A people off the map
Deepak K. Singh
Posted online: Thursday, March 13, 2008 at 2301 hrs IST
The sudden outburst of Tapin Gao, the BJP MP from Arunachal Pradesh in Parliament, over the complete absence of the railway network in the state speaks of a deeper malaise than meets the blinking eye. He hinted that the people of Arunachal can look across the border if India continues to feel jittery even after 60 years of independence in owning up the region and its indigenous peoples. It would be a gross misreading to perceive his reaction as a mere craving for a slice of the developmental cake. Particularly so, when Gao’s outpouring is viewed in the context of the recent announcement of the biggest ever economic package worth Rs 10,000 crore for the state by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his maiden visit to the state.
The roots of the problem go deep into history. While NEFA (North East Frontier Agency) was treated as a colonial outpost by the British rule on grounds of economic un-viability, its status under the postcolonial dispensation has been no better than that of a periphery, albeit with a short interregnum of the Nehru-Elwin philosophy which was premised on the assumption that the people must be allowed to develop in line with their own genius. That philosophy of ‘make haste slowly’ was, however, swiftly dumped in the aftermath of the 1962 debacle at the hands of the Chinese, leading to a shortlived frenzy of road-building and development work in NEFA.
The nature and extent of the historic isolation of the frontier region can be gleaned from the fact that the attainment of freedom in 1947 did not evoke any enthusiasm or euphoria here, as the people had little conception of what this entity called India was. The popular reaction in NEFA during the war with China was characterised by widespread ambiguity and ambivalence. Rustomji, the then advisor to the governor of Assam, who was directly involved in appraising the people of the stand of the government and its armed forces, found himself caught in a tricky situation.
On the one hand, the Indian Army was abandoning its positions, and on the other, a volley of questions was being thrown at him by the native people about the government’s stand. He had noted the public reaction thus: “If the administration was not prepared to defend them at this time of need, they more than hinted that they had better dissociate themselves from it right away and revert to their traditional isolation”.
Given the prolonged history of isolation and marginalisation from the mainstream, thus, Gao’s suggestion that Arunachal could look beyond the border must be seen as a crie du coeur. Mere transplantation of modern administrative structures might help in extending cosmetic suzerainty over a frontier region in the short run, but will definitely not help in winning unconditional loyalty towards the Indian nation.
What is most disturbing about the ongoing controversy over the status of Arunachal is the fact that while both China and India continue to make claims over the region, the views of the native indigenous peoples of Arunachal are never sought nor accounted for. It is the territory issue alone that enjoys a privileged position both in official accounts and popular coverage of the issue. While New Delhi seems to be now pushing the ‘package deal’ solution, — that is, swapping India’s claims in the western sector (Aksai Chin) for China’s in the eastern sector (Arunachal Pradesh) though it had rejected this twice in the past in 1960 and 1980 — the need for involving the people or at least the elected state government is never given due consideration.
Now it is Beijing’s turn to hang tough, as it is pressing its claims to the Tawang sector in Arunachal Pradesh. Even after reassurances by the prime minister himself that there is no dispute over the status of the state, Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Dorjee Khandu recently admitted to the prevalence of widespread apprehension in the minds of the people about China and its intention.
More official pronouncements from the South Block that ‘Arunachal is an integral part of India’ will not do. What will also not do is a mere ‘development push’ to the state. As far as the Indian state is concerned, development packages are also an extension of the logic of national security. There is an urgent need to go beyond the ‘national security’ discourse that privileges the borderland and not the borderlanders.
The lens of ‘national security’ is not sensitive enough to zoom in onto the people. It gets terribly out of focus before reaching them. It can only see the region as composed of strange and unknowable cultures and peoples, who are, from such a perspective, somewhat off the map. This has never worked, and will simply not work in the future as well.
The writer teaches political science in Panjab University. He is currently working on a book on the Chakma refugee issue in Arunachal Pradesh
No comments:
Post a Comment