Nagalim.NL News

Home » Archives » May 2012 » NSCN (IM) cautions Government of India The Sangai Express / Newmai News Network

[Previous entry: "EU diplomats’ furore unveils more Eastern Mirror"] [Next entry: "We the People Accountability needed on Naga Reconciliation Editorial: MorungExpress"]

05/21/2012: "NSCN (IM) cautions Government of India The Sangai Express / Newmai News Network"



NSCN (IM) cautions Government of India The Sangai Express / Newmai News Network

Dimapur, May 20 2012: The NSCN-IM has reminded New Delhi today not to toy around with the ongoing dialogue with the Naga outfit.

The NSCN-IM also urged the government of India that all its official statements will be only from the Prime Minister, the Union Home Minister or the govrnment of India's Chief Interlocutor.

This statement of the NSCN-IM came after Shambhu Singh's statement appeared in the media saying, "If we don't take all three factions into account, no kind of agreement is going to succeed.

It will be a futile exercise to reach an agreement with one group" .

Shambhu Singh is a joint secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs incharge of North East region.

Irked by the Ministry of Home Affairs stand, NSCN-IM's "kilo-Kilonser" (Home Minister) TT Among and convenor of Steering Committee Qhevihe Chisi Swu in a statement made available to Newmai News Network recalled the background that had formed the ongoing peace talks with New Delhi.

"It is pertinent to remind all that the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN) came to the negotiating table when the Govt of India finally took the decision to go for a political settlement on the vexed Indo-Naga political conflict after having tasted the futility of going for military solution.

The then Prime Minister of India PV Narasimha Rao had particularly chosen NSCN as the only potential partner to initiate talks on Naga political settlement.

Eventually ceasefire was declared on 1st August.

1997 between the NSCN and the Government of India (Gol) to pave the way for political negotiation based on three principles that the talks to be held without pre-conditions; that talks to be held at the highest level and also that the talks to be held outside India in a third country", the statement of the NSCN-IM leaders said.

Subsequent to that on July 11, 2002 the Gol recognized the "unique history and situation" of the Nagas.

We consider that the decision was a conscious and realistic step taken by the Gol We have witnessed many ups and downs in the political negotiation but reached thus far and nearing 15 years.

Today, NSCN is totally upset because after more than 14 years of political talks the Govt of India is showing a different color that is detrimental to solving the Naga issue on the basis of the understanding and commitment already given by the Gol, and it amounts to hitting the Nagas below the halt.

After more than 80 rounds of talks the present stage of talks indicates that it has entered into a challenging situation where crucial decisions must be taken but it anpears that some elements in the government of India have started playing a divisive role.

These divisive forces are over-activelv at work now and the government of India is seemingly abetting and assisting them by its inaction.

" All said and done, if the government of India is still serious about Indo-Naga talks it is imperative to make it clear whether it stands by various joint agreements signed with the NSCN and the commitments of its Prime Ministers including PV Narashimha Rao to the NSCN leadership Isak Chishi Swu and Th Muivah when he met them at Paris on June 12, 1995.In that meeting the PM of India proposed political dialogue to resolve the political problems.

In response to his proposal the Leadership of the NSCN said: "Okay, Mr.Prime Minister why don't you talk with Khaplang Group and NNC? We will not stand in the way, but we will not be a party to it".

The Prime Minister of India replied: "Why should I talk with them, the issue is not with them.

The issue is with you.

You have proved yourself .

The people are with you and so if we talk with you, we believe solution can be worked out.

I will not talk with others," the NSCN-IM said.

" It is unfortunate to observe that while the government of India and NSCN are seriously looking into ways and means to end the more than 60 years of conflict, Shambhu Singh, Joint Secretary of MHA (North-east in-charge) is playing with the issue like a mere toy.

In this context the NSCN seriously remind the GoI their commitment that all its official statement will be only from the Prime Minister, Home Minister or the Gol Chief Interlocutor.

We are deeply concerned because we see that such harmful developments will nullify all the positive steps already achieved.

Timely intervention is advised that will be in the larger interest of ushering permanent peace in the region," the statement suggested.
NSCN(I-M) asks Government of India to clarify stand on commitments Nagaland Post
Dimapur Convenor Steering Committee Qhevihe Chishi Swu and ‘kilo kilonser’ T.T Among of NSCN (I-M) have reacted to union joint secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Shambu Singh’s statements to also hold talks with other NSCN factions to seek solution to the Naga political issue.

They said it was “unfortunate to observe” that while the government of India and the NSCN (I-M) were seriously exploring means to end the more than sixty years of conflict, Shambhu Singh, joint secretary MHA (North East in-charge) was “playing with issues like a mere toy”.

NSCN (I-M) reminded the government of India that it had committed to issue official statements only through the prime minister, home minister or the government’s chief interlocutor. The signatories asked whether Shambhu Singh was acting on behalf of the government of India or simply acting on his own “ to create trouble in the Indo-Naga political talks” as it touched the very core issue of political negotiations that seek to conclude “ a negotiated settlement acceptable to both parties(India and the Nagas)”.

The signatories reminded that the NSCN (I-M) responded to the call for negotiations on the “vexed Indo-Naga political conflict” from the government of India when it realized the futility of a “military solution.” They also reminded that former prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao had “particularly chosen” the NSCN (I-M) “as the only potential partner to initiate talks on the Naga political settlement”.

In this regard, the signatories said if the government of India was serious about the talks it was imperative that it clarify whether it stood by various joint agreements signed with the NSCN(I-M) and commitments of prime ministers including Narasimha Rao to Isak Swu and Th. Muivah at Paris on June 12,1995 who told them that he would talk only with them (NSCN-IM) and not with “Khaplang group or NNC” as the NSCN(I-M) had proved itself and had the support of the people and with whom solution could be worked out; or the statement of Shambhu Singh who had stated that unless talks involved all three factions, “no kind of agreement is going to succeed.”

It was pointed out that cease fire came into being during the Congress government in 1997 where talks would be held at the highest level; without pre-condition and held outside India in a third country and also the recognition of the “unique history and situation of the Nagas” by the BJP government in 2002. They said as a subsequent to the signing of 1997 ceasefire, government of India, had on July 11, 2002 recognized the “unique history and situation” of Nagas which NSCN (I-M) considered it as a “conscious and realistic step taken by GoI”. However, they said these would “become a hilarious affair if the GoI has to stand by the statement of Mr. Shambhu Singh.”

The signatories expressed regret that after more than 14 years of talks, the government of India was “showing a different color that is detrimental to solving the Naga issue on the basis of the understanding and commitment already given by the GoI” and therefore, tantamount to “hitting the Nagas below the belt”.

The duo asserted that after more than 80 rounds of talks, the present stage has entered a “challenging situation where crucial decisions must be taken” but regretted that “some elements in the government of India have started playing a divisive role.” According to the two, “these divisive forces are over actively at work” and “GoI is seemingly abetting and assisting them by its inaction.” The two senior NSCN (I-M) functionaries further expressed deep concern as “such harmful developments will nullify all the positive steps already achieved” and opined that “timely intervention is advised” in the larger interest of “ushering permanent peace in the region.”

NSCN-IM opts out of Chiangmai meet NISHIT DHOLABHAI The Telegraph


Th Muivah
New Delhi, May 20: The widening rift between Naga rebels has led to NSCN (Isak-Muivah) opting out of the reconciliation meeting to be held at Chiangmai in Thailand tomorrow.
The decision that NSCN (I-M) general secretary Thuingaleng Muivah will not participate in the meet was taken on May 14 and confirmed by NSCN sources on Friday. Albeit, sources in the Union government said they never expected Muivah to participate in the meet.
The reconciliation exercise is over 10 years old, initiated by the church in Nagaland and continued by civil society groups. Naga Hoho, the apex body of Nagas, was the prime mover for several years before the Forum for Naga Reconciliation (FNR) was formed. Though FNR’s efforts have borne some fruit, a complex web of inter and intra-rebel group politics along with the shifting policies of the Centre has made reconciliation a tough exercise. The forum has held several meetings for reconciliation at Chiangmai.
Today’s situation can be said to have its genesis in the split of the NSCN (Khaplang) last year when the group and its faction, led by his erstwhile ato kilonser (prime minister) Kitovi Zhimomi, fell out. While the Khaplang group had support in Myanmar or “Eastern Nagaland”, Kitovi primarily had pockets of support in eastern Nagaland districts and in Zunheboto. Kitovi’s senior, Khole Konyak, is also part of this faction that made Dimapur its base and agreed to reconcile with the Isak-Muivah faction. However, during a joint meeting at the NSCN (I-M)’s Hebron camp, differences surfaced as Kitovi and Muivah spoke in different tones. These differences were accentuated after Kitovi expressed his willingness to talk to Delhi.
“We will hold negotiations with the government of India,” he had told The Telegraph during a recent visit to New Delhi. “After all, the charter of demands has not been shared with us,” he had said.
Close on heels, another detailed statement by the Sema leader worsened things between the two groups. This is one set of strain in the Naga imbroglio.
The other set constitutes Muivah’s negotiation with the Centre. After a decade-and-a-half of ups and downs in the talks, the NSCN (I-M)-Centre relationship at best remains shaky. While the NSCN leaders express “satisfaction” after meeting senior political leaders, the situation at the ground and operational level remains one of distrust.
The NSCN (I-M) has even “resolved” against Shambhu Singh, the joint secretary (Northeast) in the home ministry, proposing that the government should not entrust affairs of the Northeast to any officer from the region. Singh is an officer of Manipur cadre. Therefore, while former home secretary G.K. Pillai hoped for a solution “within 2012”, the climate is not one of optimism.
The Union home ministry sees Muivah as “dogmatic” or “adamant” unwilling to give up some of his demands, particularly those relating to a solution for the Naga-dominated districts of Manipur.
For the sensitive politics of Manipur, Naga rebel politics is the fuel and vice-versa. The home ministry had once stated that it would have a solution on the platter if the rebel groups reconciled. However, before signs of rapprochement could be visible, the fast-changing dynamics of Naga rebel politics, which has resulted in further divisions, seems to have changed the equations once again.
As the rebels fail to reconcile, the government now seems to be in the mood to talk to more than one group. The frequency of meetings between interlocutor R.S. Pandey and Muivah and between Pandey and Union home minister P. Chidambaram has also increased, signalling some movement.
Just three months ago, on February 29, however, various Naga rebel groups and organisations reaffirmed their faith in the four-year-old Naga reconciliation process in front of 30,000 people from Naga-inhabited areas of India and even Myanmar who had gathered at 4th Mile in Dimapur for the meet. Another dose of uncertainty will be added when Nagaland goes to polls early next year. The elections are influenced by the Naga rebels unfailingly and invariably, directly or indirectly.
Panellists feel New Delhi's fear on foreign diplomats' Nagaland visit unnecessary Source: NEPS *
Kohima, May 19 2012: Panellists who took part in the DDK Live Discussions on the recent visit to Nagaland by the eight European diplomats here at DDK Studio on Saturday have expressed almost the similar opinions that there was nothing wrong on the part of the civil society members, state government functionaries including legislators sharing about the decades old Naga political issue with them.

DDK Anchor KV Nurumi (left), Naga Hoho President Keviletuo (2nd left), NEPS Editor Oken Jeet Sandham (2nd right) and Nagaland Post Correspondent Daiho Mao (right) during Panel Discussion under "Trends of Nagaland" on European Diplomats' Nagaland visit here at DDK Studio on May 19, 2012
The panellists were Naga Hoho President Keviletuo, NEPS Editor Oken Jeet Sandham and Nagaland Post Correspondent Daiho Mao.

The DDK Live Discussion at 2 PM under the weekly programs "Trends of Nagaland" which was anchored by senior journalist and DDK commentator, KV Nurumi, also reviewed on the comments made by State Governor Nikhil Kumar, Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio, etc. with regard to the Naga issue as well as issue of Nagas living in Myanmar.
The Governor and the Chief Minister shared their views and opinions on the Naga issue while they were called on by the visiting diplomats who seemed to be more interested to know about the Naga history.
Nagalim: NSCN-IM Underscores Agreement Terms UNPO

Naga representative indicates to the Indian government its three interlocutors, following a statement from the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The NSCN-IM has reminded New Delhi today not to toy around with the ongoing dialogue with the Naga outfit. The NSCN-IM also urged the government of India that all its official statements will be only from the Prime Minister, the Union Home Minister or the government of India's Chief Interlocutor.

This statement of NSCN-IM came after Shambhu Singh's statement appeared in the media saying, "If we don't take all three factions into account, no kind of agreement is going to succeed. It will be a futile exercise to reach an agreement with one group".
Shambhu Singh is a joint secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs in charge of North East region. Irked by the Ministry of Home Affairs stand, NSCN-IM's "kilo-Kilonser" (Home Minister) TT Among and convenor of Steering Committee Qhevihe Chisi Swu in a statement made available to Newmai News Network recalled the background that had formed the ongoing peace talks with New Delhi.
"It is pertinent to remind all that the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN) came to the negotiating table when the government of India finally took the decision to go for a political settlement on the vexed Indo-Naga political conflict after having tasted the futility of going for military solution.
The then Prime Minister of India P.V. Narasimha Rao had particularly chosen NSCN as the only potential partner to initiate talks on Naga political settlement.
Eventually ceasefire was declared on 1st August.1997 between the NSCN and the Government of India (Gol) to pave the way for political negotiation based on three principles that the talks to be held without pre-conditions; that talks to be held at the highest level and also that the talks to be held outside India in a third country", the statement of the NSCN-IM leaders said.
Subsequent to that on July 11, 2002 the Gol recognized the "unique history and situation" of the Nagas. We consider that the decision was a conscious and realistic step taken by the Gol We have witnessed many ups and downs in the political negotiation but reached thus far and nearing 15 years.

Today, NSCN is totally upset because after more than 14 years of political talks the government of India is showing a different color that is detrimental to solving the Naga issue on the basis of the understanding and commitment already given by the Gol, and it amounts to hitting the Nagas below the halt.
After more than 80 rounds of talks the present stage of talks indicates that it has entered into a challenging situation where crucial decisions must be taken but it appears that some elements in the government of India have started playing a divisive role.
These divisive forces are over-actively at work now and the government of India is seemingly abetting and assisting them by its inaction.
"All said and done, if the government of India is still serious about Indo-Naga talks it is imperative to make it clear whether it stands by various joint agreements signed with the NSCN and the commitments of its Prime Ministers including PV.
Narashimha Rao to the NSCN leadership Isak Chishi Swu and Mr.Th.Muivah when he met them at Paris on June 12, 1995. In that meeting, the PM of India proposed political dialogue to resolve the political problems.

In response to his proposal the Leadership of the NSCN said: "Okay, Mr.Prime Minister why don't you talk with Khaplang Group and NNC? We will not stand in the way, but we will not be a party to it". The Prime Minister of India replied: "Why should I talk with them, the issue is not with them.
The issue is with you. You have proved yourself. The people are with you and so if we talk with you, we believe solution can be worked out.

I will not talk with others," the NSCN-IM said.
"It is unfortunate to observe that while the government of India and NSCN are seriously looking into ways and means to end the more than 60 years of conflict, Mr.Shambhu Singh, Joint Secretary of MHA (North-east in-charge) is playing with the issue like a mere toy.

In this context the NSCN seriously remind the GoI their commitment that all its official statement will be only from the Prime Minister, Home Minister or the Gol Chief Interlocutor.
We are deeply concerned because we see that such harmful developments will nullify all the positive steps already achieved. Timely intervention is advised that will be in the larger interest of ushering permanent peace in the region," the statement suggested.
Aung San Suu Kyi and State reorganisation in Northeast (NPN) Nagaland Post
DIMAPUR What has Aung San Suu Kyi’s victory in the recently held by elections in Myanmar got to do with the Northeast? Definitely Myanmarese dissidents in India and the Northeast will be watching the victory with guarded suspicion and taking in the new reality with utmost caution.

Will it be a repeat of 1962 or 1988 where democracy vanished to give way to military dictatorship? Myanmar is witnessing a kind of controlled democracy almost five decades after General Ne win grabbed power in erstwhile Burma.

Global pressures and internal realities have compelled the Myanmarese junta to follow a path so far untrodden. To understand the link it would be pertinent to examine some of the incidents in the north east after democratisation was set rolling in Myanmar.

The Peace Process signed by the Myanmarese Government with the NSCN (Khaplang) having bases both in India and Myanmar has visible political implications of the process started by Myanmar. However the actual trade imperative that drives such a process is often overlooked.

North West of Sagaing Division in Myanmar, where a majority of Nagas inhabit, is believed to be extremely rich with mineral resources but accessible only if a peace deal was brokered with the Nagas. To be even more simplistic, any foray into the region requires the active collaboration of the Nagas.

Hence the political goal of the Nagas has to be addressed first. History has a lot to teach us with regards this particular aspect of the geo-political reality.

In 1962 when General Ne Win usurped power in Burma with his Burma Socialist Programme Party, there were interesting events unfolding in the Northeast. The Sino-India conflict had just escalated in the Northeastern front and the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army reached Assam to mark a pervasive presence.

Immediately around the time, the Naga insurgency which was at its peak, was being discussed in the corridors of Delhi in the backdrop of the conflict.

Nagaland achieved statehood and thereby served the dual purpose of managing the conflict in the Northeast and upsetting the Chinese plans of engineering turmoil in the northeast from within.

This theory is being challenged by many scholars of the border dispute. However it is not just mere coincidence that a major event in the borders of India had to trigger an internal rearrangement which would set the tone for the restructuring of the northeast in ways the policy makers in Delhi would not have imagined.

It is with a sense of déjà vu that history is being repeated in the face of Globalization. The force of the economic downturn in Europe, also known as the Euro zone crisis, is shaping international policies far beyond Europe.

As the G8 meeting at Camp David gets underway, the natural resources of Myanmar are being targeted for its richness and the promise it holds for reviving European Economy.

Suu Kyi is set to address the British Parliament as a former Oxford University Student and presently as a parliamentarian. Myanmar is bigger than the size of Britain and France put together and has enough resources which can be exploited not only save Euro crisis but to sustain it enough to challenge Chinese dominance over the markets in Southeast Asia.

Rather than risking a war it cannot afford, Europe is risking its neck in the backwaters of China, dining with dictators to salvage themselves with India as a willing ally. This is why Suu Kyi is absolutely necessary in this calculation.

If 1962 could trigger so much of historical miscalculations in the Northeast, with the Nagas having to bear the most in terms of its political destiny, we can only imagine the shatter zones it would create with the new geo-political churnings in the region.

The Nagaland visit by the eight European diplomats had created a flutter when the Ministry of Home Affairs expressed their objections to their free and frank interactions with the Naga people here in the State expressing their apprehension saying that some sections of the Naga people attempted to internationalise the Naga issue.

The Ministry was at loggerheads with the External Affairs Ministry saying that they did take proper clearance from them (Home Affairs Ministry) for the diplomats before entering the sensitive border state.

The Naga Hoho President Keviletuo expressed his opinion that although Nagas had been divided and placed them in two countries---India and Myanmar---they were still one family.

He was also of the opinion that the interactions they had with the visiting eight European diplomats in Nagaland were very rare and further stated that the Government of India should not unnecessarily feel apprehensive because they themselves had expressed about the "unique histories of the Nagas." It was only expressions of the Nagas and not against the Government of India, he added.

NEPS Editor Oken Jeet Sandham, while stating that interactions with the visiting European Diplomats with the Naga civil societies on the Naga political issue was good, however opined that such interactions should be very careful at this juncture because the talks with the Government of India had already entered into a very "decisive phase." "If there are no talks with the Government of India on the Naga political issue, then we can talk as we like with any dignitaries such as the visiting diplomats.

But when the negotiation process are on with the Government of India, to engage in any discussions such as Naga political issue with the foreign diplomats should be very diplomatic," he stated.

Nagaland Post Correspondent Daiho Mao said the tussle between the two key Ministries of the Government of India over the visit of Nagaland by the eight diplomats was good in a way that had shown how the Naga issue was serious and genuine.

He also said sharing of Nagas' history with the visiting diplomats was only natural because the latter stated that their visit to Nagaland was to familiarise with the Naga people.

* The sender of this news can be contacted at nepsonline(at)yahoo(dot)com .
A DOSE OF HERESY - Imagining alternative histories of the Northeast Cutting Corners - Ashok Mitra The Telegraph


The speculation would appear to be well in order. When the British masters decided in 1937 to bestow on the natives in India the so-called provincial autonomy, in terms of the Government of India Act passed two years earlier, they took alongside that another decision: Burma and Ceylon were detached from the jurisdiction of the viceroy and governor-general of India and became separate wings of the Empire with their own administrative set-up.
Whenever whatever takes place, it becomes a part of history. But what does not happen can also contribute to the evolution of history. At the time they separated Burma and Ceylon from British India, the rulers could have taken an analogous decision with respect to the region now known as India’s Northeast: the entire sweep of territory covering present-day Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh. This hilly sub-Himalayan region mostly comprised tribal settlements that the British annexed either by force, or by bribery or by treaty arrangements of various descriptions with chiefs, chieftains and, as in the case of the puny kingdoms ruled by Hindu royalty, Manipur and Tripura. Inhabitants of this region had, by and large, little in common with the people of the Indo-Gangetic valley or the Deccan in terms of religious affiliation, language, food habits, apparel or culture in the broadest sense.
Christian missionaries of many denominations had, over a couple of centuries, carried out conversions among some tribes; several other tribes persisted with their Buddhist rituals, while quite a few practised this or that version of paganism. There is reference to a kingdom of Manipur and Arjuna’s seduction of its princess, Chitrangada, in the Mahabharata. But, apart from other things, there were any number of minor kingdoms dispersed all over the country bearing the same name. Thanks to a temporary flurry of intrusion on the part of the Vaisnava cult, the curiosum of the Bengali script has lingered in Manipur. The Tripura princely family had also some cultural links with Bengal. None of these made the least difference; the ethnic and cultural chasm between the region and the rest of the Indian subcontinent did not narrow.
European rulers were generally aware of the widely heterogeneous ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic mix among the people they conquered in South Asia, particularly in the southern slope of the Himalayas. The phenomenon, they gradually realized, called for carefully crafted political strategy and administrative modality. As the British rulers proceeded along the learning curve, viceroys and governors-general based in New Delhi, it was felt, should be released of the burden of Burma and Ceylon. For whatever reason, the mass of territory currently known as the Northeastern was left out of the 1937 schedule of re-aligning political geography. The viceroy remained in overall charge of these remote, hilly stretches of tribal settlements. His deus ex machina for administering the region was the governor of Assam, who was to deal directly with the tribal chiefs, chieftains and princelings exercising control over their respective fiefs. The provincial government, with its ministers chosen by the elected representatives of the people of Assam, was precluded from intruding into this sphere of the governor’s ambit of responsibilities.
The governor was vested with special powers to deal with the administrative issues cropping up from time to time in the Northeast; he received directives from, and reported back to, the viceroy and governor-general in New Delhi. The dual role of the Governor — as representative of the British crown monitoring the progress of provincial autonomy in Assam and simultaneously as presiding deity of the tribal belt — was somewhat confusing. The masters in London could have easily handed over the whole area now constituting the Northeast to the charge of a separately appointed governor or governor-general. Perhaps the Chittagong Hill Tracts, nominally ruled by the Chakma royalty, could also have been tagged to this new entity. A further decision might have even thrown in the port town of Chittagong too, so as to ensure a sea access to the otherwise land-locked, newly established colony.
Indian nationalists did not make a squeak when the announcement was made in 1937 to exclude Burma and Ceylon from the jurisdiction of New Delhi. The Burmese and the Ceylonese people were never reckoned as Indians by activists fighting for India’s freedom; so how these two imperial possessions were governed by the masters did not concern the Indian National Congress and its acolytes. If yet another entity were carved out by the secretary of state for India in London comprising the remote Northeast, and turned into yet another separate colony, the reaction of the nationalists in Aryavarta would conceivably have been no different, and possibly more or less as follows: that wretched region was settled in by people mostly of mongoloid extraction who had little in common with us Indians; they were no part of the Indian nation and the nation’s freedom movement; how the British government dealt with them was no business of ours.
Bengalis in the town of Chittagong and adjacent villages might have felt miffed; their voice would have been much too feeble to be taken notice of. Besides, till the close of the Second World War, the concept of anti-colonialism had a severely parochial character.
There could have been a third alternative. Instead of creating yet another corpus, London could have decided to join the Northeast with Burma, which, in any case, was marked by intricate tribal heterogeneity; attachment of the North-eastern tracts would merely have added a few extra hues to its ethnic landscape. Indian nationalists could not have cared less.
It did not happen in any of these ways. The Northeast remained in the charge of the viceroy and governor-General. When transfer of power took place in 1947, those assuming authority in New Delhi were handed over, as a matter of course, suzerainty over the entire region, almost in the manner Bombay was once transferred to the British crown by another European royal family reportedly as marriage dowry. In the popular Indian imagination, the Northeast has since been more like a prized — almost colonial — possession. The logic applied is frighteningly straightforward: these people up there are different; they look like a strange lot and speak differently, their religious practices belong to odd categories, they were formerly ruled by the viceroy and governor-general; the new regime in New Delhi had inherited all powers over what constituted British India minus the area that had gone to Pakistan, the Northeast thereby automatically belonged to India, priced.
This point of view is not articulated in loud words, but it is the dominant idea among citizens in the rest of India. The government in New Delhi has also, right from the beginning, faithfully mirrored, perhaps absentmindedly, the prevalent mass sentiment. The basic attitude could not be more supercilious: these quaint people have been left to our care by the British, we need to be both paternal and patronizing while interacting with them; undoubtedly they have special problems; as benign guardians, we of course would try to sympathize with them and sort out their difficulties; on their part, they too have to appreciate the fact that New Delhi has a great number of other headaches; they should be good boys, dutifully obey the headmaster; ah yes, they must visit the nation’s capital on Republic Day when a gala festival of tribal dancers would be put on show; they must promise to make it a thundering success.
Two generations have sprung since the distant middle decades of the last century. The kind of relationship the Centre presumed to impose unilaterally on the people in the Northeast has led to deep resentment. At the same time, many of the territories making up the region have undergone significant shifts in terms of human geography with a steady stream of migrants from the plains, which has contributed to new tensions. Of much greater significance is the claimed strategic indispensability of the Northeast for India’s external security and massive investments by the Centre to strengthen the defence and economic infrastructure.
While such investments have gone on, the living conditions of the tribal people have remained unchanged, and uprisings of different dimensions have been the regular pattern. The first revolt was in what is now Nagaland, then it was the turn of Mizoram, subsequently it was Manipur, which has actually been continuously on the boil. At some stage, Tripura too was touch and go. The authorities in New Delhi have been in a sense fortunate. The disturbances have been spread over time; there was no simultaneous, integrated rebellion. On the other hand, while things are apparently quiet in Nagaland at the moment, the basic issues are yet to be resolved; New Delhi is having fruitless negotiations over the years with Naga rebel leaders currently based in Bangkok and elsewhere.
Arunachal Pradesh, earlier designated as the Northeast Frontiers Agency, has an additional problem: China is yet to accept the McMahon Line as sacrosanct. Manipur, in any event, is in a state of permanent turmoil. The elected state government is hardly in a position to cope with the consequences of the hurt the Armed Services (Special Powers) Act have caused to the psyche of ordinary people; intra-tribal feuds are saving the situation from getting worse.
Boys and girls from the north-eastern region have little option but to travel to ‘India’, to all purposes a foreign land to them, for higher studies. Residents of the places where they billet often treat them as an inferior species. Superiority complex takes over; these boys and girls often become victims of irresponsible dalliances or the butt of not so innocent pranks. Tragic incidents become frequent. Aggravating haughtiness on the part of the defence forces personnel back home, the increasing phenomenon of unbridled corruption of small-time politicians in New Delhi’s good books and the feeling of claustrophobic isolation in mainland India coalesce to make the environment worse every day. As in Kashmir, the more the Indian army digs in, alienation from the heartbeat of India worsens further.
Would it not have been a different kind of history if the masters in London had decided for the Northeast the same sort of arrangement as they did for Burma and Ceylon? India would have been without the headache of running a colony, and Myanmar and Sri Lanka would have another sovereign country as their neighbour.
Die-hard patriots would be scandalized by the speculation. Nonetheless, heretical talk now and then is good for a nation’s health; it provokes thinking, not an altogether anti-social pastime.
Eco-tourism project in Naga village Times of India
KOHIMA: Jotsoma village in Kohima district of Nagaland received a boost as a tourist destination with the launch of a nature conservation and eco-tourism project on Saturday at Puliebadze Chahe ki, a rest house on the foothills of the mount Puliebadze.
Nagaland chief minister Neiphiu Rio was the chief guest at the programme. He was overwhelmed with the sight of rich natural vegetation and virgin forests all around. He said that he has been associated with Jotsoma village for a long time and expressed his happiness over the fact that the people of the village have conserved their natural surroundings. He congratulated them for working hard on the project and appreciated their unity and cooperation and the effort they put in to successfu lly complete the task. tnn
The chief minister stated that the thick natural vegetation and virgin forests of the Japfu mountain range could have water sources, particularly for the capital town Kohima, for which he appreciated the people of the Southern Angamis and the Western Angamis living in the ranges as they preserve and conserve flora and fauna. Encouraging the people to keep up their conservation efforts, he further said that other people can adopt the model followed by the Jotsoma villagers to preserve the forest. Rio also advised that the community based forest should be set up.
Rio said that there are many employment opportunities for the people of the state in preservation and conservation activities. He said remote areas of the state have a lot of potential tourist attractions and added the government should make a proposal in this regard. He suggested that the village can take the initiative and the government can provide assistance. He also suggested that the villagers should set up rhododendron and orchids garden, which can be a special attraction to visitors.
India and its geopolitics: Tamanthi Dam a blessing for India, a curse for the Nagas? www.nagalim.nl Nagas in BurmaNHPCTamanthiTamanthi Dam
Already in 2004 India signed the contract to build a hydroelectric 1200 megawatt dam project on the Chindwin River Burma/Myanmar in the middle of Naga areas. This was done in the full knowledge of dealing with an extremely repressive military regime which then hardly made ripples in the still waters.
This is different now!!
Now that the policy of the Indian and Burmese Governments are known, it has become obvious that the hydro-electric generating capacity in effect means that India gains a foothold in Burma. Though, of course, it could use the generated electricity for its rapidly expanding industries, the main idea for stepping over the international border of Burma/Myanmar is to put the Look East Policy into practice; to gain access via Burma to Southeast Asia (Moreh Mandalay Myawaddy Bangkok and beyond) as well as to China via the to be revived Stillwell Road. And so a dam in the Chindwin with a Burmese Government depending on the export of power to India means an interrelating economy with accompanying politics should make this geopolitical policy possible.
But what about the Nagas?
See the attached project plan which shows the villages which will vanish once the dam is constructed. Were the Nagas heard? Did they agree? Were they duly compensated in land, funds, perspective after their losses? No, no and no, and it does not stop with the Naga Peoples either. When one scrutinizes the Indian track record regarding Indigenous Peoples one discovers all Indigenous Peoples are treated badly; they are oppressed, their land is taken and they are forced to do as they are told, in fact they are treated worse than Dalits.
India stepped over the border and into Burma to take advantage of the Nagas there. Though Nagas of India protest in Delhi against the Hydro electric Dam project and Nagas of Burma in Burma/Myanmar, the project is still being constructed. So, rather than criticizing Burma for its coercion on the Nagas and the suppression it exerts on practically all indigenous, even though a democratic spring seemingly takes effect, it is India which profits from it most; directly for energy and indirectly politically.
Hence: the Naga International Support Center, NISC, tells the Government of India:
- to immediately stop the project to allow a thorough but impartial feasibility study on the effect on the Naga people, the effects on the ecology and the river system to be conducted. And only
- when this feasibility study warrants a go ahead that the Governments of India and Burma/Myanmar then should make sure all important factors affecting the Nagas of the Sagaing District of Myanmar/Burma are dealt: full compensation in suitable land, housing, ample lump sums to enable them to start a new life.
see the facts and figures attached and see the two UNO documents: one of which is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the list of nations which signed it; India and Burma/Myanmar both signed this declaration. Yet, both nations do not implement what they signed and this specifically concerns articles 3, 4, 5, 27 and article 28.



News: Main Page
News: Archives
Nagalim: Home

Powered By Greymatter