The dormant contradicting position of the Indian state in relation to its external affairs and internal affairs has become visibly more apparent especially in the last few years. Prior to the end of the cold war between the western and eastern bloc, India remained relatively insular which allowed her internal contradictions to stay within. But now with growing technology and spreading globalism, the contradictions can no longer be kept out of international public consciousness. This however has meant that her burdens of history are weakening in its resolve to address vital issues of shared humanity in a constructive manner.
The public declaration of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his recent visit to Manipur State committing to the state territorial integrity of Manipur and expressing consideration for amendment of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) demands critical reflection. The timing of the declarations are crucial firstly, because it happened just days prior to another round of Indo-Naga political talks; and secondly, the state elections in Manipur is likely to be held early 2007.
Nonetheless, the more important aspects to these declarations are the underpinning rationale and direction in which the current Indian political leadership is moving towards. Fundamentally, it has de facto demonstrated that its position to issues of self-definition and political rights in the Northeast remains unchanged, despite its expressed willingness to engage in talks with different groups of people. This implies that in the name of ceasefire and peace process, it hopes to coerce public opinion into accepting the imposed status quo in the name of development and progress.
The declaration to consider the possibilities of amending the AFSPA to make it more ‘humane’ is really quite absurd. Notwithstanding that diverse groups of people from the Northeast have adequately articulated for the complete repeal of the AFSPA to Justice (Retd) B.P. Jeevan Reddy Committee on the grounds that it is anti-people, discriminatory and one that violates the very basic fundamentals of the right to life, there has been an acute lack of responsiveness to indicate that it has the political will to repeal the act.
Unlike other acts, the AFSPA is one of the shortest documents with very clear and definite points with clear intentions to militarily suppress the humanity of people living within a specific given geographical space. In fact the points are so unambiguous, that there is little room for misinterpretation. Given such circumstances, it is difficult to comprehend how an Act which provides legal immunity and empowers a non-commissioned officer to shoot to kill on mere suspicion can be amended into a more ‘humane’ one.
The underpinning message of these two significant declarations of Prime Minister Singh signifies that India is not yet ready to engage in a genuine political process of dialogue to find sustainable solutions. Furthermore, inspite of the ongoing liberalization process she still continues to derives her polities from a stand point of fear, meaning that her burdens of historical hurts and injustices have assumed the central rationale in real politik.
In these pressing times, it becomes all the more important for the critical democratic voices within Indian civil society to assume a more proactive role in ensuring that the Indian public consciousness heals from its own burdens of history and shift from its position of monologue to dialogue. Invariably, it will only be a strong India that can negotiate and find peaceful solutions to many of its varied problems.
