The
nature of the State and its role in counteracting of ethnic conflicts in
Northeast India.
Introduction
The
general task of the final paper is to consider development as a historical
process where the State is an important actor in developing country. We will
keep the main focus on ethnic conflicts in Northeast India trying to reveal how
the State managed to solve this problem, what strategies chose for it. We describe
the particular historical conditions and institutional context in which the
ethno-political conflicts of the region took place. The precondition and
historical legacy of colonialism effected the situation around Northeast of India
are also in the focus of our attention. Ethnic groups are product of
policymaking whose origins go back to the colonial period with efforts to
protect vulnerable “aboriginal” people. We
describe some features of Indian State as a governing institution which
characteristics have been inherited from colonial India. In the final paper we
try to develop an understanding of the dynamic of internal conflicts in this
country in the context of national- and state-building strategies which we see
as external factors for development.
In
order to investigate the relevance of the state for development in Northeast
India we use the idea of internal and external of development as the general
theoretical framework. According to Mao
(cited by Cowen, M. and Shenton, R.) “external causes are the condition of
change and internal causes are the basis of change, and that external causes
become operative through internal causes” (Cowen, Michael P. and Shenton, Robert W., 1996, p.78). He continues that “in order to understand the
development of a thing we should study it internally and its relations with
other things…The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external
but internal” (ibid.). We project this idea in the paper where we see the
society (an internal cause) as the basis of development and the State as an
actor with agencies which creates conditions for development in the country
operating through internal circumstances. While the interior of development is
positioned by the external condition of the state then the external of state
development is the agency of aid and support (not only financing). In this
statement we see the nature and the role of the state without which national
development could not be imagined.
Firstly,
we point out some internal (social) circumstances of Northeast India, (specifically,
the nature and the background of ethnic conflicts) which are the basis of
development and which, from our point of view, are very important and stipulate
external factors. After this we turn to an empirical analysis of the state
policy (regarding ethnic conflicts) as an external factor of development. For
deeper understanding of the state policy–making we also include in our analysis
a consideration of the legacy of the British Empire inherited by the Indian
State as a governing institution from the colonial era.
The society and the
background of ethnic conflicts in Northeast India as internal of development.
Northeast
India is seen as a contrast to India’s image of a country with a mature
democracy, a dynamic economic growth and an emerging major power. This region
includes the seven states of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya,
Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura. Sikkim as an eighth state has been added
politically to the whole northeast region only in 1973. The Northeast region is
lagging behind the others in India in term of development including problems of
violent insurgency, unemployment and lack of infrastructure. The region is
characterized by extraordinary ethic, cultural, religious, and linguistic
diversity, with more than 160 Scheduled Tribes and over 400 distinct tribal and
subtribal groupings, and a large and diverse nontribal population concentrated
mainly in Assam, Manipur, and Tripura. These three areas were incorporated into
mainstream India during British Raj when British colonial authorities annexed
traditionally separate border countries into India territory (Sanjib Barua,
2003). The main aim of this incorporation was to provide security of their
colony from external powers. The political boundaries of the British Empire in
the region left many tribes divided. This division continued in the
post-independence state formation.
Colonialism itself was provided by a consolidation of the
idiology of justifiable intervention and occupation of what had become either
”uncivilised savages” or traditional groups whose history was ignored and whose
”societies and activities were seen as either static or disintegrating” (Potter,
Robert B. et al., 2004, p.62). The
British policy of “importing” large numbers of administrators, plantation
workers and cultivators from other parts of India to Northeast added to the
cultural mosaic more complexity (Sahni, A., on-line source). Those areas in
Northeast India the colonial State viewed as “wasteland” – desolated area of
land, not used for cultivation. The expansion of agriculture on those areas meant massive immigration from
other parts of the country and increases in the density of population.
Colonial-era migration produced a pattern of conflicts between immigrant
communities and those with indigenous roots. The loss of land by tribals to
denizens was the source of many ethnic conflicts in the region.
It is also important to mention here partition
of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) which influenced the demographic equation in
Northeast India. For much of the British period, undivided Assam was thought of
as the “north-east frontier of Bengal”. The separation of present Bangladesh
resulted not only in the abrupt severance of inland water, road and railway
communications but in increasing migration which (as well
as an internal displacement) complicated even more the ethnic, religious and
cultural diversities of the region (Ajai Sahni, on-line source).
The protective
discrimination regime has been established by the state in the region in order
to protect vulnerable aboriginal peoples living in isolated enclaves. We
consider the Sixth Schedule of India’s postcolonial Constitution below in the
section about the state policy. Subsequently many of these territories became
states, and the protected minorities turned into majority groups in those
states. That transformation of non-state spaces into state-controlled spaces
provided the backdrop to many Northeast Indians conflicts.
After decolonization period in India and an attempt to
build a nation-state internal diversities and segmentations had occurred within
new nations in favour of the primacy of nation state. The outbreak of conflicts
on the basis of ethnonationalism took place in the region. Carmen Abubakar (cited by Pachuau,
L., 2005) defines ethnonationalism as “ethnic groups claiming to be (or to
possess) nations and states in the past or that have the potential of becoming
(nations or states) are now demanding and asserting these claims as
(historical) rights to self determination for local autonomy or independence”
(Pachuau, L., 2005). The multicultural and multiethnic setting of India and
their struggle to define its nationhood caused the expansion of
ethnonationalism. While the dominant Indic culture at the centre continues its
quest for self-identity on the basis of its religious and cultural identity,
those in the periphery react to such potentially hegemonic and oppressive
movement. As some authors (for example: R. A. Schermerhon, 1987)
point out that India suffers acute national identity crises. This complexity
and uncertainty in the religio-cultural basis of the nation of India resulted
in the absence of some kind of national unity inside of the country.
Existing social communities tended
in many cases to build on a common ethnicity, religious, culture affiliation or
similar traits. Ethnically and religious homogenous associations were more
likely to be able to confront difficulties and to stand up to officials and
local elites. A common ethnic or religious
identity supplies a rather strong form of social capital, which can be helpful
for solving problems and overcoming external opposition.
For better understanding the
interior of the country we should briefly notice here that the feelings of
kinship fostered by these ethnic groups furnish an initial basis for trust
between individuals. Trust is the foundation of every form of cooperation, and
thus basis for viable institutions as well. Groups and communities shared a
feeling of kinship are also those most likely to survive during period of
repressions. Ethnically and religiously homogenous organizations have –
precisely because of their strong feeling of kinship – clear boundaries other
groups. These lines of demarcation make cooperation within the group simpler,
just as clear boundaries in regard to a material asset facilitate cooperation.
But on the other hand, such group feeling can be directed against others.
Feelings of kinship have a positive impact on intergroup cooperation, yet they
may turn to hostility toward other groups, something that recent developments
have shown in India all too clearly (Handenius, A. and Uggle, F. 1996). Such
organizations can, apparently, become vehicles for hatred, discrimination, or
extermination outsiders.
The empirical
analysis of the
State and its policy as an external of development
According to Kohli (2004) India’s colonial state was
characterised political unity and centralized authority but at the same time
”limited”. It was financed by resources mobilized within India, often collected
by Indian elites who entered into a variety of rulling alliances with the
colonial power. While the political practices of the colonial state were mainly
autocratic, the ”downward reach of the state’s authority was nonetheless very
limited, allowing a variety of locol and personalistic despotisms to flourish” (Kohli,
2004, p.221). Indian nationalist leaders mobilized various social classes into
politics which exerted pressures on the British colonial state. These characteristices of the colonial state
became even more well estabileshed after the rebellion by Indian solders and
elites against the British in 1857 (ibid, p. 229). The mutiny helped to clarify
for the British the type of colonial state they wanted in India. Further
transformation the nationalist opposition into mass political movement in India
effected the state to involved a veriety of strategies including repression.
All those strategies according to Kohli left behind ”its imprint on the
evolving nature of colonial political institutions in India” (ibid.p.234). The British left in place both the idiology
and the institutions of civilian control over the military.
The state that the leaders of sovereing India inherited was
a product of both colonial iniatitives and pressures from the national movement
against colonialism. The British in India created the basic state architecture,
including centrolizing territorial control, a modern army and civil service,
rule of law, and the begining of constitutional democracy (Kohli, 2004, p.255).
But these characteristics were limited spatially. The Northeast India which has
always been hard to control by the State because of geografical specefisity and
location still stayed limited in its economic scope and its downward reach into
society.
As many authors in their analysis
of the Indian state (for example: Sanjib, B, 2003; Kohli, A, 2004, p. 237-243; Potter, Robert B. et al., 2004, p.73) notice the colonial state was reluctant to spend money and resources
for establishing a formal land market and a government presence and to provide
security of property in the region for preventing those conflicts. The agrarian expantion and the
informal land market in Northeast India even after colonial-era were
attracting many migrants as there was no any control regime for settlers. The
absence of any official land reccords and insecurity of property rights at the
same time gave no security for new-settlers in the future.
In order to consider the role of the state in making an
effort to solve these ethnic conflicts and put an end of arm rebellions in Northeast we look at some strategies which
have been chosen by the State taking into account the fact about limited
territorial control. To our mind these
strategies created conditions for further development on the Northeast of India.
We turn back again to post-colonial period
when the State in order to protect aboriginal people (who became marginalized
by new settlers after migration which we mentioned above) established the
protective discrimination regime. Under the Sixth Schedule of India’s
postcolonial Constitution many of those enclaves became autonomous districts
and autonomous regions. In this context the political imagination of tribal and
non-tribal citizens has been shaped. As
Ajai Sahni concluded that “the cumulative impact of these policies was a
deepening of fissures between tribal and non-tribal population, as well as a
contrived and unsustainable exclusion of these region from the processes of
modernization and democratization” (Ajai Sahni, on-line source).
The
State trying to protect indigenous tribals restricted rights between different ethnic
communities in the region including rights to land ownership and exchange,
business and trade licenses and access to elected office. One of the results of
this process of policy-making was the notion of exclusive homelands, where
certain ethnically defined groups were privileged. Internal displacement in the
region and further ethnic conflicts were consequences of this state policy. As
we saw these conflicts were not only between tribals and non-tribals. In every
territorial entity the discourse of homelands creates groups that belong and
those who not. Thus denizen communities as well as minority groups of all kinds
(tribals as well as non-tribals) faced the danger of falling victim to this
politics.
Since
a solution for making to an end of these conflicts had not been provided by
direct state efforts (regarding to marginalized communities) it was not
surprising that self-help appeared in a form of creating arm rebellions which
had different goals including political autonomy. Relations among them were
mostly conflictual. It is also important to notice that not all armed groups
were rebels. Some of them came into being with the aim to combat insurgency.
However, not every rebel organization was an ethnic militia (in spite of the
fact that they were mobilized along ethnic lines). For example, the United
Liberation front of Assam (ULAF) which has been created in late of 70s and a
number of rebel groups in Manipur State had as an aim to build a multiethnic
support base. Complexity of those ethno-political conflicts created the
situation where the active state intervention was necessary.
So,
ethnic violence and displacement after this policy of protecting discrimination
regime which we mentioned above turned to ethno-political conflicts, and arm
rebellions against that regime. To maintain the order in the region the State created
some authoritarian trappings one of which was the Armed Forces (Special Powers)
Act (AFSPA). AFSPA was originally designed by the State to deal with
“disturbed” conditions in areas that prior to the formation of the state of
Nagaland in 1963 were referred to as the Naga-inhabited areas of Assam and
Manipur. In other words, AFSPA was designed to combat the Naga rebellions.
Today it applies to all of Northeast India and provides the legal framework for
counterinsurgency operations against numerous armed rebellions in the region.
“AFSPA’s controversial provisions include the power of the security forces to
make preventive arrests, search premises without warrant, and shoot and kill
civilians” (Government of India 1958 cited by Sanjib Barua 2007, p.12). The
recent wave of protests against AFSPA in Manipur and analysis of some facts
(found by journalist, and human rights activists) show that the security forces
have “blatantly violated all norms of decency and the democratic right of the
people of the region”(Sanjib Barua 2007, p.11). As Sanjib Barua suggests
through much of its postcolonial history, insurgencies and counterinsurgency
operations have been “a part of the fabric of everyday life in Northeast India”
(ibid). For maintaining a permanent counterinsurgency capacity, the Indian’s
state has required certain authoritarian trappings, as exemplified by AFSPA. Using
the force against force resulted in an increase of civil conflicts, lack of
belief in political leadership and government.
Creating
AFSPA by the State meant stressing military “victory” against arm rebellions
instead of any other political resolution. Furthermore, enabling
counterinsurgency operations by the State undermined a basic of human rights,
including the right to life.
Consequence
of that policy was widespread distrust of those centralized structures among
local people, who believed that most developmental initiatives by the State
(including the development of infrastructure in the region) would bring no
benefits to them. As Sanjib Barua in his analysis found that the “institutional
arrangement [were] so dysfunctional that every development project [might] be
opposed by the people it [was] supposed to benefit – providing further
testimony to the impasse in India’s Northeast policy” (Sanjib Barua 2007, p.30).
Instead of development through
“modernization” the model of “the frontier of development” (terms from Elazar,
D., 1996) had been used by colonial state in the region. In postcolonial-era a
shift from “frontier” model of development to one through “modernization”
became harder to achieve because of highly conflict situation which had been
created in Northeast India.
In spite of being a democracy, the
postcolonial Indian State had routinely asserted sovereignty in the Northeast
with significant display and use of military power (Sanjib
Barua, 2003).
As we noticed above the legacy from
the colonial period was also the beginning of constitutional democracy. The constitution of India came into force in
1950. The government consisted of two houses of parliament operating under a
democratic system modelled after the British government. But leaving aside
Assam, the other six Northeastern states were represented in Parliament by just
one or two members in both chambers. Regarding to this constitutional
architecture the Houses of the Indian Parliament were not designed to protect
the interests of Northeast states and could do little to defend the interests
of states with smaller populations. The insufficiency of democracy was seen in
the political representation in Parliament which has led to a neglect of issues
relating to Northeast India (Ajai Sahni, on-line source).
We conclude with Mahandra Lama’s vision of a nature of the problem in this region who describing
the situation around Northeast India notices that ”political sensitivities”
prevent the government from releasing data on desplacment and migration and without
”a central authority responsible for coordinating data from central and local state
governments regular monitoring is not possible in such a huge country” (Lama,
M., 2000, p. 26). All development projects regarding to Northeast India had
been disigned by the central government far away from the region and ”all the energies and resources of the state
went to the sustenance of that structure, leaving very little resources for
”other activities including development” in the region (Sanjib Barua, 2003,
p.47).
Conclusions
Indeed
the role of the State relevant for development and plays an important role in
creating conditions for it. In the final paper we focused on the political
determinants of state performance in India raising the question about the
design and the capacity of India’s highly interventionist state. The main concern
was with the state’s role in solving ethnic conflicts and bringing to an end
arm rebellions in Northeast India. Every
effort from the state had the response from the society creating further
conditions for development of the region as a whole. The post-colonial Indian
government inherited a development apparatus from the colonial government
(including the modern army) which had been used for national- and
state-building in independent India.
The
Indian policy provided a revealing contrast between how different ethnic groups
reacted under a government-controlled environment and how they responded to the
state policy. Evidence suggested that policy reforms had led to further increase
of violent insurgencies and creating of arm rebellions in the region.
Northeast
India’s history as a frontier, and the inattention of policy-makers explained
the deficits of democracy, development and peace in the region.
Concerning
the path of development the appropriate strategy for any country depends not
only on its objective economic, political and social situation (which in my
paper we consider as the interior basis for development) but also on its
government policies and national views regarding the appropriate role of the
state seeing by us as external conditions for development.
References:
Baruah, S., 2003. Citizens and
denizens: ethnicity, homelands, and the crisis of displacement in northeast
India. Journal of Refuggee Studies, 16(1), pp.44-46.
Baruah, S., 2007. Postfrontier
blues: toward a new policy framework for North east India. Policy studies 33,
East West center, Washington. Available at:
http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/PS033.pdf [Accessed 5 March 2009].
Cowen, Michael P. and Shenton,
Robert W., 1996. Doctrines of Development. Routledge, London.
Elazar, Daniel J., 1996. The
frontier as Chain Reaction. Frontiersin regional development. Lanham, Md.:
Rowman and Littlefield.
Handenius, A. and
Uggle, F., 1996. The importance of a vigorous civil society for democratic
stability and performance. World development. Volum 24, Issue 10.
Kohli, A., 2004. State-directed
Development: Political power and Industrialization in the global periphery.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lalsangkima Pachuau, “Tribal”
identity and ethnic conflicts in North-East India: A christian response.
Available at: http://www.manipuronline.com/North-East/December2005/tribalidentity24_1.htm
[Accessed 4 March 2009]
Lama, M.P., 2000. Internal
displacement in India: causes, protection and dilemmas. Forced Migration
Review.
Potter, Robert B. et al., 2004.
Geographies of Development. Harlow: Prentice Hall (2nd.ed.).
Sahni A., Survey of conflicts &
resolution in India’s northeast. Available at: http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/publication/faultlines/volume12/Article3.htm
[Accessed 4 March 2009].
Schermerhon, R.A., 1986. Ethnic
plurality in India. Tacson: University of Arizona Press.
The
world-count = 3447
Trusteeship
Society should be led by the most capable
(eg.Saint-Simonians and property).Responsibility for the others (eg. the issue
of development in India).
The descriptive dimension of development:
Underdevelopment as a part of the process of
development. North vs South(Baran, Frank etc).
In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a
chicken ,but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has
a different basis(Mao Zedong).
Schumpeter
1.
Entrepreeurship,2.Faustian development 3. Creative destruction
Post
colonial period of the Bangladesh State and its role in neutralizing of ethnic
conflicts in Chittagong Hill Tracts
Is
rural development urban development?
globalization
and historical aspect of Bangladesh development ?