(From Previous issue)
The two faces masquerading as political and executive in engaging dialogues, i.e., deemed political groups in political parleys vs armed gangs in state executive, which are a term of recent invention, possess tendency in furthering divisions at the state level. The very definition of the ‘armed gang’ itself is ambiguous considering the fact that New Delhi did not ascribe the ‘term’ to any of the political groups active in the state. Thus, such unguided definition which is open to diverse interpretation may risk more armed conflicts in the region. ‘Rule of law’, back by force, if necessary, against the ideologies straying from that of mainstream appear to be the new vision in rebalancing Northeast India.
However, while repelling the forces inimical to their historical rights, the Nagas must exercise their utmost wisdom on the ‘definition’ of proximity and friendship, whom in the course of time they choose to look up to. The pros and cons and the aftershocks of the borrowed version of Chinese communism that had been experimented by certain political groups in Nagaland had been laid wide open for all to judge. ‘China factor’ during the early stages of Naga national Movement might have helped reap few political dividends considering the then ‘desperation’ of early political leaders and required logistic supports.
As time has changed, our understanding on diverse ideologies as well as the terms of reference to fall in friendship with nation-states for support has also undergone paradigm shift. Reported ethnic de-population of Uyghurs in Xingiang province (Al Jazeera), the supposed re-education of ethnic Uyghurs as part of persuasive acculturation with the mainstream and forced content moderation by targeted crusade against protestors along with suppression of dissent in Hong Kong portrays China’s harsh stance in dispensing its domestic affairs.
Ian Storey and Malcolm commented that “Chinese dominance risks diminishing the sovereignty of many states in the Indo-Pacific”. China has adopted its form of predatory economics by leveraging its modernised military strength and growing influence in the third world countries. China has undoubtedly grown increasingly assertive in both Western Pacific and Indian Ocean, and has challenged the authority of the US and India in the regions referred to. Beijing’s intention is clear that it is keen to establish its sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific and might openly come to the rescue of any discontent nation-states, or in the present instance, ethnic groups at loggerheads with the mainstream.
Now, the actions supposedly contemplated by New Delhi – exertion of more force in its relationship with the Nagas on the established understanding that its allies would pledge support in the event of any fallout – and by the Naga Political Groups – turning to China in return for political allegiance or resorting to violence under the continued pressured from New Delhi – will only bring about premature truncation of expected results.
New Delhi’s high stake in Southeast Asia evident in its participation/observation status in regional forums including BIMSTEC, ASEAN, ARF could only be meaningfully pursued by creating trust and space in its Northeastern region, dubbed as gateway to Southeast Asia. Use of force and consequent enmity could end up upsetting the entire Northeast community and further diminish needed coordination in accessing Southeast Asia.
It is worth noting that the Kashmir model – withdrawal of substances that constitute a specially created state, territorial re-alignment, brutal suppression of voice of dissent following the abrogation of Article 370 – is unlikely to work in Nagaland. What mark the variation between the two is their politics, ethnicity and culture, and their economy as well.
On the other hand, the Naga Political Groups and the Nagas in general must leverage the unfolding geopolitical play to their advantage. Providing security to the fragile Northeast frontier which the Naga Political groups have an edge over other regional armed groups could be factored in on the negotiating table in exchange of a more concrete action from New Delhi. But such must be preceded by mutual trust, and the present endeavour by both the parties – New Delhi and Naga Political Groups – only undermines the all important role of trust in building peace. Nagas must realise that geography may be destiny yet proximity and friendship are a matter of definition where geographically aloof entities can draw closer through diplomacy. Correspondingly, New Delhi has to appreciate the foundational equation that a powerful nation is established by ensuring its constituents fully developed by equipping the constituent units with a fair amount of autonomy, and not by curtailment of civil liberties.
(Concluded)
Nukhosa Chüzho, Kohima