Himalayan Affairs

"I always wondered why somebody doesn’t do something about that. Then I realized I was somebody."- Lily Tomlin

Username or email	Password
Security Charecter		Sign Up	Forgot your password?

Welcome Guest User | | Sign Up | Login |

The Three D Solution For The North East

Author : Yogendra Bali | .

Posted on : Thursday, December 31, 2009

The worne out terror outfits must disarm first, then come up for the dialogue process, these two steps were essential to bring development to the North East. Ceasefires of the past seem to have been meaningless, for the simple fact that they had not led to any meaningful dialogue between the militants and the State and Central authorities. In fact the militant groups and their much declare causes were also fast losing support from the people who hankered for peace, progress and prosperity. The militant movements had lost their ideological basis and in some cases they were reduced to simple crime and violence gangs. Time they read the writing on the wall and surrendered arms first to enter the dialogue process in a sincere and meaningful manner. That would be a prelude to joining the social-political mainstream to make positive contribution to the present and future of the North East.

Some observers thought that the militants, whether operating from inside the country or from some of their secret bases in neighbouring countries were living in a fool’s paradise if they thought that they could achieve any kind of extra-political solution of their demands on gun point. Some recent events and observations have clearly pointed in that direction.

A report from Guwahati said, on July 9, spelling out the UPA government’s new policy to counter militancy in the strife-torn Northeast, Union Home Minister P Chidambaram ruled out the possibility of signing ceasefire agreements with any militant group unless it first laid down arms and abjured violence. The minister, who was replying to a calling attention motion in the Rajya Sabha on the killings in Assam’s troubled North Cachar Hills district, said: ‘‘Since I took over, I have not entertained this kind of ceasefire. A militant group must first abjure the path of violence, surrender and lay down arms, and then we can talk about any other problem they may have.’’ Giving a clear message to the Jewel Garlosa faction of the Dima Halam Daogah (DHD) that had been holding the entire NC Hills district to ransom before the arrest of Garlosa and other top leaders of the outfit, Chidambaram said: ‘‘I would take this opportunity to tell the DHD(J) to lay down arms, abjure the path of violence and then hold talks with the Government of Assam. The Government of India would facilitate those talks if necessary.’’

According to an eminent journalist and observer of North Eastern Affairs insurgency in the Northeast, which was indeed an armed insurrection for a cause at one point of time — to reverse the process of isolation, neglect and discrimination of the region and its people at the hands of a callous and unresponsive Centre —is today not even a remnant of its past in terms of ideology. Today insurgency in the region is just an euphemism for what it really is — criminal terrorism sans any ideology and with the sole intent to kill unarmed men, women and children, apart from security forces involved in counter-insurgency operations, to spread terror and thus sustain the industry of so-called insurgency. There cannot, therefore, be any soft approach to a crime being committed against a democratic state in the name of ‘insurgency’.

As Bikash Sarmah observed, the logic, in fact, is simple: Why should a democratic state, which allows freedom of expression, right to dissent and space within the limits set by the Constitution to advocate grievances and protest against state aberrations well within the mainstream itself, kowtow to diktats by militant groups that thrive only on the loot extracted from the same state and want justice as well from the judiciary of the same state even after butchering women and children on their ‘revolutionary’ mode? Why should the Indian state, therefore, talk to a militant group that aims at the best of all worlds by being in a ceasefire pact with the government so that its cadres are not eliminated by the security forces as well as by retaining all their sophisticated arms and ammunition to intimidate target groups to extort money despite the ceasefire agreement?

In his view most of the conflict resolution experts in the Northeast argue that the various insurgencies in the region can be resolved only by way of a political process — that is, by engaging the militant groups in a sustained political dialogue. The main argument is that such insurgencies have been stoked by injustices and discrimination against certain ethnic groups of which a section took to arms to fight against state callousness and cruelty and to create an independentist space for the realization of collective aspirations. Therefore, as the argument goes, only a political solution of their problems can bring about durable peace and order.

True, but that is what the government too desires. However, as Chidambaram says, the militant groups must first lay down their arms and abjure the path of murder and mayhem let loose on the state. No sovereign government in a democracy, it must be understood, can be expected to talk to a murderous militant group with its stock of arms and ammunition well in safe lockers so that any dissatisfaction during the dialogue process or any kind of friction with the government may be used as an expedient by the group to opt out of the peace process and start a new chapter of bloodshed.

Regardless of what some conflict resolution experts wedded to the doctrine of soft democracy and fake human rights groups (they are mostly frontal organizations of militant groups in the mainstream) would say, the UPA government should not budge an inch from what the Home Minister has spelt out — the principle of ‘‘we shall talk to you if and only you lay down your arms and renounce violence’’. The crux of the matter is that the state, as of now, is not confronted with insurgency backed by the masses; it faces terrorism to which insurgency in the Northeast has metamorphosed. Therefore, the response of the state to militant groups in the Northeast that pretend they are insurgents but have no qualms in killing helpless and unarmed construction workers (as is the case in NC Hills terrorized by Jewel Garlosa’s band of criminals) or in planting bombs in crowded market places, must be tough and uncompromising.

View all Comments | | People liked it ( 0 ) : People dont liked it ( 0 ) : Article Viewed ( 142 )

Q1. Best tourist place in india

Answers options :

A. Himachal
B. J & K
C. Kerla