[Previous entry: "Naga Hoho new team headed by Horangse Sangtam"] [Next entry: "Nagaland orders probe into NPSC bribery case"]
05/29/2005: "Mmhonlumo Kikon critique of Sanjib Baruah: The Naga thorn in Sanjib Baruah’s Agnostic Democracy - Disordering Durable Histories"
Disordering Durable Histories
The Naga thorn in Sanjib Baruah’s Agnostic Democracy
A professor of Political Studies at Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York, USA, Sanjib Baruah came to Guwahati to head ‘The Centre for North East India, South and Southeast Asia Studies [CENISEAS]’in July 2003. He left it to offer his expertise on the Northeast to the Government of India as a fellow at the Centre for Policy Research in Delhi. He has written two hugely popular books on the politics of Northeast India, namely: India Against Itself (Assam and the Politics of Nationality) and Durable Disorder (Understanding the Politics of Northeast India) – both published by Oxford University Press in India. An interesting critique on the policy of India towards the “Northeastern” region, both the books are prefaced with theoretical arguments on the contestations between ‘nationalism’ and ‘sub nationalism’ and a general review of the current discourse on ‘limits of nation-building.’ The first book tries to situate the aspirations of the Nagas, Bodos and the Assamese as ‘sub nationalist’ vis-ŕ-vis Indian Nationalism. From the very beginning he categorizes the Naga Struggle for self-determination as a sub nationalist rhetoric against the larger pan-Indian project of Nation building. This is the perspective that drives the book towards obvious conclusions on the Indo-Naga engagements.
Although the book focuses mainly on Assam and privileges Assam as the mother of the region now renamed Northeast (according to him), it takes the Naga issue as a central example to supplement his theoretical assumptions.
This is not a normal or paid review of his second book, neither an introduction to his books and ideas. It is a critical response to the de-humanizing project of Sanjib Baruah and his veiled Assamese Chauvinism masquerading behind academic garbage. But first I must give him his due as a very fine practitioner of the art of contradictions. Let’s begin with his chapter on the Nagas. It is suggestively titled, “Confronting constructionism; Ending the Naga War.” The chapter first appeared as a paper in the Journal of Peace Research (International Peace Research Institute, Olso, Norway)
Vol 40 (3) May 2003, pp. 321-338. It was then titled, “Confronting constructionism: Ending India’s Naga war. Two years hence he changed the title and published it as a chapter in his second book. We can probe further the reasons why he changed the title using the text as the guide map. Definitely hindsight made him change his mind because of the apparent realization of the problematic arguments he had constructed in the first draft. The main point of contention, and therefore the issue at hand, is the inconsistencies in his use of theory. In his first book he discusses the theoretical considerations of the limits of nation-building. He classifies the Assamese and the Naga struggles as ‘sub nationalist’ in nature and approaches the whole issue of contestations as a struggle between the Pan-Indian nationalist project and the sub nationalist aspirations of the different struggling peoples of the region. This is the first problem and the basis of the following arguments against the Naga movement for self-determination and also the Assamese movements (which is not sub nationalist at all). He may classify the Naga aspiration as ‘sub nationalist’ but ironically for him it is the same colonial method of dismissing and reduction of a nation or a peoples collective will that he is trying to address in his book. Obviously, his call for a truly federalist structure and practice in the region is built on the same conjectures and does not qualify as a truly original argument for his classifications.
The methodology he uses to challenge the Naga struggle is not new. Although he comes from a neighboring community one can say that his opinion is not necessarily the general perception among the Assamese. The tactics and opinions of the Indian bureaucrats, intelligence agents and the Governors employed in their post-retirement romanticism to rubbish the Naga struggle is rehashed in new terminologies and subtle sarcasms. Firstly he attempts to challenge the ‘notion’ of the word ‘Naga’ itself. His use of the theories regarding imagined communities and nation-states is fraught with just one problem- that of sophistry. Using popular ideas to break the ties that bind the identity of nationhood and people hood in the meaning ‘Naga’ he questions the authenticity of certain tribes under such a nomenclature as mere claims and naturally, for him, a contestable point. This is precisely the argument behind the Government of India’s intransigent attitude towards the integration of the Naga Areas. By challenging the notion Naga itself to be so composed of the various tribes he is challenging the very definition of Naga Areas. The contiguity and the territoriality of the Nagas is as generic as the name Naga itself. They derive meaning form each other. Therefore, attempting to dismiss the generic basis of the meaning ‘Naga’ is the same as attempting to challenge the contiguity of the Naga territory. Besides, it is amusing how one challenges the history and reality of a people by supposedly professing to champion the people of the region presently grouped as the ‘Northeast’. We might as well ask him whether he knows that the term India is indeed not even a Hindu word but rather a Persian one. And the idea of ‘India’ is itself a postcolonial construct in the sense that has developed since Nehru. A brilliant discussion of the same can be found in the book, “The Idea of India” by Sunil Khilnani.
If it was written by an “Indian Scholar” we might sympathize with him for his profound ignorance. But it is written by an Assamese brother who seems to be trying hard to be considered among the pantheon of Indian intelligentsia. In all the arguments from the issue of Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act to the brilliant rampaging of the institution of Governorship in the region, he would have been highly appreciated if he were an Indian scholar trying to go beyond the commonly held misconceptions of the Indian Establishment. But sadly enough he is a champion of a stronger Indian federalism and will surely serve his masters well. It seems as if Sanjib Baruah is trying to tread between pleasing the master and championing the peoples of the region. A pure contradiction of the selfhood, if I may say so. But history is full of people who have tried to champion our cause and ended up showing their true agendas. Sanjib Baruah’s chapter on the Nagas reminds me of the Meitei constructions of arguments against the Nagas. The Naga bashing in the press of Manipur by the over zealous Meiteis seems to have infected some people from our friendly neighborhood. Such rhetoric must stop before it becomes the only principle of engagements between traditional neighbors. I will conclude my protest by quoting Prof. Edward W. Said (1935-2003):
"Remember the solidarity shown to Palestine here and everywhere... and remember also that there is a cause to which many people have committed themselves, difficulties and terrible obstacles notwithstanding. Why? Because it is a just cause, a noble ideal, a moral quest for equality and human rights."
