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

State of course will not allow the terrorist to run their regime of terror—but in this attempt the real issues that sustain violence and its breeding ground must not get obfuscated.In many occasions dialogues are put forward not to solve conflict but to delay it. The basic premise of Kautilyan statecraft, argue that longer the negotiations, the easier it is to wear down the rebel leaders by partly discrediting them and partly by infusing a sense of complacency amongst the guerrillas. The crux of the argument is most of the accords that the Indian State has signed with various rebel groups have never resolved the substantive issues –they have merely capitalized on the conflict fatigue of the rebels and the people who have supported these movements. In most of the cases due to longer period of struggle and the realization about the futility of a never ending fight with the Indian State, the leaders come to a negotiated settlement that also paves the way for capturing of power of their respective states.

But the Indian State must realize the fact that this will never take away the merit of the case and even if one group of elites leading the movement is satisfied another batch of new leaders will emerge and they will come with a more vigorous battle and thus it virtually becomes a vicious circle. Thirdly, what is most appalling is the tribal-to-tribal approach of the Indian State as a method of resolving conflicts pertaining to the demands of the ethnic communities in the Northeast. Nowhere in the country have we found such diversity in terms language, dress code, food habits and ethnic compositions as that of the Northeast region. As politics is who gets what when and how—these groups are increasingly becoming assertive about their rights. The ethnic groups are demanding separate state, autonomous state and recognition under the schedule of the constitution.

The State has to maintain a delicate balance while giving concession to a specific community, as these regions are extremely heterogeneous. But granting of district council to one group and undermining the interest of the others is like opening up Pandora’s Box.So these “fire-fighting approaches” are not the appropriate language of conflict Resolution or would not in the establishment of enduring peace in the region.The state Government talked about a final battle to wipe out ULFA, once they are crushed, the ULFA will sit on the negotiation table on the terms as fixed by the Government. The basic philosophy of the State to wage a final battle against ULFA once for all and then Assam will be showered with permanent peace is problematic.

The assumption of the Governor that once the backbone of the rebel group is broken, they should be forced for talks under the terms of the Government is a typical reflection of attitude of the military Generals and police chiefs who also happen to be the Governors of these states. Peace will be dictated by Police, military and bureaucracy—once those bad guys are killed or gagged Assam will have “permanent peace”. But the as a matter of fact until the core structural issues that provide legitimacy to the militancy is not addressed no matter howsoever agreements the central Government sign with the rebel groups of North-east, the militancy will emerge again and again which has almost become a source of livelihood and a plank for fulfilling unmet aspirations for the unemployed and frustrated youths of the North east India. 

While the act of containing terrorism and political violence by the State could be justified in certain grounds-the basic rationale and philosophy of the Government is defective and would generate more violence than peace. What we have seen in Assam is a glorification of negative peace where is peace is understood to be the absence of violence and killing. There is no effective attempt to address the structural issues that put the North East region in such abysmal condition. The core issue that needs to be understood is peace is not just stopping violence. A sustained peace effort will be to shun violence and prevent destructive conflicts by tackling their root causes to solve problem through dialogue and negotiations among individuals, groups and State.

ULFA AS THE ‘CUSTODIAN’ OF ASSAM : CLAIMS AND CONTRADICTIONS : 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.