Tag: kanglaonline

Although it is unclear what the supposed Supra State proposal as a settlement for the Naga issue is, at least it is clear there is some intent on the part of all parties involved in the Government of India and NSCN(IM) peace talks to bring the issue to a closure. What however is important is, mere intent is seldom enough to answer certain complex questions, and insurgency anywhere is complex. As Bertrand Russell so eloquently pointed out in his essay with a self explanatory title, “The harm good men do”, intentions however good, if not moderated by sound rationale, can even do harm to the issue at stake and beyond. So what exactly is a Supra State, if at all this proposal is a fact? Our scepticism comes on account of the recent denial by the Union home minister, P. Chidambaram, that he is not aware of such a proposal. Even if this statement amounts to his playing the cards close to his chest, it does still indicate he too thinks the proposal is problematic and would not have a smooth sail.

The press reports says this is the written recommendation of the Government of India appointed interlocutor of the negotiation, retired bureaucrat, R.S. Pandey, but even if this is a fact, the moot question remains as to what is meant by “Supra State”. One has heard of this term used in reference to such bodies as the European Union and ASEAN, which are essentially conglomerates of several States yoked together under a broad bureaucracy and constitution. We are hence curious how this term was sought to be interpreted in this reported proposal for a resolution to the Naga problem.

In all probability, what was thought of was a non territorial solution of the nature so many intellectuals, including B.K. Roy Burman, have been writing about for all these years in reference to many of the ethnic problems in the Northeast, in particular those of the Nagas. The model conjured up is often the Sami Parliament in the Scandinavian countries. Samis are the indigenous formerly nomadic reindeer herders living in these Scandinavian countries and the Russian Federation before the region came to be dissected by political boundaries. They now find themselves living in different countries, though their traditional world never had any conception of such national boundaries, precisely because nation consciousness had still not dawned on them. So then, is this what was meant by the “Supra State” proposal with a little extra sugar coating so as to make the package more attractive?

Although the press report created some flutters in Manipur and to a lesser degree in the other Northeastern states over which the shadow of a Greater Nagaland looms, it would not be too wrong to read meaning in the deafening silence of the NSCN(IM) leadership and their supporters everywhere. Perhaps the proposal, if at all, was a unilateral one put up by the negotiation interlocutor and not one on which there was a consensus amongst the negotiating parties. For indeed, if the proposal is modelled on the Sami Parliament, it is everybody’s knowledge that the NSCN(IM) general secretary Thuingaleng Muivah had in the past rejected it and it is unlikely he would have had a change of heart on the matter. Even if he wanted to, two considerations would have been the deterrent. One, a non territorial solution would leave a sizeable section of the NSCN(IM) leadership and cadres out of the core of the solution. Two, any solution that does not address the question of sovereignty, even if notionally, would be after intense negotiations with the Naga public first, especially in the core Naga territory of the former Naga hills of Assam, who have had to undergo tremendous hardships and losses for over half a century precisely because of their dream for sovereignty. Any decision that left this out cannot be a non-consensual decision of any Naga leader or leaders, regardless of how important or powerful they may be. Especially when such a decision comes from a non core Naga area, the decision’s legitimacy in the eyes of the Nagas would be even more dilute. While we hope a solution to the Naga problem comes about, as of now, we cannot see such blueprints of it such as the supposed “Supra State” as the answer.

Read more / Original news source: http://kanglaonline.com/2011/11/ambiguous-jargon/

Although it is unclear what the supposed Supra State proposal as a settlement for the Naga issue is, at least it is clear there is some intent on the part of all parties involved in the Government of India and NSCN(IM) peace talks to bring the issue to a closure. What however is important is, mere intent is seldom enough to answer certain complex questions, and insurgency anywhere is complex. As Bertrand Russell so eloquently pointed out in his essay with a self explanatory title, “The harm good men do”, intentions however good, if not moderated by sound rationale, can even do harm to the issue at stake and beyond. So what exactly is a Supra State, if at all this proposal is a fact? Our scepticism comes on account of the recent denial by the Union home minister, P. Chidambaram, that he is not aware of such a proposal. Even if this statement amounts to his playing the cards close to his chest, it does still indicate he too thinks the proposal is problematic and would not have a smooth sail.

The press reports says this is the written recommendation of the Government of India appointed interlocutor of the negotiation, retired bureaucrat, R.S. Pandey, but even if this is a fact, the moot question remains as to what is meant by “Supra State”. One has heard of this term used in reference to such bodies as the European Union and ASEAN, which are essentially conglomerates of several States yoked together under a broad bureaucracy and constitution. We are hence curious how this term was sought to be interpreted in this reported proposal for a resolution to the Naga problem.

In all probability, what was thought of was a non territorial solution of the nature so many intellectuals, including B.K. Roy Burman, have been writing about for all these years in reference to many of the ethnic problems in the Northeast, in particular those of the Nagas. The model conjured up is often the Sami Parliament in the Scandinavian countries. Samis are the indigenous formerly nomadic reindeer herders living in these Scandinavian countries and the Russian Federation before the region came to be dissected by political boundaries. They now find themselves living in different countries, though their traditional world never had any conception of such national boundaries, precisely because nation consciousness had still not dawned on them. So then, is this what was meant by the “Supra State” proposal with a little extra sugar coating so as to make the package more attractive?

Although the press report created some flutters in Manipur and to a lesser degree in the other Northeastern states over which the shadow of a Greater Nagaland looms, it would not be too wrong to read meaning in the deafening silence of the NSCN(IM) leadership and their supporters everywhere. Perhaps the proposal, if at all, was a unilateral one put up by the negotiation interlocutor and not one on which there was a consensus amongst the negotiating parties. For indeed, if the proposal is modelled on the Sami Parliament, it is everybody’s knowledge that the NSCN(IM) general secretary Thuingaleng Muivah had in the past rejected it and it is unlikely he would have had a change of heart on the matter. Even if he wanted to, two considerations would have been the deterrent. One, a non territorial solution would leave a sizeable section of the NSCN(IM) leadership and cadres out of the core of the solution. Two, any solution that does not address the question of sovereignty, even if notionally, would be after intense negotiations with the Naga public first, especially in the core Naga territory of the former Naga hills of Assam, who have had to undergo tremendous hardships and losses for over half a century precisely because of their dream for sovereignty. Any decision that left this out cannot be a non-consensual decision of any Naga leader or leaders, regardless of how important or powerful they may be. Especially when such a decision comes from a non core Naga area, the decision’s legitimacy in the eyes of the Nagas would be even more dilute. While we hope a solution to the Naga problem comes about, as of now, we cannot see such blueprints of it such as the supposed “Supra State” as the answer.

Read more / Original news source: http://kanglaonline.com/2011/11/ambiguous-jargon/

The decision of the Uttar Pradesh cabinet, to split up the largest state in the country voluntarily into four smaller states in order that its administration would be more efficient seems unreal viewed from the Northeast region. Here, as we are all witnessing, it is not administration or administrative convenience, but primordial notions of territory and ethnicity which rule. Not to talk about states agreeing to alteration of their political boundaries, here even the proposal for creation of new districts is seen as an affront on the rights of different sections of the people. Come to think of it, the division of interest is not even between different ethnic groups, but also within the same groups as well. The manner in which the proposal for Phungyar subdivision of the Ukhrul district to be made a full-fledged district was vehemently objected to, is just one example. There are other demands for new districts, including that of Tengnoupal in the Chandel district and Tongjei Maril in the Tamenglong district to name just two. Needless to repeat that these demands too would meet stiff oppositions should they begin to appear likely to be conceded by the government.

The problem, as we see it, is one of a lack of a shared sense of identity in ethnically riven societies such as those in the Northeast. On the larger canvas, the notion of Indian citizenship has not been able to sublimate or moderate the notion of ethnic identity and affiliation. This is as much a failure of the ethnic groups to grow out of their shells as it is that of the projection of the Indian identity into which these smaller identities cannot fit. While the primordial notion of identity cannot or should not be abandoned altogether, the identity attached to citizenship, which is much more about conscious and democratic choice, should be given its rightful place. This is exactly what is not happening in the ethnic situation in the Northeast. The multiple identities that Amartya Sen said is what constitutes the composite identity of a modern democratic man, is what is lacking to a great extent in these situations. Although as in Sen’s theory, each individual is a father, a son, a mother, a daughter, belonging to a profession, a meat eater or a vegetarian, each attribute giving him or her a different identity, what always subsumes and even obliterates all these identities when it comes to the crux, is the notion of ethnic identity. Regardless of all the other identities, the “otherness” of somebody always is “manufactured” from the fact that he or she does not have the same ethnic affiliation.

If this were not so, and if everybody were to agree to a larger citizenship as a primary factor in presuming identity, the problem of ethnic friction would have been much reduced. Reorganising state boundaries, not to talk of reorganising district boundaries, would not have been much of an issue too. It is time to change this attitude to some degree at least. Otherwise, the region will continue to be stuck hopelessly in the dreadful state of immobility as it is now with different ethnic groups pulling in different and sometimes directly opposition directions. The Sadar Hills district issue is just the latest and loudest example of this. A blockade that began with predominantly Kuki agitators demanding a new district is now continuing because the Nagas are objecting to any concession to the demand. It is in this sense an agitation which cannot end and therefore can take nobody anywhere. What is most needed at this juncture is a return to senses by all concerned. Coming back to the larger canvas, if India were able to instil the confidence that big or small, the wellbeing and the freedom of expression of creative genius of all communities would be guaranteed, there ought not to be any serious objections to reorganisation of state boundaries purely on administrative considerations. As for instance, if the Imphal valley and the hills were to be separated, the valley’s administrative and security needs would entail its control over its highways. If this can be guaranteed, we see no reason why there should be objections. As it is, the hills and valley are under two different land revenue systems, therefore already separate in many ways. Officials demarcating the two regions as different states should make little difference. On the contrary, it should benefit both.

Read more / Original news source: http://kanglaonline.com/2011/11/the-divide-within/