Aheli Moitra
On May 22, the front pages of some newspapers in Nagaland were bubbling out an unwarranted fizz. Nagaland joined the rest of the Indian Union in observing something known as ‘anti-terrorism day.’
Obscure in their posturing, top level bureaucrats read out an ‘anti terrorism pledge’ reiterating “faith” in India’s “tradition of non-violence and tolerance.” While also “solemnly” affirming to oppose “all forms of terrorism and violence,” bureaucrats in Nagaland State ‘pledged’ to “uphold and promote peace, social harmony, and understanding among all fellow human beings and fight the forces of disruption threatening human lives and values.”
Alongside this, remarks like India has become “more united” in preventing “terrorist acts” were made.
The premise for all of this is questionable.
First, there is no “tradition” of non-violence and tolerance in India. One may merely follow the beef trail to understand this. There may have been a wave of it during the pre-independence struggle but the partition, and thus formation, of the nation states of the Indian sub continent put any such “tradition” that could have been to rest. We, Indians, cannot tolerate people of any other colour, caste, class or creed than our own—any other position is in minority.
But it is a positive sign that the government is pledging not just to stand by this position but also uphold such values as peace and social harmony. It is wonderful to “fight the forces of disruption...” and the nation state need not look beyond itself to, first, find and, then, fight those forces. Its agencies are the biggest threat to human lives and values, and the largest contributor to violence, in these parts of the world, and elsewhere, today.
As for “opposition” to “terrorism” and “terrorist acts,” it would have been good to define the same instead of repeating the term in ten different ways. This would have justified why it got the undeserved attention it did.
But where the government stops, the legal system starts. India’s struggle with defining the word ‘terrorism’ has been so exemplary that it had to repeal two laws made on these lines. A third one, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, still exists—this is generally applied in conjunction with various other laws. The UAPA’s definition of a ‘terrorist act’ begins thus: “whosoever, with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India...”
Words so open to interpretation that the judiciary itself is crumbling under the pressure it creates. In a 2008 report titled ‘Combating Terrorism; Protecting by Righteousness,’ the Government of India claims that Indian law’s definition of ‘terrorism,’ unlike other countries, does not speak of the “intent behind a terrorist act being for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.”
Yet, the Union Home Ministry’s list of “banned organisations” under UAPA suggests that most, or all, of these organisations are either ‘political, religious or ideological’ in nature. Negating this core element has led to arbitrariness in India’s political understanding of why and under what circumstances violence is used by people(s). This has resulted in motley of persons, including peaceful rights activists, being charged under the Act. Their incarceration continues—in places like Chhattisgarh, the Act is routinely used as a tool of oppression.
Can this be termed as a pledge for peace?
As for the Naga case, some Naga national/armed groups were “banned” (some still are) under the UAPA until the Government of India ‘unbanned’ them, recognising their ‘political’ nature and began political negotiations some two decades back (that a political solution is necessary to the Naga situation has been known by the Indian political leadership for a long time now). Yet, members of Naga groups, and even senior functionaries, are being held in jails in India, some charged under the UAPA, others held in prolonged detention under the National Security Act (NSA).
Doesn’t impunity for one (Indian army) translate into impunity for the other (Naga army) under a political peace process?
While some political will from the Nagaland State Government has recently shifted the trend of regularly booking defaulters under the NSA, these ‘terrorism’ based laws still apply alongside the war-time Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act all over the Naga areas. When war-like situations occur, villages are upturned—everyone is suspect and everyone likely to be detained or shot dead. The burden of proof is on all Naga people.
Clearly, there are too many actors and ‘strategies’ involved which means that there is no real “unity” on the Indian side to understand and address the Naga (or other political) issue(s).
Faulty definitions, contradictions and pretention in ‘terrorism’ related mechanisms in India have led to the State’s complete failure in bringing either just peace or socio-political harmony in the region. The language and application of ‘anti terrorism’ methods have created more violence and ideological rabidity among youth in society today.
Bureaucrats who have worked for long periods of time in the local context, as in Nagaland State, should be in a better position to understand the intricacies of people’s thoughts in their zone of influence. If they are truly against “all forms of violence,” they have the essential responsibility and duty to take note of State violence (physical and psychological). Repeating an order that comes all the way from New Delhi not only shames their bureaucratic stature and experience but it fails to inform the discourse correctly. It is the officers in the margins who are best placed to listen and learn from people’s experiences; if they remain aloof and then misinform the Central government on policy initiatives to follow, they not only contribute to the failure of India’s federal structure but also create the space for bad policies and rising disaffection.
Let us hope, then, that these agents will change the language of their pledges for the people to a language of ‘reconciliation and just peace,’ marking a shift from the colonial ‘carrot and stick.’
Comments may be sent to moitramail@yahoo.com
