INSURGENCY PROBLEM

Govt’s Initiatives Mark Welcome Change In Approach

 Harkishan Singh Surjeet

THE recent initiatives taken by the prime minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, in case of Jammu & Kashmir on the one hand and the North East on the other, are quite appreciable, though the fact remains that these were long overdue. For, these are not in the nature of routine announcements for one part of the nation or another. These indicate a political understanding of the situation and, if only they are pursued sincerely, these initiatives may lead to an improvement in the situation at the ground level.

The recent initiatives are based on an understanding that these areas have been seriously neglected. And the truth is that they were neglected not only by the British or, in case of Kashmir, by the Maharaja’s government; successive regimes after the country’s independence have also been neglecting them no end. The result is that to date these outlying areas remain poverty stricken and backward; there are very few employment opportunities in the concerned states; and all this has led to severe discontent among the people, which the extremist groups have been trying to capitalise upon. The fact that nearly all of these extremist groups have been funded by foreign imperialist powers, adds yet another sinister dimension to the problem. It is in such a situation that the prime minister’s latest initiatives need to be viewed.

  PLANS ABOUT KASHMIR

EVEN before his visit to Jammu & Kashmir on November 16 and 17, which was his first visit to the state after becoming the prime minister, Dr Singh had announced a reduction in the troops that were stationed in the state in order to cope with the ongoing militancy. Moreover, during his visit, he saw to it that the announcement was actually implemented and, accordingly, 3,000 soldiers of the Indian army left the very day he reached the state. Moreover, while addressing a gathering of an estimated 30,000 to 35,000 Kashmiris at Srinagar, Dr Singh assured them that more troops would be withdrawn if the situation remained in control and infiltration from across the border went down.

On the same day, acknowledging the state’s backwardness, Dr Singh announced a package of Rs 24,000 crore for Jammu & Kashmir. But what in fact galvanised the Kashmiri mind was his earlier announcement about troop reduction, an issue that has been agitating the people of the state, and also his assurance that the distinct identity and culture of the Kashmiri people would be protected. Next day, while in Jammu, the prime minister gave the assurance that all the three regions of the state would get equal opportunities for development.

The impact of the prime minister’s visit to Jammu & Kashmir may be gauged from one simple fact. The day he reached Srinagar, markets and shops were found closed in the wake of an extremist threat. But not only had these markets and shops opened by early afternoon; people too began to come out and the crowd that came to listen to the prime minister was not small in view of the situation prevailing in the state. The fact that the prime minister’s arrival was preceded by an encounter with and the death of two extremists, who had evidently some destructive plan at hand and had holed up not very far from the public meeting’s venue, failed to impact the people’s response.   

While in Srinagar, the prime minister categorically rejected the Pakistan president General Pervez Musharraf’s recent proposal that the whole of Kashmir, on both sides of the line of control, should be divided into seven zones and the two countries must make joint efforts to demilitarise these zones one by one, if necessary under the auspices of the United Nations. He said in plain language that the country had already suffered one partition and that there would not be any more division of the country. He also rejected the oft-repeated demand of a plebiscite in Kashmir under the UN auspices. This plainly meant telling that India and Pakistan must adhere to the Shimla accord that ruled out any third party mediation in the Kashmir issue or in any other pending issue between the two countries. In fact, this is the way imperialist powers can be prevented from exploiting the Kashmir issue in their own interest.

Indirectly referring to the All Party Hurriyat Conference, Dr Singh extended them an invitation for unconditional talks, adding that if he was not putting forth any conditions for talks, others must not put forth any conditions either. The offer was noteworthy. If the Indo-Pak negotiations have made substantial progress since the two countries gave up insisting on preconditions, there is no reason for the government of India’s talks with the Hurriyat Conference not making any headway if they begin to discuss the problems with an open mind.

  INITIATIVE IN THE NORTH EAST

VERY soon after returning from Jammu & Kashmir, the prime minister dashed off to the North East that has been yet another problem area. Covered by dense forests, this whole mountainous area has been thoroughly neglected and in fact, on November 22, the prime minister openly acknowledged this fact and expressed intention to work for greater integration of the North East with the rest of the country. He also stressed the need for strengthening the North East Council, which has so far failed to function as anything more than a debating society, and for the region’s greater integration with other eastern states. 

All this assumes significance in view of the fact that, not surprisingly, the region has been a happy hunting ground for extremist groups for decades. Moreover, this is the area the imperialist powers have been eyeing for long, with the aim of effecting India’s balkanisation. One such plan was already exposed in the early 1980s.

At a function in Guwahati on November 22, Dr Singh honoured a set of persons, some of whom had been opposed to the Congress or its governments at one time or another. The event does have some symbolic value.

A similar gesture was made in Manipur where the prime minister returned the historic Kangla Fort to the state government. This fort was captured by the British in 1891 and has been in occupation of the Assam Rifles since 1915. Since this fort has been of a symbolic value as a monument to Manipuri pride, the people of the state have since long been demanding that the Assam Rifles must vacate it. Now that Dr Singh has conceded this demand after so many regimes had refused to do the same, one hopes that this step would assuage the Manipuri people’s feelings and pave the way for an amicable resolution of the people’s grievances.

While in Manipur, Dr Singh also gave audience to a group of women who have been agitating since the brutal rape and murder of 32 years old Thangjam Manorama by some Assam Rifles jawans. This incident had put the whole state on fire and in July several women staged a unique protest action by assembling in front of the fort and disrobing themselves. In fact, there could not be a more chilling display of the pain and anguish the people of the state have been feeling over the rape and murder of a woman.

This brings us to the question of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act against which the Manipuri people have been agitating ever since the aforesaid incident, demanding that this act should be scrapped altogether. Now the prime minister has constituted a special committee to have a look into this act and the committee comprises a retired chief justice of India along with several retired military and other officials. As the Hindustan Times editorial on November 23 says, the move “will ensure that whatever steps the government takes will not be in the form of a knee-jerk reaction but a solution that will protect both national security and the well-being of the people of the states where this law is in force.” 

On the same day, The Indian Express editorially commented, “The signals thus far are certainly encouraging. They are also reminders that a spirit of trust and accountability can so easily melt antagonistic postures. The prime minister’s gestures interrogate his own home minister’s inability to tackle the challenges in Manipur this summer. Yet, they also show a way forward, if the government can summon the resolve, resilience and large-heartedness to stay the course.”

Apart from making certain efforts to resolve the Naga issue, the prime minister also offered to talk to the ULFA and other insurgent groups of the region. While in Manipur, he is reported to have said, “Don’t take the gun; you have a prime minister who is willing to listen to you.”   

  WELCOME CHANGE IN APPROACH

NEEDLESS to say, all this signifies a change in the government of India’s approach towards the insurgency issue. As the CPI(M) and the Left have so many times pointed out in the past, the problem is basically political, arising out of the region’s backwardness, and needs to be resolved politically, while the GoI has been treating it as a basically law and order problem. But, as the experience of the last few decades goes to show, the latter approach has not led us anywhere; if anything, it has only worsened the situation over the years. The atrocities allegedly committed by security forces in the concerned states have further alienated the people, posing a threat to our very national unity and integrity.

It is thus that we cannot but welcome the recent change of approach. As many commentators have pointed out, the solution to the problem of insurgency lies in economic development, socio-cultural progress and political autonomy. As the Hindustan Times editorial says, Dr Singh’s “answers are in economic and political processes which are situated in a larger regional framework….. With these measures, Dr Singh has put the ball firmly in the court of the insurgents. They must now decide whether or not they would like to be part of a win-win partnership or persist in dragging down the aspirations of their own people.” 

Here it would not be out to place to note that while the prime minister’s moves regarding Kashmir and the North East have been widely appreciated, there are still voices, though subdued, that are asking the government to cling to the old, discredited approach. One such example is B L Vohra’s article in The Times of India on November 23, suggesting that Manipur “should be put under president’s rule for at least two years” and bureaucrats brought from outside in order to overhaul the state. And the author justifies his suggestion on the plea that “no anti-national activity should be tolerated.”

The logic is fallacious, to say the least. For, no patriotic Indian is in favour of ignoring or tolerating anti-national activities. Stern administrative actions must certainly be taken against those who perpetrate such activities. But such elements are in fact very few and the real need is to isolate them from the people at large. And it is here that the need of a political approach suggests itself with full force. On the contrary, measures like those suggested by Vohra can only alienate the people further from the Indian Union and thereby complicate the problem.   

Also, doubts are already being cast about the recent announcements. That is natural. This country has seen so many prime ministers making so many announcements and promising so many packages to so many sections of people, and these were honoured more in their breach. But this further underlines the need that the UPA government must not remain confined to words where determined action is needed to untangle the knots. To quote The Indian Express editorial again, “Atmospherics, however, must be threaded with concrete action….. Specific progress on all this is perhaps the only antidote to popular alienation.” We can only add that ground has already been laid for a good beginning and this opportunity must not be allowed to slip by.