Dialogue January - March, 2006 , Volume 7 No. 3
Are Ethnic Homelands Possible?
The above
question was flagged by one of the authors at the peace dialogue organized by
the Center for Peace and Development Studies (CPDS), Guwahati in December last
year. This bold question was of course left unanswered because the author said
she did not have an answer and only wanted it to be a poser that could elicit
many more debates. Considering that the demand for homelands (separate states)
by several ethnic groups within the North Eastern region of India has led to
political conflicts and armed insurgency, the topic merits serious debate so
that the groups themselves learn to appreciate whether their demands are
practically implementable or whether they are mere ideological arguments that
are aimed at keeping the pot of political discourse boiling.
India’s North East presents an
amazing array of peoples and races. It is not possible to be precise about the
number of ethnic groups inhabiting the region because new ones keep surfacing
almost on a recurrent basis. Among the Nagas for instance there are 26 major
tribes and many more sub tribes. Each sub-tribe constitutes an ethnic group. So
what is an ethnic group we might ask. Sociologists define an ethnic group as one
with a common cultural tradition and a sense of identity which exists as a
sub-group of a larger society. The most important aspect is their feeling of
identification as a traditionally distinct group. The term ethnic group normally
applies to a minority group. However if there are several culturally distinct
groups in a society, sociologists would also apply the same term to the more
dominant cultural group.
Nagas therefore constitute an
ethnic group even though there are several sub-groups with different dialects
and cultural practices under that banner. Although some groups among the Nagas
such as the Ao, Angami, Sema, Lotha, Chakesang are much more advanced in terms
of education and have made substantial economic progress, there are others like
the Konyaks who have remained in the periphery of development. I have
intentionally refrained from mentioning the Tangkhuls, Mao and Zeliangrong
tribes who also call themselves Nagas but whose living space is within the state
of Manipur. All of the above tribes are exceedingly enterprising and innovative
and many have moved out of their habitat to carve out successful careers for
themselves. But there are still many more tribes in Manipur who have just come
out of their amorphousness and are claiming to be Nagas.
By implication therefore, the
word Naga is inclusive and the number of tribes affiliating themselves to that
banner seems at this point of time, almost infinite. Nagalim or Greater Nagaland
therefore seems to grow bigger in population and that perhaps gives the leaders
of the NSCN(IM) more teeth to negotiate their terms with the Indian Government.
These smaller, hitherto amorphous tribes also believe they have a brighter
future under a dispensation whose performance they are yet to see, rather than
being governed by a government which has all but failed to deliver. Since the
future is something conjured in peoples’ minds they have also learnt to build
their hopes and dreams on it. Anyone who attempts to shatter that hope is seen
as the enemy.
Mr SC Jamir, Nagaland’s longest
serving chief minister, for instance, has all but debunked the notion of Nagalim,
terming it an ‘eldorado’. An astute statesman he probably understands better
than many that political negotiations in the twenty-first century are not about
the breaking of states but of the coming together of even the most unlikely
entities. The European Union is an example of economics dictating politics.
Germans, French, Swiss, Italian may be passionate bout their identities but the
reality of a strong Euro obliterates those human passions. The need to survive
in a cruel, demanding market environment acts like a deterrent to all those
romantic dreams of independent homelands with little reason for interdependence.
Should Nagalim become a reality
there will be too many contenders to political power. Politics is a selfish game
of takers only. It would be a romantic notion if Nagas were to believe that the
leaders of the NSCN(IM) would step aside once their agamnda is achieved and make
way for younger politicians to lead the “country”. Mr TH Muivah has been
running the organization by remote control for years. He is hardly likely to
play the role of an elderly patriarch and to step aside in the larger interest
of his people. Political ambition and power is what sustains people like Muivah.
And indeed if one is to delve deeper into the Naga question, one cannot but
detect a strong political drive among its leaders, which unfortunately the Naga
people are unwilling to admit.
This demand for a homeland is
very often not the battle cry of the man on the street. It is fuelled by those
with political ambition or those who need to create a political platform for
themselves. There are no dearth of self-styled political wannabes among small
ethnic communities. These leaders use their educational backgrounds and
oratorical skills to brainwash people. They speak of an ideological homeland
where the future will be brighter and where there will be fewer people to share
resources. Whether the demand for a homeland becomes a reality is immaterial. In
the intervening period these self-styled leaders accumulate a lot of political
clout. They are catapulted to a position of leadership and are invited to the
negotiating table to bargain for a better deal for their people. By the next
parliamentary or state legislature election these ‘pretenders’ are in the
fray contesting elections on the plank of a ‘separate homeland for our
people’.
Sometimes, as in the case of
Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland etc, homelands are granted through some stroke of
political magnanimity or expediency of the Central Government. But does a
homeland necessarily mean a better deal for the common man? None would know
better than the people themselves that their sufferings have increased ten-fold
after a homeland was granted to them. Not even a fraction of the population have
gained from the change. The only ones who profited most are politicians, their
family members, bureaucrats and businessmen. For ordinary mortals the dreams
have already turned sour. I think it is a fallacy to believe that politicians
would work for the greater good of the people. A homeland is useless is the
resources within it are not equitably shared and if the opportunities for
economic upheaval are replaced by deals and scams.
For a region with so many ethnic
groups, some numbering only a few thousand, it is time to think of practical
alternatives. Ethnic transpositions or the exchange of people between two or
more cultures, where each is assimilated into the original culture of the other,
would be more meaningful and more abiding. In Tamilnadu, there are many
merchants of Gujarati or Rajasthani antecedents. Today all of them speak Tamil
and live like Tamilians. They stand to gain by doing so than by creating little
Gujarati or Rajasthani ghettos. Political expediency dictates that politicians
pick out differences among peoples and highlight those as reasons for
incompatibility. Ordinary citizens who have nothing to gain from divisions and
mindless ethnic assertions should get together and thwart the selfish motives of
those who thrive on divisions.
Ethnic homelands are not
possible. The earlier people accept this reality the better. Then we would not
lose precious time chasing a mirage. What we could do instead is consolidate our
strength as a region, push for sound economic policies and demand good
governance from the rulers.
Dialogue (A quarterly journal of Astha Bharati) |