Must avert recurrence of Mon-like incident
- The People's Chronicle Editorial :: December 15, 2021 -

WHILE there is no certainty on whether or not the government of Manipur would initiate formal process for withdrawal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 from the state or the Centre decides that time has come for reviewing imposition of the Act in the northeast, there is no doubt that the recent killing of innocent civilians in Nagaland's Mon district testifies how the pro-military law makes everybody perilous.

In the aftermath of the infamous incident, civil society groups, rights activists and political leaders of the region have renewed their demand for withdrawal of the 'draconian' law, alleging excesses by security forces with impunity under the cover of the Act.

The growing dissent implies that the law has nothing to do with the welfare and well-being of the people of the northeast.

Barring chief ministers of Assam, Tripura and Manipur, their counterparts in Nagaland, Meghalaya and Mizoram have been lending voice to the northeast denizens' outcries against the continuation of AFSPA, which is currently in force in the whole or part of Assam, Nagaland, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh.

From the military perspective, the Act is considered a necessity to not only contain the armed campaign but to neutralise trained and determined cadres of outfits which are yet to subscribe to idea that signing peace pacts and holding negotiations would help in finding solution to the insurgency movement.

As the northeast shares both partially fenced as well as porous borders with China and Bhutan on the north; Myanmar on its east; and Bangladesh on its south and west, it is understandable that the military think-tanks see the region as geo-politically sensitive and empowering the security forces inevitable to reduce the threat perception.

While it is obvious that the security establishment suspects the active insurgent groups of getting logistic and material support from some of the hostile neighbours, the fact remains that genesis of some of the armed rebellions in the region is mainly due to asymmetrical socio-political aspirations and objective of the ethnic groups that number over 470 tribes settling in an area of only about 7 per cent of India's land area.

Prior to signing of peace pacts for bringing the outfits to the negotiating table by both the central and the state governments, the northeast had been home to over 50 ethnic rebel groups with a few demanding complete secession from India, others fighting for ethnic identities and homelands and some running the insurgency as an industry to spin easy money without any political ideology.

The complexity of the insurgency movement in the region was acknowledged when the Report of the 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission classified the northeast as a state of stable anarchy where the rule of law and other institutions of governance are subverted directly or through collusive arrangements to serve personal or partisan ends of the militants.

The same report had also pointed out that the broad racial differences between India and its northeast and the tenuous geographical link through the chicken neck or Siliguri Corridor contribute to a sense of alienation, a feeling of 'otherness' subsequently giving rise to a political culture of violent separatism.

Thus, it is desired that to understand the problem of insurgency in the northeast, the policy makers endeavour to first know its genesis and analyse the narrative of each rebel group so as to avert recurrence of Mon-like incidents which smacks of trampling upon all sense of fair play and justice.