Atoho K. Kiho
The diarist attended a Seminar on “Accords and Agreements, Peace Processes and Prospects of Civil Society Peace Initiatives in the North East Region” from 7th to 9th September 2005 at Vivekananda Kendra, Uzan Bazaar, Guwahati. The Seminar was organized by the North East Peoples’ Initiative and co-hosted by the Parag Das Centre for Indigenous Peoples and North East Students’ Organisation.
7th September 2005: I was awakened by friends saying we had reached our destination. Groggy from a fitful sleep, I checked the time; 4:15 AM. For the first ever time in my experience, the inter-city express train reached Guwahati from Dimapur not just on schedule, but also ahead of schedule. A full hour early, that soon after we reached our hotel, we went right back to sleep again.
The introductory session started a full two hours late at 6 pm sharp, Indian Stretchable Time. As the participants introduced ourselves one could feel the air of hesitant and slightly disoriented anticipation in the room as is always the case in the beginning of such programs. The keynote address delivered by Lachit Bordoloi, the co-convener of North East Peoples’ Initiative (NEPI henceforth), dwelled on the concept behind the origination of NEPI, among other things. It stressed on the imperative need for the peoples’ in the region of North East India to come together to a common platform in support and solidarity for each other’s issues and struggles, identify commonalities among various struggling groups to enable the presentation of a united front on these issues and create space for better understanding among the people in the North East.
Attractive! Certainly appealing, and noble too. The secret of success would be to keep together and forge a working partnership with a group of peoples and mass-based organizations with disparate agendas and in some cases, conflicting interests and overlapping aspirations.
A debatable aspect of this initiative is the nomenclature of the infant organization; North East Peoples’ Initiative. For one, the Government of India has a tendency to compartmentalize all the people in this region under a common labeled tag called ‘North East India’. In effect, this means equating various non- related issues with each other; political issues with developmental issues, issues of discrimination with law and order issues, etc. Consequently, there are certain sections of the people who feel that the tag ‘North East’ carries a derogatory and discriminatory insinuation other than the obvious reference to geographical location. Further, the implication, intent and objective of the term “Peoples’ Initiative” remains to be displayed in spirit. Care must be taken to ensure that the initiative does not become another moneymaking NGO beholden only to the funders while taking the rest of the people for a ride.
8th September 2005: The bank of the majestic Brahmaputra provides a peaceful ambience for the early morning strollers, a welcome respite from the heat and humidity of daytime Guwahati. Fish vendors along the sidewalk strut their fresh stuff, anxious to dispose them before the 12 hour bandh is enforced.
The moderator of the first session, Dr. Sanjib Baruah, a Visiting Professor with the Center for Policy Research New Delhi started off the session with a comment about the language disparity in the region and the need to have a progressive policy without being too rigid by insisting on using some particular language/s which is not our mother tongue anyway. As Dr. Ranabir Samaddar from the Manirban Calcutta Research Group gave a critique on “The Accords and Agreements in the North East”, yours truly could not help but think of the Accords that the Nagas had signed during our brief but eventful history as a people.
Various peoples and organizations in the North East region of India had signed Accords and Agreements with the Government of India; the Assam Accord, the Mizo Accord, the 9 point Akbar Hydari Agreement, the 16 point Agreement and the infamous Shillong Accord, to mention a few. One not so surprising commonality with all these Accords is their abject failure to usher in sustainable peace in the region. Disillusionment still reigns supreme. Even a seemingly successful Accord such as the one signed between the Government of India and Mizoram’s MNF has become a bone of contention for the Mizos particularly those who were once part of the erstwhile MNF, according to the paper presented by Dave Chhakchhuak on behalf of the Peace Accord MNF Returnees’ Association (PAMRA).
Certainly, the insincerity of New Delhi to fully implement the provisions in the Accords is one of the reasons for their failure. But one wonders if there is an underlying intrinsic defect in all these Accords, a defect that guarantees failure even before they are signed. Questions arise as to the nature of these Accords and the processes involved prior to the completion of formalities. Did the signatories have the necessary mandate of the people they represent or was it an exercise between political entities seeking to gain political mileage to consolidate their position of power? Were the Accords Negotiated? Brokered? Imposed? Did the provisions actually address the needs and demands of the people? More importantly, was there ever a sincere and conscientious attempt in these Accords to address the sense of historical injustice that surely must exist in the minds of the people?
Bharat Bhushan, a journalist and Residential Editor of The Telegraph and Subhir Bhaumik, a correspondent for the BBC, presented assessment papers on “The ongoing Peace Processes and Negotiations in the North East” in the afternoon session moderated by Arup Barbora, an Advocate practicing at the Guwahati High Court.
The number of ongoing peace processes in the region is simply staggering, considering that North East India is proportionately small as compared to the Indian subcontinent. Curiously, not all processes are based on Ceasefire Agreements: most are based on Agreed Ground Rules for Suspension of Operations Agreements (SOO). Whether this difference in terminology defines or the approach of New Delhi to the talks is anyone’s guess. While the agreements with the NSCN (IM) and NSCN (K) are called ceasefire agreements, agreed ground rules for SOO agreements have been signed with the Achik National Volunteers Council (ANVC) of the Garos, the Nayan Bashi-led National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT-NB), the Dima Halam Daogah (DHD) of the Dimasas, the United Peoples Democratic Solidarity (UPDS) of the Karbis and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB). Most recently, the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) has also agreed to meet across the table with the Government of India.
Responses and interventions from the peoples’ representatives to the ongoing peace processes and negotiations in the North East region of India confirmed a couple of basic truths. Firstly, it is imperative to democratize the ongoing negotiations. In other words, efforts must be made to fully ensure the participation of the people. Unless the people are certain that they own the process, that they are part of the process and are equally responsible for the success of the process, the dream for an acceptable and sustainable solution remains exactly that – a dream. We must not be too trusting to our own wisdom and refuse to learn from our historical experiences of failed Accords and botched-up Agreements.
Secondly, we must recognize that it is the people who are going to live with whatever Accord is signed, not the negotiators alone. Ultimately, the degree of success of the Accord can only be gauged by the degree of acceptance of the Accord by the people. Cessation of open conflict, economic development, infrastructure development and increase in social welfare related schemes alone must not be used as a yardstick to measure the success of peace settlements. To do so would be to fail to learn from history and fall into the same pitfalls that our ancestors did, commit the same folly that we so often condemn.
All these agreements and processes clearly indicate a paradigm shift in New Delhi’s policy; from sheer force of military suppression to cultural assimilation and psychological warfare, from counter-insurgency tactics to political accommodation. The various modes of accommodation must surely depend on the specific contingencies, peculiarities and uniqueness of each situation.
9th September 2005: Bacchus joined our company after dinner last evening. He facilitated the discussion in a get-together comprising of old comrades, new comrades and soon-to-be-comrades. Matter of fact, he overstayed his welcome and stayed with us till this morning even well after the morning’s proceedings had begun.
After Tapan K. Bose of the South Asia Forum for Human Rights adeptly moderated a panel discussion on ‘Civil society Peace Initiatives-Roles and Prospects,” civil society representatives from regions involved in peace processes gave responses and presentations. Any keen observer would have perceived two types or presentations; the understated presentation - precise, confident and terse and the passionate presentation - bombastic, angry and pushy. A few committed the cardinal sin of underhand diplomacy, the practice of employing depreciatingly insinuating words in their lines which had huge gaps between them too, huge enough that even a donkey could have navigated them with ease. As one panelist commented, it is unfortunate that some peoples are ‘feeling’ threatened by the peace process of other neighboring peoples. To hold other peoples welfare at ransom for one’s own welfare is a despicable policy. One’s health cannot be dependent on another’s ill health nor can one’s welfare be subject to another’s misery.
A worrying trend, particularly with some of the smaller ethnic groups is the division of the civil society along political lines; the Dimasa students’ movement for instance. Electoral politics is playing havoc with peoples’ clarity of mind. Movements and counter movements in the same house has the potential to ultimately submerge the people in a political mire of vote banks and political chairs.
Most of the forty and more civil society organizations from seven North East Indian states that attended the seminar spoke at some point of discussion or other. The most implicit and common message impressed upon all is the acute need for more peoples’ to peoples’ dialogue in the near future. It is only through understanding and accommodation between concerned entities that a situation involving overlapping interests and conflicting aspirations can be brought to a rational, just and acceptable conclusion. Only then can we hope for a peace that is sustainable.
The Seminar is almost done. We partake of the lunch prepared for us by the co-hosts - the North East Students’ Organisation at nearby Sahid Niwas Bhawan, as we had been doing the past two days for all meals. Many participants (including yours truly) suddenly realize that an utterly important emergency awaits our return at the home front. The excuses doing the rounds would have been enough to compile a handbook of excuses. Nevertheless, there are enough enthusiastic debate-mongers to convince us that our participation is of vital importance to the afternoon session too. Naturally, vanity compelled us to stay put till the end.
NEPI is the focal point of the afternoon session. The chair, Dr. Sukhendu Debbarama guides the discussion from adoption of observations of the seminar (thanks to the rapportuers) to strategizing for the near future. Everyone happily or reluctantly agrees to go it slowly and to postpone concretization of NEPI structure and guidelines to a near future, so as to enable further analysis. We disperse with a feeling of gratitude to The Other Media (TOM) Delhi for initiating NEPI and funding the seminar.
The bumpy inter-city express train ride back to Dimapur challenges one’s right to sleep even at night. The mind wanders with a will of its own. Fifty-eight years have elapsed since 1947 and India is still struggling to come to terms with an ethnic hotbed in her North Eastern region; a hotbed she once thought could be militarily suppressed within a month. How fallible man’s judgments can be. Nehru must be turning in his grave. As sleep slowly drifts in, an Arundhati Roy book dedication comes to mind; “To those who believe in resistance, who live between hope and impatience and have learned the perils of being reasonable. To those who have understood enough to be afraid and yet retain their fury.”
