It is economic progress that makes sovereign people independent. By thwarting development, insurgency actually accentuates dependency. Peace is the springboard for a quantum jump.
THE visit of two successive prime ministers to the Northeast in the span of a few months has aroused expectations of peace and development in the region. Both H.D. Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral urged various underground groups to lay down the gun in favour of unconditional talks for an overall settlement of all outstanding problems. The economic package they underwrote has been greatly enlarged by the Shukla Commission on infrastructural lags and gaps in basic minimum services.
The Northeast has been inscribed on the national agenda and is the focus of much concern. The yeaming for an end to violence, insurgency and fratricidal strife is evident everywhere in the region. Fatigue has set in among older, ideologically-bred cadres. Militancy has begun to wear thin though armed groups still lay ambushes and strike soft targets. The external situation has changed. With the normalisation of relations with China, Myanmar and, more recently and importantly, Bangladesh, erstwhile sanctuaries are closing down.
It was against this background that Isak Swu and T Muivah of the NSCN met Gowda in Switzerland early this year following which they called on the Naga
hohos (traditional tribal assemblies) to prepare for talks. A gathering in Mokokchung in February was boycotted by Mon and Tuensang representatives of the rival Khaplang group. A second meet reportedly set up a liaison committee to unite all Naga factions for unconditional talks. This stems from the conviction that all previous accords came unstuck as one or other faction was unrepresented.
Independence is out of the question. But since the phrase "talks within the framework of the Constitution" has mistakenly been interpreted to imply acceptance of the status quo, the government has proposed unconditional talks. Constitutional amendments could follow, if necessary, as witness the whole clutch of Articles in the 371 family in response to specific state situations. The major stumbling-block is fragmentation among the Naga underground. Waiting for unity might mean losing yet another window of opportunity. The alternative is to commence talks with whosoever is willing, while keeping the door open to others. The essential distinction is between process and settlement. Participation could be sequential and, indeed, a dialogue with one group could well encourage others to join. Any final settlement could be thrown open for discussion and endorsement by latecomers. Thereafter, those that stay out will necessarily be left out. Otherwise, waiting for everybody could mean handing a veto to recalcitrant groups.
The Naga Students Federation has petitioned Gujral for infra-structural development rather than financial packages as a basis for industrialisation. This is a significant departure. Article 371(A) uniquely gives Nagaland complete control over "ownership and transfer of land and its resources", vesting it with wide developmental powers. For the rest, sovereignty is not negotiable. The demand for unification of all Naga-inhabited areas in India is unacceptable to Manipur, Assam and Arunachal and infeasible in regard to Myanmar. Social, cultural and economic relations across state and national boundaries can, however, be cultivated.
Today, it is economic and technological progress that makes sovereign people independent and independent nations sovereign. Even so, both men and nations are increasingly interdependent. The real task facing Nagaland and the Northeast is development. By thwarting development, insurgency actually accentuates dependency. Peace could be the springboard for a quantum jump, for which objective conditions now exist in terms of the necessary popular and political will. The opening up of external borders to trade, transit and cooperation, after decades of crippling isolation, will add synergy.
ULFA's response to the prime ministers' peace appeals has been mixed. Certain conditions have been proposed--meeting in a third country sovereignty as an item of discussion and withdrawal of the army. Sovereignty is out. Meeting in a third country poses no problem. But there can be no withdrawal of counter-insurgency forces until there is sufficient confidence that militants have said farewell to arms even if a formal surrender of weapons follows later. Meanwhile, there can be an informal ceasefire. And bans under the Unlawful Activities Act, release of detenus and safe passage can be built into the negotiating process. It should be possible to revoke deployments under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and Disturbed Areas Act in the Northeast at an appropriate stage. Likewise, to disband the Unified Command in Assam. These, like occasional human rights violations by aberrant security personnel, are by and large the consequence, not the cause of armed violence. But those who wish to coerce others into toeing a given line are quick to cry foul about human rights excesses in the hope of neutralising army intervention.
Public opinion is turning. Fringe ULFA elements recently asked NE-AVARD, an Nco led by 'outsiders', to quit Majuli Island where it has been doing good work. Far from being intimidated, there was strong popular support for the group. But Assamese opinion is disturbed at the slow pace of implementation of the Assam Accord. The immigrants issue is in court. The economic components are being implemented. What remains is the matter of cultural safeguards. Here it is for the Assamese to make specific proposals. Some advocate dual citizenship to protect Assamese identity against demographic erosion. Non-territorial electoral constituencies for persons other than state subjects (a la J&K and Sikkim) could be one route. Entrenching certain powers in the upper chamber of a bicameral legislature could be another. Each will need careful consideration.
The Bodo Accord is being put together again. The 10-km belt along the Bhutan border and some 24 tea gardens may be incorporated within the Bodo Autonomous Council area. The demand to include another 200 non-Bodo villages is in contention. Separate statehood is ruled out. Economic growth with wider employment opportunities and a role for the governor in protecting cultural minorities would prevent loss of identity.
These moves are in the right direction. It is easy to be drafted into the underground, more difficult to return. Those who went astray must be welcomed back with assurance of rehabilitation. This is a time for peace with development and development for peace. The two go together. The Northeast is opening up; new opportunities beckon. Most critics focus on events rather than on the substantive underlying processes that are at work. An alternative vision to the gun needs unfolding.