However, both countries face a problem which cannot be resolved only with force. The beleaguered people want development and a free say. These aspirations have to be appreciated so that policies are formulated accordingly.
I have returned from Assam quite disturbed. The state has been wrecked by many agitations for a long time. I recall covering the convulsions it went through when there was a movement to oust “foreigners,” illegal entrants from Bangladesh.
The All Assam Students Union (AASU), which was then leading the agitation, entered into an accord with the then Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, who promised to detect “foreigners” and delete their names from the voters’ list. They were to be ultimately ousted from the state.
Nothing like that has happened. In fact, the Assamese have been reduced to 40 per cent in the state. Even when the accord was reached, I doubted if it could be implemented. The Centre had tried to disperse the migrants among the Indian states. But none agreed to rehabilitate them.
After the lapse of some years, it is clear that there is no probability of ousting the “foreigners.” New Delhi should consider issuing work permits because those who cross into India from across the border come in search of livelihood. They want to return to their homeland. Since they have no other option, they stay back and face perennial harassment.
It is the New Delhi-AASU accord which gave birth to the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA). The front has raised the standard of sovereign Assam state and clash with the security forces openly.
The violence has led to the killing of thousands of people both in Assam and at places where the ULFA cadre has sought refuge, particularly at the foothills of Bhutan and the border of Myanmar.
The breakthrough in the ULFA challenge came about when Bangladesh handed over to India the outfit’s chairman, Archinda Rajkova, the party’s ideologue Bhimkanta Buragohain and a few others.
The five rebel outfits in the region have characterised Dhaka’s gesture to Delhi as “betrayal” and they have vowed to take revenge. This has not deterred Bangladesh, which has declared to root out Indian militant outfits from its soil.
No doubt, the state government is trying its best to enter into a dialogue with the ULFA. But the latter’s refusal to give up the sovereignty demand has posed a problem. Probably the detained ULFA leaders want their commander-in-chief Paresh Barua to join them before they hold talks.
The ULFA does not seem to realise that no Indian government can talk to them on secession because there are some other movements in the country agitating for the same demand.
What has made me more concerned after a visit to Guwahati is the attitude of the Asom Gana Parishad (AGP), the main opposition party to the ruling Congress. The AGP is itself against the demand for sovereignty but supports the ULFA stand for no pre-conditions for talks.
The AGP obviously wants to harness the sympathy which the ULFA evokes in the state. I was surprised to see the evidence in Guwahati itself. My remark at a seminar that the ULFA leaders should not have been handcuffed was received by the audience with a resounding applause.
People in Assam or, for that matter, in South Asia, do not seem to realise that those who raise the gun against the state cannot be given any room because their success means the destruction of the polity.
The ULFA should tear a leaf out of the Nagas’ book. Their leder, Phizo, made the same demand for sovereignty and went to London to direct the revolt in Nagaland. I was India’s High Commissioner to the UK when Phizo died. One of his comrades, Khodao-Yanthan, met me after Phizo’s death.
Since the days of the insurgency in Nagaland, Yanthan had been living in the UK. He told me he wanted to go to Nagaland to adivse his old friends to give up violence and seek a solution within the framework of united India.
Ours was a friendly meeting. I was confident that he would be a moderating influence on the extremists. I informed New Delhi about his visit which I could not follow because I had resigned by the time he met the Indian government’s representatives.
Yanthan told me that Phizo had “changed” and wanted to settle the Nagaland question within the contours of India, not outside. I wish I had met him. I was told that his death had taken place long before it was announced.
My journalist friend, Harish Chandola (Phizo’s niece is married to him) vainly tried in London to get the death certificate to determine the date of his demise. I also asked the High Commission officials to look into the matter but did not get any satisfactory response.
Yanthan was insistent on describing his nationality as ‘Naga’ in the visa application. The Consular section was bent upon rejecting it on the ground that India did not recognise Nagaland as a separate country. I intervened and wrote on his visa application that the Nagas were Indians. He got a visa.
I thought it was important that he visited Nagaland and tell the militant fringe that Phizo had himself renounced violence and had proposed talks on Nagaland’s integration with India. I wonder if the northeast in India and Northwest in Pakistan can learn from Phizo.
I feel New Delhi’s policy on the Northeast has not been realistic. Jawaharlal Nehru kept the area separate and secluded so as to preserve the culture of the people living there. Indeed, this is a weighty consideration for any government.
But it should ensure that the area is not cut off from the mainstream, affecting not only the emotional ties but also the economic and social development.
True, the Taliban menace which Pakistan faces has to be eliminated. But Islamabad must realise that there must have been something lacking in its rule which could not bring about the emotional integration of the territory with the rest of Pakistan.
Source: The Tribune, Chandigarh, India.
If you are interested to read about India and its history, check the following:
No comments:
Post a Comment