A few days ago I was in a lecture on the crisis of Manipur by Pradip Phanjoubam, the editor of Imphal Free Press. In his wonderful lecture, one anecdote he quoted was that the people in Manipur blame that when Indian paramilitary forces come for searching homes, they steal their chickens. Pradip said that similar was the blame on Manipuri paramilitary forces who went to Chhatisgarh.
The hunger for chicken is same in the military, wherever they are from. Human nature has a wonderful stubbornness to stick to small, fickle habits. Let’s not blame anyone. We all have our own fickleness. Big demands often come out of basic necessities of life. Interestingly they sustain and build upon the basic necessities as well. But the solutions of identity and nationalism lie in talk, discussion and developing a mutual understanding with an open mind.
Give a man all the luxuries and freedom and most, if not all, of the ideological demands would be solved. But block your neighbour’s water supply and ask for a discussion on identity and you would be thrashed. It’s in the nature of human being. We can’t live without water so we start blaming that we are denied our identity. And if ten such families gather, you can do anything in India.
Most often than not, the demand for identity in case of Gorkha or a Naga or even a Chhatisgarhi or Purvanchali (parts of eastern UP and Bihar) originates from the basic needs of life. There has been a demand for separate state in all of these zones which have also been the most backward places of India. The demands for a right to self determination are not new to northeast, nor are the methods adopted to achieve or solve it.
The Naga insurgency which is the mother of all separatist movements in the northeast India has also witnessed the same kind of development. But India has been a multi-religious and multi-ethnic society since times immemorial without such sustained armed conflicts. Why it happened to the India post 1947?
Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindra Nath Tagore, the two great personalities who form the pillars of the Indian thought defined the idea of India in a very inclusive and “anti-national” way. Tagore is known for his abhorrence of nationalism. For the Mahatma, patriotism was same as humanity. He said, “Through the freedom of India I hope to realise and carry the mission of brotherhood of man.” Both talked of the Samaj (society) “which is self-administered and self-reliant”. Many people blame Tagore of not including any northeast state in the national anthem. For that matter Tagore didn’t include most of the present day states in India by name. We need to understand his consciousness of inclusiveness. Tagore included Punjab and Bengal but they went through phases of turmoil as well.
Coming back to the question of Gorkhaland, let’s not say that “India has failed to invent its unity in diversity”. Albeit, there is no denying that in the case of northeast, it could have what it should, without most of the animosity, bloodshed and violence.
It’s the conscious of a Gorkha or a Naga that talk separation. The subconscious and the unconscious, across the northeast, are as Indian as in any person from any other state of India. It’s the denial of basic necessities of amenities and the right to self identity and self-determination that has brought them to a point where many term them secessionist; which they are not. The lack of inclusiveness, dialogue and underdevelopment has ensured that the basic necessities of life have begun to determine the stubbornness with which Gorkhas seek identity.
Gorkhas after all are demanding Gorkhaland within the framework of the constitution. It’s time to hyphenate basic need from ideology in Gorkhaland, northeast and the rest of India and give them their identity harmoniously. That will realise the great potential that the young men and women from this zone have and bring the much needed thaw in talks.
The article has been published on isikkim.com
Center near the WTC memorial site in New York, both should understand that the validity of their stance depends upon the context of the situation. No one should doubt concerns about the role of Islamic fundamentalists in creating disorder around the world and hence about such a center. But the fact that the Islamic fundamentalism itself is not a segregated phenomenon but apart from other factors, probably a reaction out of hegemonic and discriminatory policies of the West led modern world necessitates the need for soul searching and reconciliatory steps on the part of Western countries. If the West wants Islam to come out of its 6th century mould, West too needs to come out of its Christian bias. As they say, until you do not change yourself, you can’t change others. On the part of the the moderate Muslims, they would do well to convince the US people that the center ought to be there because rationality and propriety demands that, and the center would be symbol of a modern inclusive world and not a sixth century theocratic religion.
