Thursday, July 13, 2006

Tribal

Yesterday’s post has served as a trigger for me to go on a thinking spree. Mostly about the present day problems of Manipur. And I find it remarkable that most of the problems have got something to do with ‘tribal’, one way or the other.

I’ve not with me either device or the know- how to establish a theoretical underpinning of the different connotations of the word, tribal. That said, I also think that we cannot depend much on text book knowledge of the problem as it is constantly changing in its form and interpretation vis-à-vis the practical impacts it imparts in the present day political environments.

So, instead I’ll try to illustrate the problem by deducting from real life phenomena.

The Nagas and the Mizos, in fighting a guerilla war with the Indian State for several decades, could not reach that stage where the Indian State was forced to initiate diplomatic overtures to a neighboring country as a part of that conflict. On the hindsight, it might be major weakness of their struggle, which enable the Indian State to isolate and destroying the guerillas on the ground.

But the Manipur’s rebels have just reached that stage. Notice how the likes of Shyam Saran, Natwar Singh and even the president, Mr Kalam dashing to Yangon to embrace the military dictators there. They are giving freebies like construction of roads, satellite earth tower and the latest being the offer (made by Mr Jairam Ramesh) of more than Rs 300 crores for developing waterways there, which, by the way, would make a river in Mizoram navigable all the way to the Bay of Bengal.

Don’t get me wrong here because I’m not singing paeans to the rebels of Manipur. I’m trying to deduct a meaningful interpretation here.

Doesn’t it stand to reason that the Nagas and the Mizos could not do that because they are considered as ‘tribals’ by the Burmese? I know I’m going into the domain of pure conjecture here but still, I think that there is a ring of plausibility in the argument (that’s, my argument!). If you go with me (despite the heavy dose of conjecture), you will notice how a vast difference was made on the ground because of a simple tagging of the word ‘tribal’ to a group pf people.

Back here, the Nagas are saying that they want to form a bigger state with their fellow ‘tribal’ brethrens. Here, the interpretation is that the word ‘tribal’ contains some nation-forming qualities.

Again, they say to Meeteis that they are being considered as ‘tribal’ and they are hugely offended and that leads them to their decision in wanting to integrate with the State of Nagaland. Here, the interpretation is that the word ‘tribal’ have some innate connotations of being inferior.

So many interpretations are there for this word—it makes my head spin!

But the trick should be to wrestle with the interpretation of the word in the context of the emerging notion of 4th World people. We should take notice that even in the middle of Europe the notion of 4th World got acceptance as shown by the recent emergence of independent country of Montenegro, which incidentally have less than 10 lakhs population.

No comments: