By : Bidhan S Laishram 3/13/2008 2:49:48 AM
The people(s) of Northeast India have failed themselves: they are suffering from a twin inability to evolve a common imaginary and say 'we'. The consequences of this failure are the most significant cause of the turmoil in the region both in the conflicts within, and vis-?-vis the Indian state. Both sets of conflict are multi-layered and feed into each other.
This failure to imagine a common future has long been aggravated by a fragmentation of ethnic identities which got legitimated by the formation of ethno-linguistic states. It encouraged the production of further fragmented identities, and has resulted in a perpetual conflict between communities, apart from the conflicts directed against the Indian state.
An illustrative case is the border disputes raging in the region for decades that have enveloped the states of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Manipur and Nagaland. The dispute between Assam and Nagaland is currently the most prominent with a history of violent clashes between border communities. Both states have accused each other of illegally occupying each other's territories. Assam claims that more than fifty thousand hectares of its territory has been annexed by Nagaland. On 2 April, plans for inaugurating a village called Hayiyan (Hyien) by a Nagaland Minister, T M Lotha, were foiled by the Assamese authorities helped by paramilitary forces. The incident led Nagaland to question the neutrality of Central forces. Whereas Nagaland claims the village has been in its Wokha District since 1991 called Hayiyan, Assam insists that it has been under its Golaghat district termed Doladoli. The Assam Governor reportedly visited the Disputed Areas Belt (DAB), thereby involving the head of state in the dispute.
With the demand for unification of all Naga inhabited areas in the background, the dispute has acquired an enlarged dimension. On 12 April, reminiscent of the June 2001 uprising in Manipur, a 40,000-strong congregation representing various communities in Assam vowed to counter any territory grabbing by the NSCN (IM). The problem is further compounded by the involvement of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants settled in the area. Assam accuses Nagaland of conniving with these immigrants but Nagaland asks who gave them citizenship.
The present flare up has compelled the Supreme Court to ask the Centre to institute a boundary Commission, although two such previous commissions have failed to settle the dispute. The Sundaram Commission (1971) submitted its report in 1979 which was accepted by Assam but rejected by Nagaland. The Shastri Commission (1985), too, could not settle the dispute. Further down in history, there is a battle between law and politics. Whereas Nagaland prefers a dialogue from a "political and historical perspective," Assam insists on a "constitutionally defined boundary" and hence on abiding by the decision of the Supreme Court. Referring to ethnic contiguity across the borders, Nagaland contends that the 1925 notification transferring forests from Nagaland to Assam was biased, and they ought to have been returned in 1947 as promised by the then Governor of Assam, Akbar Hydari. This issue was raised at the time of signing the 16 Point Agreement in 1960 that created Nagaland. Nagaland's complaint is that the political promise has not been converted into a legal right. If political principles are to claim ascendancy over legal rights, Assam might have to concede to Nagaland; by the same logic however, decades after the promise was made, when the political landscape has itself changed, Nagaland will also have to appreciate that no political principles possess unquestionable validity.
It may be recalled that the States Reorganisation Commission (1956) had recommended that the other political entities in the Northeast be merged into Assam. The following decades saw a reversal of this recommendation. Not surprisingly, Assam today occupies the central node in these disputes. Nagaland occupies a unique position for different reasons. The dispute between the two states is an example of how bereft of socio-historical imperatives the politics of the region is. Many conflicts in the region concern state borders e.g. between the Karbis and Khasi-Pnars in Assam Meghalaya border, and between residents of Jessami village in Ukhrul district in Manipur and Laphuri village in Phek district in Nagaland.
The present political scenario in the Northeast reveals that new forms of conflict have been added to the existing ones. Instead of secular state institutions resolving primordial quarrels, the two co-exist and have lent support to each other. The situation resembles the cultural stereotype of warring tribes, due to the failure to imagine a composite Northeast. The only commonalities of the Northeast peoples at the moment are a protestant attitude against cultural stereotypes and an agreement on geographical isolation. However, accepting the fact of a spatial intimacy, the social relations arising thereof, and working for desirable political goals induced by the same have been completely ignored. A way out of this enduring turmoil requires the Northeastern peoples to accept this challenge as an opportunity.
The writer is Research Officer, IPCS.
Editorial, Imhal Free Press
The people(s) of Northeast India have failed themselves: they are suffering from a twin inability to evolve a common imaginary and say 'we'. The consequences of this failure are the most significant cause of the turmoil in the region both in the conflicts within, and vis-?-vis the Indian state. Both sets of conflict are multi-layered and feed into each other.
This failure to imagine a common future has long been aggravated by a fragmentation of ethnic identities which got legitimated by the formation of ethno-linguistic states. It encouraged the production of further fragmented identities, and has resulted in a perpetual conflict between communities, apart from the conflicts directed against the Indian state.
An illustrative case is the border disputes raging in the region for decades that have enveloped the states of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Manipur and Nagaland. The dispute between Assam and Nagaland is currently the most prominent with a history of violent clashes between border communities. Both states have accused each other of illegally occupying each other's territories. Assam claims that more than fifty thousand hectares of its territory has been annexed by Nagaland. On 2 April, plans for inaugurating a village called Hayiyan (Hyien) by a Nagaland Minister, T M Lotha, were foiled by the Assamese authorities helped by paramilitary forces. The incident led Nagaland to question the neutrality of Central forces. Whereas Nagaland claims the village has been in its Wokha District since 1991 called Hayiyan, Assam insists that it has been under its Golaghat district termed Doladoli. The Assam Governor reportedly visited the Disputed Areas Belt (DAB), thereby involving the head of state in the dispute.
With the demand for unification of all Naga inhabited areas in the background, the dispute has acquired an enlarged dimension. On 12 April, reminiscent of the June 2001 uprising in Manipur, a 40,000-strong congregation representing various communities in Assam vowed to counter any territory grabbing by the NSCN (IM). The problem is further compounded by the involvement of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants settled in the area. Assam accuses Nagaland of conniving with these immigrants but Nagaland asks who gave them citizenship.
The present flare up has compelled the Supreme Court to ask the Centre to institute a boundary Commission, although two such previous commissions have failed to settle the dispute. The Sundaram Commission (1971) submitted its report in 1979 which was accepted by Assam but rejected by Nagaland. The Shastri Commission (1985), too, could not settle the dispute. Further down in history, there is a battle between law and politics. Whereas Nagaland prefers a dialogue from a "political and historical perspective," Assam insists on a "constitutionally defined boundary" and hence on abiding by the decision of the Supreme Court. Referring to ethnic contiguity across the borders, Nagaland contends that the 1925 notification transferring forests from Nagaland to Assam was biased, and they ought to have been returned in 1947 as promised by the then Governor of Assam, Akbar Hydari. This issue was raised at the time of signing the 16 Point Agreement in 1960 that created Nagaland. Nagaland's complaint is that the political promise has not been converted into a legal right. If political principles are to claim ascendancy over legal rights, Assam might have to concede to Nagaland; by the same logic however, decades after the promise was made, when the political landscape has itself changed, Nagaland will also have to appreciate that no political principles possess unquestionable validity.
It may be recalled that the States Reorganisation Commission (1956) had recommended that the other political entities in the Northeast be merged into Assam. The following decades saw a reversal of this recommendation. Not surprisingly, Assam today occupies the central node in these disputes. Nagaland occupies a unique position for different reasons. The dispute between the two states is an example of how bereft of socio-historical imperatives the politics of the region is. Many conflicts in the region concern state borders e.g. between the Karbis and Khasi-Pnars in Assam Meghalaya border, and between residents of Jessami village in Ukhrul district in Manipur and Laphuri village in Phek district in Nagaland.
The present political scenario in the Northeast reveals that new forms of conflict have been added to the existing ones. Instead of secular state institutions resolving primordial quarrels, the two co-exist and have lent support to each other. The situation resembles the cultural stereotype of warring tribes, due to the failure to imagine a composite Northeast. The only commonalities of the Northeast peoples at the moment are a protestant attitude against cultural stereotypes and an agreement on geographical isolation. However, accepting the fact of a spatial intimacy, the social relations arising thereof, and working for desirable political goals induced by the same have been completely ignored. A way out of this enduring turmoil requires the Northeastern peoples to accept this challenge as an opportunity.
The writer is Research Officer, IPCS.
Editorial, Imhal Free Press
No comments:
Post a Comment