The central state of the Indian Union is following a colonial style imperialist policy towards the peoples who live in Nagaland, Manipur and other states in the North East. It denies them even the modicum of rights that are recognised in law for other citizens of India.  It has empowered the Army with special powers, reducing elected legislatures to a farce. Military rule is combined with covert terrorist operations, using various elements in the payroll of the central intelligence agencies and armed forces.  Army rule is combined with apparently never-ending negotiations with selected armed groups and declaring ‘ceasefire’ without withdrawing the army to the barracks. 

Many of the peoples in North-East India opposed the might of the British colonial empire, and never gave up their striving for national self determination. They have continued their struggle after the transfer of power in 1947.  The Indian Union claims their lands, rivers and forests as its property.  It declares the striving for sovereignty and self-determination of any nation or people as posing a threat to “national unity and territorial integrity of India”. 

State terrorism

Arbitrary rule of the armed forces has been the reality in Nagaland, Manipur and Assam for decades. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) confers extraordinary powers to the Armed Forces and extends immunity to them. Apart from numerous other crimes, even the brutal rape and murder of Manorama Devi, which met with widespread protests in Manipur and all over the country, has gone unpunished. The Armed forces control the entire life of society in this region. The civilian administration and elected state legislature have hardly any real power, with even homes of ministers raided by the army at will.

The Indian state denies that there is any question of national rights of the peoples. It denies that there are political problems that demand a political solution.  On the one hand, it keeps parroting that the problem is of ‘law and order’, using this to justify perpetuation of army rule.  On the other hand, it argues that the root cause is economic backwardness and the solution lies in more government expenditure on ‘development’. It cannot accept that people want to become rulers and decide their own destiny!

Government of India has never bothered to address the question raised by human rights activists, as to why, after so many decades of counter-insurgency operations, the problem of ‘insurgency’ has only escalated.  With army rule closing all avenues of legitimate protest, political movements are compelled to use extra-legal means.  They are then declared to be a “law and order” problem.

All over the North East, central dictate is exercised through the offices of the Governor, who is invariably a former officer with the armed forces or intelligence agencies. The central state and intelligence agencies penetrate political movements, create splits, bribe and corrupt some, and sponsor groups that spread terror against people, to paralyse, divide and liquidate such movements. The Governor, the Army and intelligence agencies, working in tandem, carry out this work, with the civil government providing a cloak of ‘democracy’ and providing space for co-option and corruption of various individuals.

Politics of ‘Ceasefire’ and ‘Peace talks’

Within this situation, the Central state has from time to time announced ‘ceasefire’ and ‘peace talks’ with this or that armed insurgent group. The aim of the Central state in these talks has been to see if the leadership of some groups can be co-opted into the existing arrangements of power sharing. Another aim has been to wear down the struggle, and to sow discord amongst the fighting peoples, in order to weaken opposition to Central rule.

For instance, the Government of India signed on 7 July, 1997, a ceasefire agreement with the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isaac-Muivah).  This generated hope amongst the Naga people that their struggle for national rights would finally be addressed. The agreement has been extended every 12 months, year after year.  More than 11 years have passed, yet there is no end in sight to army rule and no solution to the problem of violation of national and human rights.

In this whole period, the Central Government left no stone unturned to divide the Naga movement. It gave much prominence to the existence of different factions and used this to avoid dealing with the political questions raised by the Naga movement as a whole.  

On 24 April, 2001, a group of 38 persons from different parts of India — political leaders, lawyers, academicians, writers, artists, journalists and film makers — headed by Surendra Mohan, former Member of Parliament, submitted a Memorandum to the then President of India, late Shri K.R. Narayanan.  The team had undertaken extensive tours in Nagaland, Manipur and Assam, to review the implementation of the ceasefire agreement.  This Memorandum pointed out:

“The oppressive presence of the army in the towns, villages and on the national highways, even in Nagaland, the area which is formally covered by the current ceasefire, makes people wonder about this ceasefire.  The refusal of the government to make the ceasefire effective by sending the soldiers to the barracks, suspending the operation of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, and empowering the civilian government, has belied the fond hope for peace.”

Operation of the AFSPA means that any member of the Armed Forces of the Union can shoot to maim or kill anyone he chooses, for which he cannot be tried.  The ceasefire agreement provides no guarantee that the Armed Forces of the Union will stop unleashing arbitrary violence.  This means that any member of the Armed Forces can at any time violate the ceasefire agreement, knowing that he can never be punished for doing so.  Thus, ceasefire alongside army rule backed by the AFSPA has meant the continuation of state terrorism, after a temporary lull in violence soon after the agreement in 1997. According to the NSCN(IM), there were 363 instances of violations by the Indian armed forces in the first three and half years after the ceasefire agreement.

Divide and rule tactics

While refusing to repeal or even temporarily suspend AFSPA in Nagaland or Manipur, Government of India decided to respond to a secondary demand of National Socialists Council of Nagaland Isak muivah NSCN(IM) that  the ceasefire agreement be extended to all Naga inhabited areas of Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. While this was presented as a ‘concession’ to the Naga people, it was aimed at creating contradictions between the Naga movement and the movement in Manipur. With such ulterior motives, the then Home Minister Advani, while extending the ceasefire agreement in August 2001, declared that it is a ceasefire “without territorial limits”. 

Extending the area of the ceasefire without repealing AFSPA and withdrawing armed forces to their barracks was bound to create new problems, which the central state could manipulate.  Sure enough, demonstrations broke out in Manipur against the “ceasefire without territorial limits” and in defence of the “integrity of Manipur”. Thus, the ruling class of India succeeded in setting people against each other, thereby weakening the struggle against their common oppressor — the central state of the Indian Union. 

Important lessons

One of the most important lessons of this experience is that there is no merit in signing any agreement with the Government of India until and unless the AFSPA is repealed and the army is withdrawn to its barracks. There must be no compromise on this principle by anyone fighting for national rights or human rights in Nagaland or Manipur.

Another important lesson is that until and unless army rule is brought to an end, there is no use getting into disputes about the territorial definition of Nagalim or of Manipur.  Such disputes provide the Government of India space to manipulate sentiments and set the fighting peoples against one another.   Such a course leads to the weakening and disintegration of the struggles of the peoples of both Nagaland and Manipur, which is what New Delhi wants.

The solution to the national question demands the reconstitution of the Indian Union on a voluntary basis, respecting the right of every constituent nation and people to self-determination, including secession, and taking into consideration the wishes and preferences of all the concerned peoples. This solution will not come about through bilateral negotiations with the central state of the Indian Union. It can come about only through the joint struggle of all the oppressed nations and peoples, of all the workers and peasants, against their common enemy — the ruling bourgeois class and its state.