Bhaskar Pegu
There is a lot of fuss on ‘failure’ and “leadership capacity” of Mising self-government movement. Although it might be accepted that there is a partial leadership failure the absolute claim of being a failed movement can be countered on the mobilization the organization. There is a relevance of behavioural pattern that Mising movement has to do with democratic values. The way the autonomy movement is going through could be dubbed as “Miri/Mising Model” in near if the state responses are inclined to the unique nature of movement. The peaceful mobilization of Mising people could help in deepening democracy among ethnic communities.
Independence‘s edge
Mising autonomy movement can be traced
to May 20, 1947 when resolutions were adopted in Murkongselek with a British
political officer, Howard William in the chair on May 20, 1947. This was undertaken
North East Frontier Miri Abor Sanmilan (NEFMAS). One of
the resolutions was to create an autonomous unit with specific boundary in all
Tani tribes inhabited areas of Brahmaputra valley to Tibet border. It was
decided that neighboring indigenous communities would be treated as minorities
with right to vote and citizenship. Provisions for creation of legislative
council with elected representatives, collections of revenues, land entitlement
and transfers were discussed and firm resolutions for a unit of self-government
were adopted. The resolutions were agreed upon by Abor, Miri, Dafla, and Charak
tribes on the ground that there was“uniformity in language, culture, religion
and manners” (Ranoj Pegu, 1997).
 |
| File photo of TMPK taking out a rally demanding MAC election in Jonai. Photo: Royal Pegu |
In successive years of post-colonial
India, like many other ethnic indigenous peoples Mising people moderately
joined the echoes of deprivation and injustice against hegemonic project. The
sporadic participation in the movement of Udayachal homeland demand for plain
tribes in Assam led by the Plain Tribes Council of Assam (PTCA) bears testimony.
Misings’ literary society, Mising Agom
Kébang (MAK), formed in 1972 brought about national consciousness especially in
language and culture at the height of contentious language policy of Assam.
Political theories
All Assam Miri High School located in Matmora,
now known for iconic geotube dyke to prevent flood disasters, is a spot known
for where the autonomy demand reignited. It was formally announced in a
conference in 1981, Takam Mising Porin Kébang (TMPK), translated as All Mising
Students’ Union, one of the oldest Mising organizations, that Mising people
would seek self-government as per Constitutional basis, the Sixth Schedule. It
was at the height of anti-foreigners movement in Assam; Misings’ clamour was left unheard in the din of ethnic
movements and secessionist uprisings.
Two decades later, the government reach a settlement with Bodo
nationalists, the previously ‘inapplicable’laws was amended as a
conflict-resolution measure with one of the largest indigenous tribes of the
region.
Student organizations have been
increasingly taking a central role in the social and political life of indigenous
communities. The student organization representing Misings, the Takam Mising
Porin Kébang (TMPK), helms the movement for self-government since last three
decades. Transition from older to younger leadership brought about new dimensions
to the movement.
The Mising mobilization for
autonomy movement has been perpetually by the student organization and allied
organizations. The interplay of social, political and economic elites in the
movement has manipulated its course. The instance of government announcement of
Mising Autonomous Council (MAC) in April 1995 with support from few ruling
political class workers gave away ‘selective’ incentives without a determinate
territory underpinned the scope for intra-ethnic conflict. The immediate response with mass mobilization
by nationalist organizations was repressed.
Post-June 2004: Renewed
mobility, tension and reconciliation
In the following years, Mising movement has seen
several ups and downs as necessitated by the state’s political climate. Creation
of territorial council in 2003 comprising Bodos and several indigenous
communities in the state affected the subsequent political agenda adopted by
the community’s leadership. General
elections and state assembly polls held in post-Bodo accord (2003) also
influenced ethnic nationalism. Renewed mobilization
for autonomy around 2003-2004 under Mising, Rabha and Tiwa nationalist
organizations forced the state government to form cabinet committee. Meanwhile
in June 2004, the committee green lighted to delicately look at ethnic
autonomy. When they were supposed to be in Gogamukh , the head quarter of Mising
Autonomous Council (MAC), to study the feasibility of autonomy thousands welcome the move. However, supporters suffered
attacks from other groups en route the venue. The concerns of Misings cohabiters’
communities were land security issues and property, coupled political
gains. Consequently, there were disturbances
among different communities in several districts in Upper Assam inhabited by Mising
ethnic groups. It created a divide
between pro-Mising and non-Mising within days. There was also media and organized campaigns
questioning Mising indigeneity and validity of autonomy demand. Observers
anticipated ethnic violence in subsequent days.
Contrarily, Mising nationalists
called for measures to bridging gaps between people. Leaders from other communities
were invited to spread the message of democratic agitation and public
solidarity. It was told touted a “development mechanism” to bring people out
from under development and socio-economic problems. This led to induction of
members of various communities in the Mising Autonomous Council (MAC) when
nationalist organizations accepted to rule the Gogamukh headquarter offices after
minor amendment in the MAC Act, 1995. Since then, the movement plummeted into
dialogues to resolve differences and expressing solidarity to democratic voices.
Despite Election Commission’s recommendation of the Sisiborgaon assembly
constituency in Dhemaji district’s reservation for STs, Mising nationalist
organizations joined voices with non-ST
communities to press for the proposed constituency’s opening out for all communities.
Towards a consensual
politics
Many argue that granting autonomy
to indigenous people will lead to further divisions of society and fuel violent
ethnic separatism. However, Mising
mobilization contradicts the view since there is a continuous effort towards
building consensus and confidence among communities. If the leadership did not handle it well, the
situation post-June 2004, there was much possibility of aggravating strife. As
of now, ethnic Mising people might have been seated in “cauldron of violence” like
other in NE areas.
From anti-big dam movements to flood
security and erosions agitation in Northeast, Mising organizations have joined
hands with peasants’ organizations and various other organizations to lend a
united voice. Mising habitats are among
the most vulnerable to big dams, floods and erosion. Mising people’s mobilization for autonomy must
be understood in the current political
backdrop; it has adapted to conciliatory and confidence building measures.
The Mising nationalists are
pursuing a new type of politics for marginalized people that are directed
towards strengthening local level democracy in areas dominated by ethnic
minorities. Their remarkable democratic movement, if accorded a political space,
could have much contemporary relevance and help dismiss the notion of militant armed
movement to get heard by the state. Even amidst hostility, one of the largest
ethnic indigenous communities’ leadership in North East has been adopting
conciliatory means by subscribing to democratization, tolerance, peace and
stability; this is undoubtedly a unique example.
(Source: Seven Sisters Post, February 19, 2013. Writer's email: b.pegu@iitg.ernet.in)
No comments:
Post a Comment