QUO VADIS INSURGENCY AND IDENTITY: ACCOMMODATING ‘THE THIRD VOICE’IN  CONFLICT ZONES OF NE INDIA.

Current discourse on identity, ethnicity and peace is dominated by two voices—the State voice (the first voice) and the militant’s voice (the second voice). The paper makes an attempt to highlight the importance of ‘third voice’ i.e. ‘the people’s voice’ which is missing in a conflict ridden area like Northeast India in general and Assam in particular. The paper provides a critique of both the first and second voices in the handling of issues like insurgency, identity and ethnicity. The paper is of the opinion that both the approaches have failed to actually mitigate the issues of deprivation, identity, and ethnicity which are in most cases based on the notion of history, perceived pride, community feeling etc.  

The paper is critical of the role being played by the State in its approach to the issues of insurgency in a state like Assam. Our argument is, there is very little in the Indian State's response to ULFA that can be called an engagement with the ideological chal­lenge posed by the radical turn in Assamese sub-nationalism. The history of resolving conflict in India shows that the State is always after a ‘rag-tag’, piece meal approach. The response of the State is myopic and devoid of understanding the identity issues in its totality.  State in this region follow a policy of ‘tribal to tribal approach’ in which attempt is to satisfy the elites of the ethnic organizations.

The paper also provides a critique of ULFA’s discourse and argues that so-called insurgent groups who fight a war on behalf of the people have failed to provide an alternative—in-fact rather than solving any problem they themselves have become a part of the problem. The alternative movements fighting against the State are in some form or other have been reproducing the logic of the State. The problem with these violent articulations in Northeast is that they have never tried to take into confidence the opinion of the diverse communities whom they claim to represent. The homogenizing and standardizing principles which guide the Nation-state also regulate the internal and external functioning of these so-called alternative violent movements.

The paper finally urges to find a proactive ‘third voice’ in these issues of insurgency, development, ethnicity, deprivation and identity. In most cases the ‘third voice’ or the ‘people’s voice’ is missing in the conflict zone of Assam. It is either the State or the insurgent groups who claim an axiomatic acceptance of their views and fight on behalf of the people. But the very ‘people’ who they claim to represent are never taken into confidence in most decision making processes. The paper concludes that a representative accommodation of various stakeholders of society in the peace building process would help in finding a durable peace process in the region.