Image credit: Pexels
Introduction:
Insurgency is a campaign, a weapon of protest, well suited to take advantage of discontent, racial ferment and nationalistic fervour.
Nationalistic fervour has gripped the world after the WW ii and it has been steadily in the ascendant both prior and after 1945. Freedom and liberty associated with nations are either suppressed or exploited, the society being let to languish in the state of semi feudal and feudal state.
Close to the nationalistic urge in South East Asian landmass where alternately parties and leaders of such stature like Gandhi, Nehru and Subhas Bose in India formed parties to wrest the political advantage from the British. Aligned to those principles were also movements for independence by Naga people under Phizo.
The causes to such nationalistic urges, are cultural, identity based as also breakdown of world homogeneity or domination by force. The triumph of peoples reaction’ galvanized by leaders like Gandhi and Nehru toppled the mighty British power in India. The political will of the British to stay in India was broken by resistance movement, which is civil and unconventional in nature. The growth of discontentment in the world, disparities in income, technological advancement is driving the world to more conflict prone situations. Added to it are the burgeoning literacy rate and growing un- employment giving rise to the modern wars. In
concept these wars are wages covertly by countries against each other. Limitations imposed on higher forms of conflict by development of nuclear arsenal, belligerents cannot go unpunished by risking a covert conventional operation.
Unfortunately, this limitation does not apply to insurgency and subversion or covert war against each other. All wars of national liberation, which is to say, any form of insurgency or subversion are encouraged by such states which cannot face conventional wars, due to nuclear deterrence.
From earliest days stirring up of subversion, in an enemy country has been regarded as an alternative sort of operation. “Guerrilla operation must not be considered as an independent form of warfare. They are one step in the total war —.” (Mao) Once insurgency is fully developed, party structure fully functional, backed by armed groups then there is a civil war like situation with opposite groups contesting for space in a single country. Insurgencies are not a national phenomenon, but at times takes transnational forms, depending on the import of ideology and weapons.
In the South East Asian theatre of war, there is a clash of ideolo- gies, of globalization impinging on culture and identity of people, of surge in ethnic nationalism that are sometimes hard to explain under the sub conventional warfare approach. The revolutionary conditions are not al- ways ripe for the guerrillas to slip the dogs of war. But non state actors time and again ratchet the contradictions, disparities and political am- bivalence demonstrated by democracies. The internal security of all South East Asian are dependent on the maneouvres of the non state actors and their unconventional or assymetrical warfare waged inside countries and most importantly among the civilian areas. In North East India the main discourse is ethnicity.
Everyone is caught up in the web of the spider, the guerrillas, who move in darkness, adept in mobile warfare and have nothing
to lose — as its cadres were drawn from alienated countryside, disadvantaged com- munities, too brainwashed to think and nothing to lose but their lives.
Hills simmer in the south of Assam:
Ethnicity, which is one of the four districts elements of world history, others being nation, nationalism and religion, has become an important determinant of socio-political realities of multi-ethnic states in post- colonial period. In Nagaland ethinicity is the major determinant in its pro- tracted conflict situation.
A Lanunungsang Ao deleves deep into this paramount question. “As a matter of historical fact the Nagas had migrated from Mongolia came through the Present Myanmar crossing two big rivers and settled down in the present humble abode.
“In the past, they did not know well about the existence of their co- tribes who were living side by side independently in their own territory. Later on, the arrival of the white people from Great Britain and the United States of America since early 19th century paved the way of knowledge each other gradually. Prior to that were living in complete isolation for many centuries. At that time, they did not even call themselves as ‘Naga because this population usage is recent term though it has its origin way back while they were living in Yunam province of China. While in Burma, they etymology of the word ‘NA’ and ‘KA’ that means ‘ear’ and ‘hole’ referring to the people pierced ears(ear-holes). In the past, only those persons irrespective of man and woman were allowed to participate in their national ceremony. For that reason, it was necessary to have pierced ears in order to qualify themselves in dancing ceremony as a citizen of their community. According to the early Burmese stories, a huge group of people having ear holes (Na-Ka) left Burma and proceeded towards. Northern part and went beyond crossing the two big rivers (Chindwin and Irrawady). This is how the people having ear-hole who came through Burma, now Myanmar are called as the Nagas constituting themselves
into a ‘family of people’ representing different communities.”1 (Pg 212-213 From Phizo to Muivah A. Lanunungsang Ao, Mittal Publication, New Delhi)
The Britishers entered Nagaland beginning 1832 from Angami country. At that time, the then Naga Hills was functioning comprising of three district states namely, Dikhu, Patkai and Japhu under one Ahng(Governor). The present Nagaland state constitutes an area of 16,527 sq.km, but Naga claim that the actual area is of 1,20,000 sq. km comprising of N.C.hills in Assam, Tirap and Changlang in Arunachal Pradesh, Ukhrul, Tamenglong Chandel, Senapati in Manipur; and upper Burma i.e. Eastern Nagaland. Naga Hills, were brought under British administration after series of military action between 1860 and 1880.
It is true that identities are increasingly pathologised, hybridized and so identity formation and articulation are studied as cyclic process.
Culture is noting but an important identity marker and it enriches itself through mutations. Cultural products such as indigenous music, tex- tile designs, handicrafts, dance forms are benchmarks where identity gain in authenticity.
Culture partially explains the greatest myth that “insurgency is not a money spinning industry “it ultimately aims at full political autonomy. If a given set of people, according to behavioral studies, has had enough common history and stability for culture to form then armed struggle to chase the political chimera sets in. Political struggles are a direct fall out of imperialism, where aspirations of the ruled are put on hold and in its place policies are aimed at thwarting the culture of fighting and clamoring people by draconian laws and repressive measures.
In “Dancing in Cambodia, At Large in Burma”, renouned another Amitav Ghosh writes about insurgency: “An insurgency, Iwas beginning to realize, is not just an army and a gathering of camp-followers. It is simultaneously a cause, an economy: an
institution which provides for itself and develops a life that it will not cheaply relinquish”.
Nagaland, the modern Indian state, was inaugurated on 1st December 1963 by giving due recognition to a 16 point Agreement being drafted by Naga people’s Convention (1959). What was wrong in Naga Hills District of Assam. Home to 16 major tribes, each with its distinct language and history the Nagas came together much earlier in the final days of the British rule. The man who made that unification of the independent minded Naga was A.Z.Phizo was a known anti-imperialist, and with him the Naga dream to stay collectively under their rule began to soar. As the imperialist British gave final touches to draw the capricious borders Naga people were divided from their breathen across the colonial divide. From the 14th August 1947 Nagas declared their independence to 1st December 1963-the Nagas were in interminable revolt. Amitabh Ghosh puts it sucaintly “All boundaries are artificial there is no such thing as a ‘natural’ nation, which has journeyed through history with its boundaries and ethnic composition intact. In a region as heterogenous as South- East Asia, any boundary is sure to be arbitrary.
There is a deep fault line in the minds of Naga people, as the British did not resolve the question of Naga independence and that mindset could not be assuaged by successive Governments in Assam of Gopinath Bordoloi and Bishnuram Medhi. There were no one to hear the discordant voices coming out of the Naga Hills district. Similar was the case of the Naga inhabitating in the Sagaing division of Burma. The Burmans were is no mood to listen to the political aspirations of the minority ethnicities like Kachins, Kerenni, Mons or Chins.
There was the moment of truth for a young Indian nation to grapple the issue bedeviling the Nagas since 1947, that independent India’s most charismatic P.M. Pandit Jawaharlal
Nehru made his maiden visit to Naga Hills in March, 1953. Giving Pandit company was none other than the Burmese Premier U Nu. Hopes were afloat that a ray of silver lining will appear in the horizon. A solution was in sight to the impasse-but the golden hour proved clusive, politics of expediency replaced high hopes by the mercurial man A.Z. Angmi and political forces aligned against it became inevitable.
Before Phizo’s departure to London in 1960, after the scars of war became evident in 1958 after the “Disturbed Area” tag was placed on Naga Hills District, paving the way for AFSPA and in the same year, giving sweeping powers to the security forces. Meanwhile, the first group of Naga rebels, quietly slipped across the International Border into Myanmar and further into Communist China in 1965, led by Th Muivah, secretary to NNC and Thinoselie. Hundred odd cadres of NNC marched to keep a promiss of an independent homeland for the Naga people. Christian Naga by faith Th. Muivah could visit Mong Ko region, where the Burmese Communist guerrilla camps were located and the battle zone in the Korean peninsula during his study tours under Chinese supervision.
Phases of conflict:
1. 1947-1953:
The greatest political tragedy that the Nagas ever experienced was Nehru’s policy of iron upon the Nagas created a wide gap between India and Nagas. He thought that Nagas are naked people, illiterate and head hunters and miscalculated that Nagas could be easily controlled by way of introducing welfare schemes or if not by sending military forces to control a handful of tribal people of Nagaland. The first tribulation period of Nehru’s iron policy from 1953 till his death in 1964 is followed by the second period of blood and tears.
Jawaharlal Nehru, the architect of Indian democracy died on 26 May 1964, just after two days of the negotiation of Peace
Agreement, between the Government of India and the Federal Government of Nagaland. Due to his sudden death, a vacuum was created at that critical juncture.
The Down Fall of Peace Mission:
The Peace Mission established to address the Naga insurgency and facilitate negotiations between the Naga representatives and the Indian government consisted of notable individuals who were respected for their neutrality and peacemaking abilities. The key members of this Peace Mission were Rev Michael Scott, Jayaprakash Narayan and Assam CM B. P. Chaliha.
On 23 July, 1965 Assam Mail was derailed by sabotaged at Selenghat in Sibsagar district, and on 29 November, a Passenger train was targeted near Dhansiri. These incidents were suspected to have been done by no other than the Naga guerrillas that, took many lives. Because of these incidents Mr. B.P. Chaliha, who was an active member of the Peace Mission, resigned in February, 1966 from the Mission. Jayaprakash Narayan withdrew from the Peace Mission due to frustration over the lack of progress in negotiations between the Indian government and the Naga Federal Government.
Reverend Michael Scott, an Anglican Clergyman from Britain was compelled to leave India primarily because of his involvement in advocating for the Naga rights of self-determination. This was the end of peace Mission. The Peace Mission members had difference of opinions on many issues which did not help the negotiation to move ahead.
2. 1968-1975 Shillong Accord:
Up to eight round of talks were held between Peace Mission and Federal Government of Nagaland during 1964 to 1965. This paved the way to have ministerial talk with Indian Prime Minister
During the six rounds of talks that began on January 1967 Mrs Indira Gandhi reiterated that the talks had to be within the frame work of the Constitution as Nagaland is a state of the Union of India. Mr Z. Ramyo represented the Nagaland side in the Prime Minister level talks.The Sumis (Sema Tribe) came out of NNC and formed RGN (Revolutionary Govt. of Nagaland). The year was 1968. The split weakened NNC. On April 5, 1972 the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958, was extended to Nagaland. The ceasefire agreement which was signed between the Government of India and the Federal Government was then abrogated. The affairs of Nagaland which was kept under the Ministry of External Affairs as per 16 point agreement, was transferred to the MHA. Further, on September 1, 1972 the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act was imposed on Nagaland.
President’s Rule was imposed in Nagaland on March 25 1975. This was followed by the declaration of National Emergency in April, the same year. Indeed, this led to the signing of Shillong Accord on November 11, 1975, which was repudiated by Th. Muivah among others.
3. 1980-1997:
The Naga political question has moved from cliché ridden themes towards integration of Naga areas. The proliferation of new groups also made. Addressing past perceptions of historical wrong lay in negotiations is the new paradigm shift in the mind-set of insurgent leaders. The matured NSCN(IM) leadership could foresee peace to use a phrase of H.G.Well’s “a fantasy of possibility”.