Handcuff Furore

There is palpable resentment and ire among certain sections of the people of Assam against the arrest of ULFA chairman Arabinda Rajkhowa and ‘deputy c-in-c’ Raju Baruah; the argument being 1) they should not have been produced in the court in handcuffs because it defeats the very objective — negotiations, and 2) there is a precedent in the NSCN peace process — the Isak-Muivah duo are not prisoners but free man, so much so that New Delhi reaches out to them on foreign shores too. But one must remember that the NSCN-IM has been on a ceasefire mode with the government since 1997. Let this, however, be not seen as giving credit to the NSCN-IM. It has violated the ceasefire several times and indulged in fratricidal killings. What is most important at this hour is to remember what Union Home Minister P Chidambaram has explicitly stated: that the government will not repeat the mistakes of the past and that it will talk to all armed groups, currently waging war against the Indian nation-state, if they abjure violence, lay down their arms and drop their ‘sovereignty’ demand. This is the new stand of the Centre against armed groups. Now, the ULFA is an insurgent-turned-terrorist outfit whose hands are stained in the blood of even innocent schoolchildren (Dhemaji, August 15, 2004). And who is Arabinda Rajkhowa? The chairman of that terror front advocating Assam’s ‘sovereignty’. Though ULFA c-in-c Paresh Baruah may be calling the real shots, the fact remains that Rajkhowa, by virtue of him being the outfit’s chairman, has politically presided over a very criminal brand of terrorism. Two questions arise: Should not there be a precedent in a civilized society that terror leaders are not celebrated? And does not an elected government have the right to learn from the past blunders, including the NSCN chapter? THE SENTINEL