All posts by : nesrcadmin

Concept note

History is written by the victor. More often than not such a history suppresses or distorts the loser’s version and the causes of the conflict. For example, very few histories of the World Wars mention that World War II in reality began on the day the Treaty of Versailles was signed. The heavy fine it imposed on Germany that it could not pay, the economic crisis it caused, and events like the invasion of Ruhr by France in 1926 to collect that fine, were attacks on the very identity of Germany and were crucial in strengthening Adolf Hitler and Nazism (Syiemlieh 2003). The same can be said about the link between the bombing of developed Iraq back to the stone-age by the US-led allies, the humiliation that its ruling class suffered and the birth of ISL. Similar links can be found between colonialism and the birth of Hindu fundamentalism in India.

To focus on Northeast India, this region has a complex history characterised by ethnic diversity and socio-political dynamics. The region is marked by both prolonged conflicts and resilient peace efforts. More often than not, focus shifts to viewing the region as only one of nationalist struggles, of secessionism, and ethnic conflicts. In reality, understanding the role of history in shaping these dynamics and how history is created to justify a conflict is crucial for policy makers, academicians, and peace builders. This seminar aims to explore how oral and written historical narratives, events, and memories are created and influence conflicts and peace processes in the region. What is said of the Northeast is equally true of the rest of India. To quote Jawaharlal Nehru, its history is the biggest obstacle to nation building in India. The golden age of one region is the dark age of the next region that it conquered and subjugated (Nehru 2004).

Historical Context and Sources of Conflict

 To come back to Northeast India, its historical context is marked by its colonial legacy, its ethnic diversity and movements for political autonomy. Most studies on the Northeast tend to focus on the conflict and ignore the history of colonial policies like the introduction of new administrative divisions, and disrupted traditional governance structures that sowed seeds of discord among various ethnic groups (Baruah, 2005). After independence, the reorganisation of states and the imposition of many central policies that ignored the regional context further exacerbated ethnic tensions and fueled demands for autonomy and independence (Misra, 2014).

Similarly, ethnic diversity in the region is a source of its cultural richness, but it has also been a source of conflicts that are exacerbated by the efforts at centralisation and imposition of a single national identity, in the process ignoring the specificity of the region. It is basic to the competition over resources, identity assertion, and historical grievances that have often led to violent clashes. For example, the Naga movement, one of the longest-running struggles in the world, is rooted in historical demands for the recognition of Naga identity (Kikon, 2019). Similarly, the Assam Movement in the 1980s was driven by historical anxieties over land and identity (Nag, 2002). The trend to ignore this context and to focus on the immediate causes can exacerbate the conflict. In the rest of India too, many movements of identity search and competition for resources are interpreted exclusively as secessionist and their causes are ignored.

Role of Historical Narratives in Conflicts

That is the starting point of the proposed seminar. Historical narratives play a pivotal role in shaping identities and justifying claims, and often become tools for mobilisation and resistance. Competing historical narratives can exacerbate conflicts by reinforcing divisions and perpetuating mistrust. For example, the narratives surrounding the origins of different ethnic communities, their claim to the indigenous status in a given area of the region and to its land and resources often cause a conflict, and lead to prolonged disputes (Baruah, 2005). As the anthropologist Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox points out, “The result is that, by conflating specific unjust events, policies, and laws with ‘history,’ what is unjust becomes temporally separate from the present, unchangeable.” It narrows down options for restitution: “we cannot change the past.”

As the attitude of Israel towards the Palestinians and of the Americas and Australasia towards their indigenous populations shows, such a convenient framing of the issue allows political leaders and settler populations to deal with residual guilt on their own terms. It often follows the all too familiar script of “forgive and forget,” “move on from the past,” and “unify as a country,” all the while brushing aside deeper discussion on restitution or justice. This selective remembrance can entrench positions and make reconciliation more difficult. For instance, the Bodo movement for a separate state has drawn heavily on historical narratives of marginalisation and cultural distinctiveness, and has sometimes clashed with the historical claims of other communities in Assam (Barbora, 2002). Such a reading of history compels us to interrogate it not as something of the past, but as a force that continuously shapes our present and future.

 Rewriting History to Justify Conflict

Major conflicts in the Northeast as in much of India are rooted in anxieties over land and identity, which can largely be traced back to the colonial era. The economic, political, and demographic transformations imposed by British colonial rulers instigated these anxieties among the region’s communities. The effort of each community to protect its land, identity, privileges or sustenance led to tension and often to conflicts. However, during such conflicts, each community frequently rewrites and distorts ‘history’ to justify its own stand. For example, in Manipur, the British colonial land rearrangement laid the foundation of the conflict between the Kuki and the Naga. A significant event was the Anglo-Kuki War of 1917-19, after which the colonial regime dispersed the Kuki to different districts, thus posing a perceived threat to the remaining communities in those areas. The current demands for autonomy and homeland by both the Kuki and the Naga are built on their ‘historical narratives’ that exacerbate the animosity between the two. The ‘histories’ that present the Kuki either as illegal immigrants or as non-indigenous peoples who entered the region after the Yandaboo Treaty of 1826 add to the tension. That narrative is being used extensively to legitimise, among others, the present Meitei-Kuki conflict. Another source of tension in Manipur is the Hill-Valley divide. The Hill tribes feel deprived of many development opportunities while the Meitei population of the Valley complains of being deprived of land. In this context, history is re-written in an effort to protect land.

Such ‘historical narratives’ tend to nurture and maintain tension between the communities. In that situation, a trigger in the form of an unfortunate incident, can lead to the eruption of conflict. For instance, the trigger for the Kuki-Naga conflict of 1992-97 in Manipur is said to be an incident in Moreh, where armed groups from both communities sought control over the trading town between India and Myanmar. In such cases, the conflict becomes more intense when false rumours spread like wildfire. Leaders or individuals with vested interests create or fuel such rumours for personal gain, and often rewrite history to justify the conflict.

History as a Tool for Peace-building

Conversely, history and acknowledging multiple perspectives can be powerful tools for peace-building, dialogue and reconciliation. Efforts to create inclusive historical narratives that recognise the contribution of all sides are essential for healing and unity. In the Northeast, there have been notable efforts to use history for peace-building. The Naga peace process, for example, involves extensive dialogue between the Indian government and various Naga groups. It has made significant strides by addressing historical grievances and aspirations (Kikon, 2019). Initiatives like the Assam Accord of 1985 aimed to resolve historical issues related to identity, although its implementation has faced challenges (Nag, 2002). Efforts to better understand the role of every community in the Partition of India can be a step in healing the communal divide.

Local initiatives have also shown the potential for using history to foster peace. For example, Amrita Saikia (2023) shows how oral narratives of history serve as important tools that enable the Bodos in Assam to reclaim their identity, work for social justice and shape their agency. An effort to understand the causes of Hindu East Pakistani migration to Tripura, and the Bengalis recognising their settler status can be the first step towards Bengali-tribal reconciliation. It has to go hand in hand with the second step of the indigenous tribes recognising that the past cannot be undone and the Bengali settlers cannot be expelled from their land without massive bloodshed (Debbarma 2000). These initiatives highlight the importance of involving local communities in the peace-building process and recognising their historical experiences.

Conclusion

The seminar on the role of history in conflicts and peace in Northeast India seeks to bring together scholars, historians, community leaders, and policy makers to discuss and explore these complex dynamics. Its main aim is to contribute to a more nuanced and holistic approach to conflict resolution in the region by examining historical narratives, both oral and written, understand their impact on contemporary conflicts, how it is rewritten and distorted to justify a conflict, and explore ways to use history for peace-building.

References

Barbora, S. (2002). “Ethnic Politics and Land Use: Genesis of Conflicts in India’s North-East,” Economic and Political Weekly, 43 (10), 27-31.

Baruah, S. (2005). Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. Oxford University Press.

Debbarma, R. K. (2020). “Conflict Resolution in Tripura,” Seminar No. 732, August, 30-33.

Irlbacher-Fox, S. (2009). Finding Dahshaa: Self-Government, Social Suffering, and Aboriginal Policy in Canada. University of British Columbia Press.

Kikon, D. (2019). Living with Oil and Coal: Resource Politics and Militarization in Northeast India. University of Washington Press.

Misra, U. (2014). India’s North-East: Identity Movements, State, and Civil Society. Oxford University Press.

Nag, S. (2002). Contesting Marginality: Ethnicity, Insurgency and Subnationalism in North-East India. Delhi: Manohar Publishers.

Nehru, J. (2004). The Discovery of India. Penguin Books

Saikia, A. (2023). “Oral Traditions and Folklores as Tools of Political Mobilization and Conflict Transformation among Ethnic Minority Groups in Assam, India’s Northeast,” Peace Review, 35 (2), 216–226.

Syiemlieh, David R. (2003). “Lessons from Conflicts and Peace Initiatives: A Historical Review,” in Walter Fernandes (ed). Search for Peace with Justice: Issues around Conflicts in Northeast India. Guwahati: North Eastern Social Research Centre, 36-43.

Schedule of the Seminar on “The Role of History in Conflicts and Peace: Focus on the Northeast”

November 15-16, 2024

Organised by North Eastern Social Research Centre, Guwahati

Venue: Seminar Hall, Jagriti 3^rd Floor, Christian Basti, GMCH Road, Guwahati 781005