Seeking to reach out to the ULFA, the Indian government recently offered safe passage to its top leaders Arabinda Rajkhowa and Paresh Barua and expressed willingness for talks if the outfit renounced violence. But the reaction from the militant outfit came on the expected line. The outfit reacted with two powerful bomb blasts in the heart of Nalbari town, which killed seven people and injured 54 others. This attack could be carried out despite a specific intelligence tip-off shared with all security agencies. But this is not anything new. On several occasions in the past, the ULFA has tried to sabotage peace initiatives by violent activities to make their presence felt. But there is something new this time, despite the cited fact. As far as this peace initiative of New Delhi is concerned, the plan was to bring the banned outfit on the negotiating table minus its top brass leaders Paresh Barua and Arabinda Rajkhowa. The initiated peace deal was on the same lines as the Centre had pursued in the case of the NDFB.
The ULFA has always accused the Government of India of maintaining double standard in initiating peace talks with different rebel groups in the Northeast. According to the top brass of the outfit, the Government of India has insisted that it will hold talks with the ULFA and others only after such groups lay down their weapons, but the same stand has not been maintained in case of some other groups active in the region. Even an outfit like NSCN(IM) — the mother of insurgency-related violence in the country since Independence and whose demand is deep-rooted in the concept of ‘‘sovereign Nagaland’’ — is today negotiating with the government on a long-term basis. It has been in ceasefire for a considerable period, which has resulted in security for the people. The government also made a negotiated settlement with the now-disbanded BLT. In the case of the NDFB, which is uncompromising in its demand for a sovereign Bodoland, the Government of India decided to go ahead with a peace agreement without any precondition.
It is true that in the militancy-affected Northeast, New Delhi’s containment policy of the last four decades has produced equilibrium where democracy coexists with authoritarian modes of governance with a disturbing ease. It is time for the policy to be reassessed. The routine use of military force in disturbed areas, supplemented by the pumping of resources in the name of economic development, is not the solution. Even after decades of counter-insurgency operations, militant groups appear to be surprisingly resilient. The policy must seek more democratic alternatives that consider constitutional reforms that respond to the debates about the region’s history that have animated the insurgencies and promote a wider democratic dialogue involving the people of the region. In the militancy-infested Northeast, democratic India has developed a de facto political system, somewhat independent of the formal, democratically elected governmental structure. This parallel system is an intricate, multi-tiered reticulation with crucial decision-making, facilitating and operational nodes that span the region and connects New Delhi with the theatre of action.
It is really unfortunate that the distance between Delhi and Assam is lesser than the distance between Delhi and some of the States in south India. Still Assam feels isolated. In fact the very concept of ‘‘Northeast’’ points to the region as being an isolated one, cut off from the so-called mainland. Who can deny the fact that we are still seen as a people with separate and different identities that do not match with those of the ‘mainstream’ Indian society or culture in other parts of the country? The term ‘‘Northeast’’ was invented by the British colonialists to identify a geographical area, later on adopted by Indian officials, intellectuals and the media for administrative and other reasons. The term certainly requires scrutiny in the light of the contemporary political situation.
In sharp contrast to the existing concept, various ethnic groups in this part of the country identify themselves under their own specific group identity such as the Assamese of Assam, the Nagas of Nagaland, the Mizos of Mizoram — or within the same State like the Bodos of Assam — and so on and so forth. The local people do not use the term ‘‘Northeast’’, and it has no viable meaning for them as there are apparent traits that mark a clear-cut distinction between them. One should not forget that the Northeast holds a unique diversity of languages and cultural practices. This diversity within the region has to be appreciated, rather than portraying the region as a homogenous entity while attempting to initiate discussions or developmental activities.
The post-Independence era has been a period of confusion in the northeastern region. Because of negligence, people of this region felt marginalized and were confused about their future and their identity, which resulted in so many peoples’ movements and struggles. Continuous marginalization has brought about more distrust and apathy. Initially, the only response they got for their demands from the Central government was the Indian Army. But we can see clear evidence of its failure to bring about normalcy in the region after 62 years of trials and experiments with the armed forces. Has the Central government ever given a serious thought as to why so many young people still want to risk their lives by joining the so-called insurgency groups?
Peace has no alternative, or it is rather the only alternative in which there is no scope for debate. It is a necessity as its way goes to development. And it is development that can bring about peace and stability. In fact, all-round development is the most effective counter-insurgency means. But for this, a far greater commitment and accountability are needed.
It is time for the government to introspect the outcome of applying the military option as a counter-insurgency measure. It will be better if both New Delhi and Dispur ponder as to whether they have succeeded in evolving the idea of one nation in the people of, say, Assam even after 62 years since Independence. Have they done adequate to wipe out the sense of isolation that exists even among the people of Assam of this generation?
As for the militant outfits, it is time for them to review the situation from a broader, realistic and unprejudiced perspective. Violence during the last two-three decades has only derailed the process of development.
Peace and normalcy should be on the top of the priority list of both the government and militant outfits. The people of this region have seen much bloodshed and destruction. They are fed up, with many having become indifferent to what is going around. They are silent spectators of the region’s journey to the graveyard. This must be reversed. It is high time that both the government and militant groups displayed greater flexibility to ensure peace and normalcy in the interest of the common man.
Shibdas Bhattacharjee
(The writer is a freelancer based in Halakura, Dhubri) THE SENTINEL
No comments:
Post a Comment