Conflicts and Civil Responses in NE India: Polemics and Perspectives on Manipur (November 21)
By Ito Tongbram and Dr. Dhanabir Laishram

Human history has not been an amiable narrative of peaceful co-existence and development. Throughout the various epochs, many politico-cultural trends have emerged and disappeared, only to appear again in subtler forms and then proceed toward other transformations. 

A conspicuous feature evident throughout has been that of conflicts as a result of various opposing, unequal and asymmetrical forces, which in turn is expressed through different means, violent or otherwise. Latent or manifest, conflicts assume diverse forms. Debates and discourses on the polemics of conflicts are manipulated with tangential dissent suppressed or repressed, subversion contained and opposition strategically anticipated, controlled and curbed by dominant forces working exclusively in the interest of the prevailing power structure or institution.

Located in a peripheral position, in both geographic and political terms, the contemporary history of the geo-political entity known as North-Eastern India has been characterized by a pervasive legacy of conflicts since British colonial days, this beleaguered region had its fair share of being dominated, subjugated, marginalized and neglected. 

In other words, as India achieved its transfer of power from the former colonial power to an indigenous (Indian) elite, the situation is not unlike a mere reproduction of colonial relations of power and politics. With the indigenous Indian elite as the socially cohesive and powerful group in full control of the political structure and system, marginalization of the North-Eastern region remains a stark feature of Indian political culture.

Viewing this region from a center/margin, mainstream/periphery perspective raise issues and debates about the nature and origin of conflicts in the region. To historicize the conflicts in the region by engaging with various theoretical standpoints is crucial in endeavors for any kind of resolution.

Perceptions and understanding of North-Eastern India have been engaged from two vantage positions. Operating more or less with not dissimilar dynamics and politics, one reflects the bureaucratic position of the geo-strategic location of the region, and its identification with the security perspective lead to the contextualization of the conflicts as administrative or law and order problems. 

The other position, seemingly liberal in its outlook, talks about development perspective and the stark underdevelopment and economic backwardness of the region. Thereby the phenomenon of conflicts is seen in terms of underdevelopment. Both these positions apparently lack historicity as they are underlined by an integrationist motive and assume an a priori integration as the notion that peoples of the region are already integrated. 

There is a compelling need to analyze and assess the production and consumption of these notions an the persistence of conflicts indicate the inadequacies to grapple with the ideological, political and historical realities. Tensions and conflicts generated by the contesting, opposing tendencies vis-à-vis appropriation and integration are pertinent issues, which can inform civil society initiative and responses.

Another crucial area is that of representation. Since colonial times, much of the corpus of study on North-Eastern India remains confined to anthropological and ethnographic studies. The indigenous peoples inhabiting this region have been the subjects of numerous anthropological and ethnographic accounts. More recently, the focus has shifted towards media based journalistic accounts. To a great extent, these accounts tend to have problems and issues of economy, polity and history undressed and marginalized. A rigorous critique is needed, as anthropological, ethnographic and journalistic studies are known to be value-based and exude an imperialist blind sight. 

It is pertinent to note that much of the studies on the contemporary scenario of this region in the post 1947/post independence era are focused on security threat perceptions, planning and development policies and programs. There has been a curious silence on the post 1947 history, polity and economy of this region vis-à-vis the social movements and political struggles. Much of the post 1947 studies are focused either on planning, development or insurgency/militancy as deviant forms of protest. 

A reductive depiction of insurgency and ethnic violence as symptoms of diseases and disorders in the body politic of the region is evident. Civil society initiative and responses should be based on a dialogic study incorporating other perspectives. A move away from the singularities of "development" or "insurgency" as primary and organizational categories, can bring an awareness of the subject positions- economy, polity, race, ethnicity, institutional locale, geopolitical locale- that inhabit any claim to identity in the modern world.

The inevitability of change in every human social formation makes conflict an inherent feature as a result of apparently opposing values. Tradition has been commonly perceived as a relatively inert, historicized segment of a social structure-tradition as the surviving past. This version is politically a naive one as tradition is in practice the most powerful articulation of the dominant and hegemonic pressures. It is a powerful social aspect tied to much practical continuity - families, religious institutions, education, and language, which are directly experienced. 

A major form of conflict prevailing in the North-East is a result of the inevitable conflict between tradition and the sweeping forces of modernity in the historical process of social change. Characteristic of a society in transition with shifting values, post 1947 has brought immense changes in this hitherto isolated and remote part of the world. Newly emerging values always find difficulty in terms of accommodation and acceptance. 

Hybridity and synchronicity take time and that is a crucial factor in the resolution of any conflict of this nature. Its practical inclusion and exclusion are reflectively or eclectically endorsed or rejected, often so effectively that the deliberate eclectic selection is made to verify itself in practical reality. This struggle for and against selective traditions is inevitably an intrinsic feature of all contemporary socio-cultural conflicts in the North-East. It is all the more intense with aggravations and exacerbations in the traditional societies of the region. 

With the exception of few societies, the predominantly traditional societies of the region- Nagas, Kukis, Bodos, Khasis, Garos, Jaintias, Lushais, Boroks, Kacharis, Adis, Mishings, Monpas, Membas, Nishis, Tangas, Khamptis etc. are caught in this terrible but inevitable conflict between tradition and modernity. Widespread changes and development have taken place in these societies-ideological, social, political-as a result of this historically propelled conflict. A confined and isolated tribal society encounters the ravaging forces of modernity; private and public, past and present, the psyche and the social development - interstitial domains that become sites for conflicts. 

Conflicts generated by the forces of modernity also include a pervasive legacy of partisan and divisive polities drawn and implemented by ignorant and indifferent governments at the center. With emerging forms of conspicuousness based on questions of ethnic identity and tribalism, the political and social-cultural practices of the traditional societies have undergone immense transformation in the recent past, so much so that the super structural ties- social and cultural with other societies have been considerably strained. 

However, there are other inextricably intertwined aspects of life beneath the tautological surface of social and cultural bonds, inspite of the colossal transformation wrought by the forces of modernity, existence in this part of the world is still marked by a tenebrous sense of survival, living on the borderlines of an unending "past" that persists and refuses to be effaced.

The material basis of the lives of the peoples of the region is yet to move correspondingly with the super structural transformations. Material reality or productive forecast remains unchanged both in form and content. Productive forces mean all and any of the means of the production and reproduction of real life. It may be perceived as a particular kind of industrial or agricultural production, which is a certain, made of social co-operation and the application of and development of a certain body of social, knowledge. 

Production of this co-operation and knowledge is itself carried through by productive forces. The world is sustained through the productive forces. In all the activities carried out, we produce not only the satisfaction of our needs but new needs and new definitions of needs. It is in this fundamental human process, we produce/reproduce our societies and ourselves. To put it more simply, inspite of the surface changes, the material social process on which society perpetuates itself is still characteristically the same in the North-Eastern region.

Industrialization is still a distant and far-fetched illusion in this part of the world when we talk of living in a post-industrial, post-modern, post-colonial world. The nature of the political economy has remained immutable over the ages; on the other hand, in anticipation of the twenty-first century social order the Indian State has presented the people with fancy economic models designed in the ivory towers of the metropolitan world. It furthers antagonizes, aggravates and exacerbates the existing conditions and fails to address the disparities. 

What has become increasingly clear over the years is the fact that the state is incapable of fulfilling the people's aspirations and removing the disparities. It has subsequently moved in with grater ferocity to contain civil society's disillusionment. Whenever it has made a violent intervention at any level of social existence, civil society has to bear the brunt. 

The role of the politician's kin in the institutionalization of corruption and criminalization and the increase in conflicts with the State is clear evidence of this reality. A widespread conflict between civil society and an increasingly authoritative and racketed State, indifferent to social realities, characterizes the order of the day. Any kind of civil society initiative in the North-East needs to have a foreground of these issues.

Uneven development and regional imbalances including interregional imbalances resulting in the emergence of resurgent splintered identities generate conflicts of a political nature. In a multicultural, caste-ridden Indian landscape with different and acutely disparate levels of development, the asymmetrical nature of development contributes more to the disadvantage of the less-developed peoples. Both the central and state governments have been repeatedly and consistently contributing to this phenomenon of uneven development and the steady polarization of the apparently urban- inspite of a conspicuous absence of the industrial and the rural. 

Conflicts generated through uneven development and imbalances are subsequently bound to aggravate in the wake of the rapidly globalizing Indian economy. Concentration of wealth and development in certain urban areas as a direct result of India's liberalization policy and subsequent dictate of the IMF-World bank alliance is a clear indication.

(Courtesy: The Imphal Free Press)

Back to Top                                                                Next to Part 2 >>