We need not be everyone's cup of tea. We cannot be. The reality is ... Tea has never apologised for not being coffee.
It simply gravitated towards those who chose it.
Fidel Castro had famously given the quote to cherish and perhaps also ponder and debate about: "Men do not shape destiny, destiny produces the man for the hour".
North East India has a complex history and a turbulent journey since independence. Soon after India gained independence or maybe even before that, the Britons have played their games.
Divide and Rule and also 'misrule' from distance !!
It is said some of the Christian missionaries and other foreigners started promoting sentiments in favour of separate and "independent" states in North East India.
The Simon Commission had played its role since 1929 itself. Britishers knew they had to go and so the 'preparation' started way back.
There was another vital element. The virtual absence of any political or cultural contact of the tribals in the North-East with the political life of the rest of India. An infant nation was not much bothered. Assam though was an exception.
There was another 'striking difference' even as tribals also had a wonderful track record of fighting the colonial masters. Netaji Subhas Bose had admirers even in Naga inhabited areas of Manipur.
But the fact is that the struggle for independence had little impact among the tribals of the North East and perhaps also vice versa.
Separately all north eastern states - the original seven sisters and later the 8th state - Sikkim --- all are distinctly different from each other. Even the so-called history of insurgency or anti-India resistance in each state were basically owing to different reasons.
The Nagas gave the first state of guerrilla warfare. Mizos followed them.
Arunachal Pradesh displayed its peculiarity and a distinct pro-nationalist stance and also love for Hindi.
In Assam, the ULFA movement was definitely anti-India but the real 'Assam movement' was simply against influx of foreigners. Had this issue was better handled by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her loyalist Home Minister Gyani Zail Singh - the story would have been different.
 |
| Blogger with soldiers guarding the nation in wilds of northeast |
There is no doubt that the insurgency in North East India would not have assumed the ominous contour as it has without foreign support -- both coverts and overt.
Pakistan, China and later Bangladesh did play an enthusiastic role sometime jointly and sometime separately.
The hidden hand of the Uncle Sam too was quite pronounced notwithstanding the new found bonhomie with the Americans.
We will try to analyse things further.
But before that a few questions deserve closer scrutiny and effective understanding.
Should the insurgents in northeast continue to look up to China and follow their communist ideas?
Should insurgent groups try to understand on their part whether they have been "misled" by Beijing and China sympathisers from time to time?
Or, thirdly and perhaps quite important in circa 2025 - the militant groups should "embrace democratic ideals" and look up to the United States to create pressure on India.
All these are vital to examine on the given context that the US and India are now close ally and strategic partner of India.
Hard Facts:
Of course, insurgents have tried to draw mileage on two scores -- taking American money and taking 'ground/logistic' support and training from China.
The synthesis between the two was not balanced. In 1962, 1965, 1971 and 1999 during wartime - tribals in northeast and even insurgent groups did not go against India or Indian army.
Most insurgent groups thus cannot be designated as 'enemies' of India. There was a policy dispute.
Nagas or Mizos did not opt for 'disgrace' and ungratefulness as against the affairs of honour. During Kargil, Khashi soldiers from Meghalaya and Naga from Kohima region laid down their lives for 'mother India' and Indian army.
Thankfully most 1999-New Delhi did not forget that.
 |
| Naga Kargil Martyr ::: Capt. Neikezhakuo Kengurüse, Maha Vir Chakra |
So what inference we can draw.
Militancy in northeast has a strong political overtone. It also means honour and at the next stage that 'honour' or self respect is also about telling the truth. For many insurgent cadres and leaders - the 'freedom movement' is also public service and hence taking a more practical viewpoint vis-a-vis enlisting foreign support.
If US money does make sense; co could be greater involvements of Washington in ensuring a lasting peace package for north east India.
On religious angle also, for most of insurgent groups, they will have a better ally in America.
China is anti-religion and it has been proved that probably it only enjoys instigating the insurgent groups to destabilise the north east region.
Arms sale is something Beijing has always made India see things better and in a more sensitive manner.
Unlike the US, China may not be interested in "peace" ... more so when it is India due their geopolitical rivalry.
The US on the other hand does not have any geopolitical vested interests and can leverage its friendship with India to broker peace.
ends
No comments:
Post a Comment