Insurgency and the act of insurgent group has been a familiar sketch even to a common man. However, the word insurgency, despite its rampant use in the society, has not been given a separate entry in the Oxford Dictionary of English Language (2009) until recently. It equalizes insurgents as ‘Rebels’. The Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, too, does not include it as an independent item. The Random House Dictionary (2002) defines insurgency as an act of rejection. It is further amplified to mean an insurrection against an existing regime by an aggrieved group.
In its nature, insurgency pre-supposes conflict of two or more opposing interests that are unable to arrive at equilibrium. It is believed that the outcome of insurgency will not depend on the relative power of the competing interest groups as much as on mobilisation of resources and strength of the state system. Under these circumstances, it is the civilian population that first becomes the object of mobilisation, subsequently the target and later towards the end. It is they who decide and determine the outcome of such events. Thus, the extent to which the population is involved defines the extend of insurgency (Gopalakrishnana and Thomas 2005: 6).
In fact, contested and weak authority of governmental agencies, machinery and the resultant fragmentation of society accompanies conflict into ethnic communities (in the context of Manipur in particular), which in turn brings insurgency in to existence. These conflicts have mostly been explained using the ‘grievance narrative’. However, the lust for power and inefficient role of State in administration and governance has nourished the formation of insurgent groups as ‘non-state actor’. The insurgent groups run their own government parallely with the State government and even taking control of power over the community. Their self-acclaimed ‘Legitimacy’ has led to collect taxes or revenue from the people and would even go to the extent of extortion (in other words assumed legitimacy).
As Foucault rightly stated that, “relations of power are not in themselves forms of repression. But what happens is that, in society, organizations are created to freeze the relations of power, hold those relation in a state of asymmetry, so that a certain number of persons get an advantage, socially, economically, politically, institutionally, etc. And this totally freezes the situation. That’s what one calls power in the strict sense of the term: it’s a specific type of power relation that has been institutionalized, frozen, immobilized, to the profit of some and to the detriment of others ” (Clare 2008).
Witnessing the legitimisation of Power through the act of violence, the role of State actors in the given locality is declining. For instance, a case of land dispute, murder, road mishap, theft, and vice comes under the jurisdiction of the Non State actors who precede the State actors, namely the police forces. During elections, an additional aspect of their power and influence is reflected wherein particular groups would support one candidate and make sure s/he got elected.
The patterns of association between the insurgent group and the community or the individual are also defined by their proximity. The members of these ‘organic resistances’ are very much from the community itself. Given the tribal social organisation, communal life is primary therefore every individual participates meaningfully in the collective processes. Thus, the proximity is achieved since they co-exist with members of the society and socialize. This results in the creation of circuit of associations.
The circuit of associations with this group has an impact on the society, open environment to a closed environment. In an open environment, public policy debates, criticisms and suggestions play an important role in choosing the best among the alternatives public actions. All public offices, institutions and organizations work under public scrutiny. Media, print or electronic, plays a vital role by providing a domain for public debates. Once a society enters in to this association, this public domain gets squeezed. Intense feeling of insecurity has engulfed the society where people fear to express their opinion on the matters relating to their welfare – economic, business, political or social issues.
Freedom of an individual, of any form has been curb in a number of ways. The political space often gets polarized leaving hardly any space for civil society. Decisions and actions of the authoritative insurgent organizations are imposed on the society on gun point. As the insurgent leaders are not under electoral compulsion, they do not have any accountability to the people. As a war strategy, both the state and the insurgent groups compete to control the media. While the state uses its legal power to control and mould the media in its favour, the insurgent groups flex their muscles for the same.
The growth of violence has undermined both the traditional and non-traditional social institutions. As the social institutions provide a stable framework in which human interaction take place, undermining their authority without any alternative institutional structure has created a void. While, on the other hand, the collapse of community authority structure, interpersonal trust deficit, decline in legitimacy, shattering of interethnic relationships, and breakdown of both vertical and horizontal social networks have eroded the associations that facilitate growth by increasing trust. And, on the other, the penetration of the insurgent organizations in to the institutional and organization structures and their growing links with similar groups within and across the border has strengthened the associations that stifle growth through rent seeking.
In this context, governance can be viewed as the traditions and the institutions by which authority in a country is exercised for the common good. This includes the process by which those in authority are selected, monitored and replaced, the capacity of the government to effectively manage its resources and implement sound policies, and the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them (World Bank).
The politics of identity (now a buzz word), ethno-national movements, ethnic militancy and interethnic conflicts have created a socio-political environment in the society where the people feel insecure. Insurgency which is primarily rooted in politics of identity poses tremendous challenges in fostering cultural liberty in the society.
Subversive activities of insurgent groups not only add to human penury by way of loss of lives, disruption of livelihood, and displacement but also reduce the stock of physical capital. Destruction of physical capital not only involves the additional cost for their repairmen, it also entails the loss of income that could have been accrued to the society.
So, which road are we taking…?
In Loving Memory of David K. Ngaihte, who was taken AWAY from US on August 29,2102.
