Peace Illusion in Assam: Need for a Cautious Approach

16 Dec, 2001    ·   666

Bibhu Prasad Routray cautions that the latest peace offer by the ULFA is only for gaining a breather to reinforce their positions

Bibhu Prasad Routray
Bibhu Prasad Routray
 Visiting Fellow
Peace is a necessity in Assam . The State has suffered violence over several years leading to loss of countless lives. However, one needs to be cautious about the latest offer for a peace dialogue by the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA). A scrutiny of the November 27 [2001] proposal for a negotiated settlement by the outfit’s Chairman Arabinda Rajkhowa reveals a clear lack of commitment to peace. While one can examine his compulsions to opt for this path, an insight into ULFA’s working would be useful.

 

 

Rajkhowa’s statement on the protest day, observed each year to mark the induction of the army into the State during Operation Bajrang, started off the speculation. However, it cannot be viewed in isolation. Most analysts have overlooked the statement that followed it. The later statement, made by ULFA’s Publicity Secretary, Mithinga Daimary, reiterated the outfit’s insistence on the three preconditions that has long scuttled past moves for peace. It insists on the dialogue being held in a third country under the supervision of the United Nations. Chairman Rajkhowa represents the ‘dove camp’ within ULFA, which does not dominate the organization. He only remains as its symbolic head; the outfit is otherwise under the near-dictatorial supervision of its Commander-in-Chief Paresh Baruah. The Publicity Secretary speaks for the hawkish camp of Baruah whose aversion to the peace process is well known. In this situation, the first statement has little relevance for a major ‘policy shift’ within ULFA. Expressions like the ‘Indo-Asom conflict’ and ‘colonial Indian rule’ in both these statements do not reveal any change of heart.         

 

 

The ULFA is in dire need of some breathing time after its withdrawal from Bhutanese territory; it needs to relocate its camps in either Bangladesh or northeast India . However, the relocation process, involving movement of cadres and arms, is likely to be detected by the security set up in the region. Thus, a peace offer that secures a ceasefire to facilitate this movement should not be missed by decision makers. 

 

 

The initial ULFA offer led to speculation regarding its softening stand. It also led the beleaguered State government to seek a suitable negotiator and appeal to the Union Government not to let this opportunity pass. However, the Central Government needs to be cautious in responding to these ‘non-offers’ that have become standard devices for insurgent groups for gaining a breather to reinforce their positions. Non-governmental organisations and a section of the media have been vocal in suggesting the need for a radical shift in the government stance to initiate a peace process. Examples of talks being held in foreign locations with the National Socialist Council of Nagaland [Isak-Muivah] (NSCN-IM) are cited to promote a similar venture with the ULFA. However, it needs mention that one of the reasons for the failure of the five-year old dialogue process with the NSCN-IM is the venue of the talks. Foreign locations have provided international exposure and obtained a financial windfall from international agencies; this is the primary reason for the NSCN-IM to resist attempts to hold talks within Indian territory . 

 

 

ULFA’s demands on the issue of Assam ’s sovereignty and the involvement of the United Nations in the negotiations should be rejected without second thought. Even the outfit’s most committed protagonists realise the futility of these preconditions. Its reiteration only raises doubts about the outfit’s commitment to a peace process. Therefore, a cautious approach on part of the government is recommended since the ULFA has repeatedly indulged in this gimmick of peace talks to strengthen its position. Its yearning for peace needs to be made openly and clearly.  

POPULAR COMMENTARIES