Tamenglong. Ironically, Muivah makes no mention of the large stretch of Naga inhabited areas in Myanmar. Does Nagalim not include the aspirations also of the Kheimugan Nagas? So why the dichotomy and the double standards? Suppose the Naga talks are concluded leaving out Ukhrul district, would Muivah agree to the settlement? Obviously not. As Karan Thapar rightly pointed out, Muivah?s legitimacy in claiming to lead the Nagas would be defeated if Ukhrul, his birthplace, was not included in the settlement.
In one of his feisty articles, Kaka Iralu mentions his brothers-at-arms in the Myanmar jungles who have been left out in the cold. Other Nagas prefer not to mention their confreres in Myanmar because they feel such claims might delay the peace process. Hence the supposed assertions of Muivah that it is all or nothing ring rather hollow. But perhaps the NSCN (I-M) has a grand plan of settling the Nagas of Myanmar within the borders of Nagalim once the peace talks have fructified, and so they can really be one people with a shared history living within a common boundary.
The Centre cannot be blamed for not discussing substantive issues with NSCN (IM) as yet. How can a sovereign Nagalim co-exist with other six states of India within the region and with a shared history, without the rumblings spreading to the other states? Unless India is willing to write off the northeastern states as liabilities, creation of Nagalim would seem incongruous with its idea of territorial integrity. Yet if India reneges on the peace talks, armed combat will start all over again. The Indian state will then have to respond accordingly. This would put paid to the much-hyped, ?Look East? policy which is being avidly discussed within the region but not really understood. China?s growing economic clout and its proximity to the Northeast would, I am sure be of some concern to Delhi. Hence the only option for Delhi is to prevaricate for as long as is possible.
Delhi?s policy, vis-?-vis its troubled northeastern frontiers, is a dubious one and certainly not the same as its policy towards Kashmir. Policy makers are racially and psychologically closer to the Kashmiris than they are towards the people of the Northeast. The ignorance of the average Indian, including policy makers, about the northeastern frontiers of their country and its rich cultural heritage is unspeakable. Delhi understands the language of the Aryans but finds it a bit uncomfortable to deal with the plethora of linguistic groups of Tibeto-Burman or Austro-Asiatic origin. India?s visibility in the Northeast is only through its armed forces and its bureaucracy, both of whom have short-term interests in the region.
Sovereign status
To my mind, the Naga peace process is unlikely to be wrapped up so soon because the tremors will be felt in the neighbouring states. Even while Muivah and Swu are negotiating with the Centre, they cannot be blind to the fact that any major concession given to the Nagas will have a snowballing effect on the entire region. In 2001, when the truce with the NSCN(I-M) was extended to all Naga-inhabited areas in the region, more precisely in the three states of Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh, Imphal valley went up in flames. Meitei rage was evident even before the hills were partitioned. What would happen if Muivah?s demands are objectified is frightening. Let it not be forgotten that the reason why Meitei underground groups receive overt and covert support from the common people is because they believe these groups are necessary to prove the Meitei viewpoint and to show Delhi that the NSCN (I-M) is not the only insurgent outfit with a unique history. The Meiteis, themselves a highly enlightened and culturally weighty group, never fail to recall their own sovereign and independent status until October 15, 1949, when they were annexed to the Indian Union ?under duress?. In that sense every ethnic group in the Northeast has a unique history from ?time immemorial?. Who decides when that ?time immemorial? is actually placed and who are the actors in that historical location?
In the end, any claim to uniqueness is not so unique.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050503/asp/northeast/story_4686424.asp
No rebel leader since Nelson Mandela has received so much publicity as Thuingaleng Muivah, general secretary of the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN-IM). In an interview with Karan Thapar on BBC?s Hard Talk (April 29), Muivah displayed extraordinary traits of diplomacy. He was intransigent on the Naga demand. Each time the seasoned warrior was drawn into controversial territory such as the integration of all Naga-inhabited areas of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur, he dug in his heels deeper to reinforce the historicity of the demand and assert its legitimacy.
A day later, a leading light of the NSCN (K), Kughalu Mulatonu, also spoke to NDTV and said that the Government of India was making a mistake by talking to only one faction of the underground group. So where does this place the Naga peace process? Muivah is intractable on the demand for a sovereign status for Nagaland. He was willing to concede that currency, external affairs, defence and communications be left with India. Other issues that are normally on the concurrent list of the Constitution, such as environment, forests, education, should be entirely under Kohima. Interestingly, Muivah?s position is that the Indian army and Nagaland should engage in a joint defence of Nagaland if its borders are threatened but the reverse would not hold true, meaning that Nagas would not jointly defend India if it were threatened externally. When Naga interests are affected then the external affairs ministry must consult Nagaland before taking any decision.
Tall demands
Demands placed forward by the NSCN (I-M) seem like a tall order for any nation-state to address. But perhaps what is gradually taking shape is the idea that India cannot be a nation state at all, but, a nation comprising several states, each one with its unique history, culture, language and peoples. No nation state can concede to a demand such as that of the NSCN (I-M)?s because doing so would lead to its complete disintegration. A nation-state has some features, one of which is homogeneity of language, culture and race. Indians comprise so many racial groups that the diversity cannot be wished away. Indians can only presume to be one. They do not innately feel the oneness. Every once in a while, past history sneaks outs and asserts its superiority over people?s psyche. More often than not this assertion of history is linked to the desire for greater political autonomy. When that happens, history is sought to be rewritten by every ethnic group in this country and more so in the Northeast.
Problems arise when what the ethnic groups claim as their history is inconsistent and exclusive. In the absence of written history, every ethnic group claims to possess a rich oral tradition and a unique history. But excessive dependence on oral tradition tends towards exaggeration. The exaggerations are somehow incompatible with modern historical traditions and certainly at great odds with the notion of globalisation.
Reclamation and recasting of state boundaries cannot happen without serious consequences. One of the problems of rewriting history is that borders and territories as well as inhabitants of those territories are not constant. Naga ?claim? over areas in Assam extend from Dibrugarh to Silchar. In Arunachal Pradesh, the Nagas are laying claim to two of the biggest districts ? Tirap and Changlang and in Manipur the Naga territories would include the districts of Senapati, Ukhrul and Tamenglong. Ironically, Muivah makes no mention of the large stretch of Naga inhabited areas in Myanmar. Does Nagalim not include the aspirations also of the Kheimugan Nagas? So why the dichotomy and the double standards? Suppose the Naga talks are concluded leaving out Ukhrul district, would Muivah agree to the settlement? Obviously not. As Karan Thapar rightly pointed out, Muivah?s legitimacy in claiming to lead the Nagas would be defeated if Ukhrul, his birthplace, was not included in the settlement.
In one of his feisty articles, Kaka Iralu mentions his brothers-at-arms in the Myanmar jungles who have been left out in the cold. Other Nagas prefer not to mention their confreres in Myanmar because they feel such claims might delay the peace process. Hence the supposed assertions of Muivah that it is all or nothing ring rather hollow. But perhaps the NSCN (I-M) has a grand plan of settling the Nagas of Myanmar within the borders of Nagalim once the peace talks have fructified, and so they can really be one people with a shared history living within a common boundary.
The Centre cannot be blamed for not discussing substantive issues with NSCN (IM) as yet. How can a sovereign Nagalim co-exist with other six states of India within the region and with a shared history, without the rumblings spreading to the other states? Unless India is willing to write off the northeastern states as liabilities, creation of Nagalim would seem incongruous with its idea of territorial integrity. Yet if India reneges on the peace talks, armed combat will start all over again. The Indian state will then have to respond accordingly. This would put paid to the much-hyped, ?Look East? policy which is being avidly discussed within the region but not really understood. China?s growing economic clout and its proximity to the Northeast would, I am sure be of some concern to Delhi. Hence the only option for Delhi is to prevaricate for as long as is possible.
Delhi?s policy, vis-?-vis its troubled northeastern frontiers, is a dubious one and certainly not the same as its policy towards Kashmir. Policy makers are racially and psychologically closer to the Kashmiris than they are towards the people of the Northeast. The ignorance of the average Indian, including policy makers, about the northeastern frontiers of their country and its rich cultural heritage is unspeakable. Delhi understands the language of the Aryans but finds it a bit uncomfortable to deal with the plethora of linguistic groups of Tibeto-Burman or Austro-Asiatic origin. India?s visibility in the Northeast is only through its armed forces and its bureaucracy, both of whom have short-term interests in the region.
Sovereign status
To my mind, the Naga peace process is unlikely to be wrapped up so soon because the tremors will be felt in the neighbouring states. Even while Muivah and Swu are negotiating with the Centre, they cannot be blind to the fact that any major concession given to the Nagas will have a snowballing effect on the entire region. In 2001, when the truce with the NSCN(I-M) was extended to all Naga-inhabited areas in the region, more precisely in the three states of Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh, Imphal valley went up in flames. Meitei rage was evident even before the hills were partitioned. What would happen if Muivah?s demands are objectified is frightening. Let it not be forgotten that the reason why Meitei underground groups receive overt and covert support from the common people is because they believe these groups are necessary to prove the Meitei viewpoint and to show Delhi that the NSCN (I-M) is not the only insurgent outfit with a unique history. The Meiteis, themselves a highly enlightened and culturally weighty group, never fail to recall their own sovereign and independent status until October 15, 1949, when they were annexed to the Indian Union ?under duress?. In that sense every ethnic group in the Northeast has a unique history from ?time immemorial?. Who decides when that ?time immemorial? is actually placed and who are the actors in that historical location?
In the end, any claim to uniqueness is not so unique.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050503/asp/northeast/story_4686424.asp
No comments:
Post a Comment