Ethnic homeland or myth?

Are ethnic homelands possible? This question was flagged by one of the authors at the peace dialogue organised by the Centre for Peace and Development Studies, Guwahati, in December last year. It was of course left unanswered because, the author said, she did not have an answer and only wanted to pose the question so that it could elicit many more debates. Considering that the demand for homelands (separate states) by several ethnic groups within the Northeast has led to political conflicts and armed insurgency, the topic merits serious debate so that the groups themselves learn to appreciate whether their demands can be implemented practically or whether they are mere ideological arguments that are aimed at keeping the pot of political discourse boiling.

The Northeast presents an amazing array of peoples and races. It is not possible to be precise about the number of ethnic groups inhabiting the region because new ones keep surfacing. Among the Nagas for instance, there are 26 major tribes and many more sub-tribes. Each sub-tribe constitutes an ethnic group.

So one might ask, ?What is an ethnic group?? Sociologists define an ethnic group as one with a common cultural tradition and a sense of identity, which exists as a sub-group of a larger society. The most important aspect is their feeling of identifying themselves as a traditionally distinct group. The term ethnic group normally applies to a minority group. However, if there are several culturally distinct groups in a society, sociologists would also apply the same term to the more dominant cultural group.

Diverse groups

Nagas, therefore, constitute an ethnic group even though there are several sub-groups with different dialects and cultural practices under that banner. Although some groups among the Nagas such as the Ao, Angami, Sema, Lotha, Chakesang are much more advanced in terms of education and have made substantial economic progress, there are others like the Konyaks who have remained in the periphery of development. I have intentionally refrained from mentioning the Tangkhuls, Mao and Zeliangrong tribes who also call themselves Nagas but whose living space is within the state of Manipur. All these tribes are exceedingly enterprising and innovative and many have moved out of their habitat to carve out successful careers for themselves. But there are still many more tribes in Manipur who have just come out of their amorphousness and are claiming to be Nagas.

By implication, therefore, the word Naga is inclusive and the number of tribes affiliating themselves to that banner seems at this point of time, almost infinite. Nagalim or Greater Nagaland, therefore, seems to grow bigger in population and that perhaps gives the leaders of the NSCN (I-M) more teeth to negotiate their terms with the Centre. These smaller, hitherto amorphous tribes also believe they have a brighter future under a dispensation, whose performance they are yet to see, rather than being governed by a government, which has all but failed to deliver.

?Eldorado?

Since the future is something conjured in peoples? minds, they have also learnt to build their hopes and dreams on it. Anyone who attempts to shatter that hope is seen as the enemy. Nagaland?s longest serving chief minister S.C. Jamir, for instance, has all but debunked the notion of Nagalim, terming it an ?Eldorado?. An astute statesman, he probably understands better than many, that political negotiations in the 21st century are not about the breaking of states but of the coming together of even the most unlikely entities.

The European Union is an example of economics dictating politics. Germans, French, Swiss, Italians may be passionate about their identities but the reality of a strong Euro obliterates those human passions. The need to survive in a cruel, demanding market environment acts like a deterrent to all those romantic dreams of independent homelands with little reason for interdependence.

Should Nagalim become a reality, there will be too many contenders to political power. Politics is a selfish game of takers only. It would be a romantic notion if Nagas were to believe that the leaders of the NSCN (I-M) would step aside once their agenda is achieved and make way for younger politicians to lead the country. T.H. Muivah has been running the organisation by remote control for years. He is hardly likely to play the role of an elderly patriarch and step aside in the larger interest of his people. Political ambition and power is what sustains people like Muivah. And indeed, if one is to delve deeper into the Naga question, one cannot but detect a strong political drive among its leaders, which unfortunately the Naga people are unwilling to admit.

Selfish motives

This demand for a homeland is very often not the battle cry of the man on the street. It is fuelled by those with political ambition or those who need to create a political platform for themselves. There is no dearth of self-styled political wannabes among small ethnic communities. These leaders use their educational backgrounds and oratorical skills to brainwash people. They speak of an ideological homeland, where the future will be brighter and where there will be fewer people to share resources. Whether the demand for a homeland becomes a reality is immaterial. In the intervening period, these self-styled leaders accumulate a lot of political clout. They are catapulted to a position of leadership and are invited to the negotiating table to bargain for a better deal for their people. By the next parliamentary or state legislature election these ?pretenders? are in the fray, contesting elections on the plank of a ?separate homeland for our people?.

Realisation

Sometimes, as in the case of Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland, homelands are granted through some stroke of political magnanimity or expediency of the Centre. But does a homeland necessarily mean a better deal for the common man? None would know better than the people themselves that their sufferings have increased tenfold after a homeland was granted to them.

Not even a fraction of the population has gained from the change. The only ones who profited most are politicians, their family members, bureaucrats and businessmen. For ordinary mortals the dreams have already turned sour. I think it is a fallacy to believe that politicians would work for the greater good of the people. A homeland is useless if the resources within it are not shared equally and if the opportunities for economic upheaval are replaced by deals and scams.

For a region with so many ethnic groups, some numbering only a few thousand, it is time to think of practical alternatives. Ethnic transpositions or the exchange of people between two or more cultures, where each is assimilated into the original culture of the other, would be more meaningful and more abiding.

In Tamil Nadu, there are many merchants of Gujarati or Rajasthani antecedents. Today, all of them speak Tamil and live like Tamilians. They stand to gain by doing so than by creating Gujarati or Rajasthani ghettos. Political expediency dictates that politicians pick out differences among peoples and highlight those as reasons for incompatibility. Ordinary citizens who have nothing to gain from divisions and mindless ethnic assertions should get together and thwart the selfish motives of those who thrive on divisions.

Ethnic homelands are not possible. The earlier people accept this, the better. Then we would not lose precious time chasing a mirage. What we could do instead, is consolidate our strength as a region, push for sound economic policies and demand good governance from the rulers.