Generally, civic, social and political responsibility can only be ethically ensured when accountability is based on principles of transparency. Creating this ethical climate is essential for stabilizing conflict affected societies, and is perhaps more challenging to initiate while a protracted peoples’ struggle for justice is still ongoing. While it is important to hold State machinery accountable to human rights standards, it is equally important to do the same to non-State entities because the transparency’s effectiveness must be practiced in its wholeness. In the Naga context, the non-State entities are the various groups that represent the Naga national movement. Although, it is crucial that legislation such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act are repealed, it is equally important that the Naga groups (aka “factions”) take proactive steps in ensuring that any cadre that disrespects or violates the people’s human right is held accountable. In order to further assure the climate of transparency, the Naga groups themselves also need to assure the people of their resolve to prevent the perverse and undermining culture of impunity to continue.
At one point of time, the emphasis and approach to protecting human rights was primarily defined within the State’s context as it was primarily based on the perception that the State was the protector of rights, which included being responsible for violations as well. This perspective has undergone changes in recent times since human rights violations around the world continue to be perpetuated by both State actors and non-State armed groups. Though the State continues to be the primary institution responsible and accountable for human rights, the international community has increasingly broadened the definition of human rights violations to include both State and non-State groups engaged in armed conflict.
In situations of sovereignty and self-determination based conflicts, it is evident that the State’s military approach for addressing peoples’ aspirations has been the root cause of violence and conflict. The intensity of the conflict, however, has increased due to the counter-violence carried out by non-State armed groups. Very often, in these cases, it is civil population that bears the brunt and consequences of violence inflicted from both sides: the State, as well as, non-State armed groups. While the violence is the result of broader political issues that remain unresolved, it is also equally true that the day to day violence takes the center stage due to their relative and urgent nature. Invariable, the culture of impunity is exercised not just by the State, but also by non-State armed groups.
In close-knit community societies like the Nagas, the urgency of the situation requires proactive measures to be taken both symbolically, as well as, concretely to ensure that any human rights violations are addressed. While it is important that symbolic expressions of saying ‘Sorry,’ seeking ‘forgiveness’ by Naga groups to each other and to the public are fundamental to the process, yet, they have been insufficient. They need to be supported demonstratively in a manner that their political and moral will ensures that their cadres fully respect the people’s human rights. This invariably implies that when a cadre violates a citizen’s rights, corrective measures need to be taken publicly.
The challenge is for Naga groups to muster the political will and moral courage to take responsibility, without justifications, in addressing violations committed from within their own ranks without equivocating. In order for the character of justice to instill healing it needs to be restorative. Its actions need to take place through a public process, making it possible to initiate steps for healing to be become real in the context of liberative institutional and societal transformation. Finally, in situations of armed conflict, political violence on the ground operates along a continuum that requires a comprehensive approach that reflects and addresses this reality. In a future where domestic and international jurisdictions are fluid and contested and where sovereignty is fragmented, the most effective and sustainable approach for preventing human rights violations in armed conflict, is to find solutions to the core issues that have led to the political violence in the first place.
