Victims to perpetrators

With the exceptions of politics in the Maldives and al-Qaeda-influenced jihad, Southasian conflicts are all about the exclusion of 'others', be it on grounds of religion, ethnicity or caste. Those espousing a Southasian Union, similar to the European Union, often point to the fact that Punjabis live on both sides of the border of two key actors, India and Pakistan. The discourse on Partition is largely about the Punjab. Bengal receives a footnote, because Mohandas K Gandhi visited Noakhali to calm rioters. But just a little further away, the destruction of an entire nation – the Chakmas and other Adivasis of the Chittagong Hill Tracts – rarely rates even a mention. Partition was a direct consequence of the fear of a section of Muslims about exclusion. Not that the umma was terribly successful. The situation in Pakistan has largely been one of Punjabi domination. Pakistan did not learn much from its own prior exclusion: once Urdu was imposed on Bengalis, the separation of East Pakistan was inevitable.

Bengalis also did not learn much from their period of exclusion. After independence, President Sheikh Mujibur Rehman asked the political leader Manabendra Narayan Chakma (Larma) to "go home and become Bengali". The continued implantation of Muslim plains settlers in the Chittagong Hill Tracts is a continuation of the same policy espoused by Mujib. The victims rather quickly become the perpetrators in Southasia. Pakistan did not learn much, either. Balochs may not have the numbers that Bengalis had, but the conflict in the western province will drain Pakistan's exchequer nonetheless. Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) sits in an anachronistic colonial legal limbo. 'Justice' is delivered by the government's political agents under the draconian Frontier Crime Regulation of 1901; otherwise, local 'justice' is dispensed by tribal jirgas.

The process is alien to both political agents and jirgas. Meanwhile, FATA is completely excluded politically, with Parliament being barred from legislating on the area. The conflict in northern and eastern Sri Lanka is also about exclusion. "One language, two nations; two languages, one nation", warned the Lanka Sama Samaja Party in October 1955, when the Sinhalese language was imposed on the country, and Tamil was banned as an official tongue. There is universal agreement on two issues: the LTTE is a militant organisation, and the Sinhalese majority is unwilling to accept that Tamils have rights. Extremist Sinhalese nationalism is reflected in saffron-robed Buddhist monks seeking recruitment in the Sri Lankan Army. Inclusion cannot be addressed by promoting the breakaway LTTE commander 'Karuna' (who recently returned from the UK, after serving a jail sentence) and his erstwhile deputy, Pillayan.

The extreme case of exclusion in the region is, of course, the expulsion en masse of close to 100,000 Lhotshampa from Bhutan on the basis of ethnicity. Bhutan's audacious racism is underwritten by Indian support, a country that officially espouses 'unity in diversity'. Meanwhile, in Nepal, the recent historic declaration of the country as a republic is not about the victory of Maoism over monarchy. Rather, it is a victory of the inclusion of the excluded – the ethnic Janajatis, Madhesis and Dalits that the elite Bahun, Newar and Chettri leadership of the first Jana Andolan forgot to include.

The same is true of the burgeoning Maoist movement south of the border – the other side of India's economic boom. The Maoists thrive on the exclusion of the poor and other communities from India's development. Adivasis and Dalits, the main foot-soldiers of the Maoist movement (a movement that, meanwhile, finds no irony in its upper-caste leadership) are victims of India's development. They are excluded from the wealth derived from their lands, even while corrupt officials continue to siphon off the funds meant for their development. These foot-soldiers have little idea about either Mao Tse-tung or his philosophy. Yet due to their abject poverty, they fit into the classical mould for a countryside revolution.

The growing influence of the Maoists in West Bengal suggests that the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has failed to remember the excluded, just as have their friends in the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) in Kathmandu. Unless there are poor, a party of the proletariat cannot survive. Therefore, perhaps, policies must be directed to keep a large section of the society poor.

'Their' issues
So how do those who have been excluded in Southasia deal with others who have been excluded? The record is not terribly good. When the Mizoram Peace Accord was being negotiated, the Mizo National Front demanded the abolition of the Chakma Autonomous District Council. The Tamil Tigers have systematically driven out the Muslims. The Nagas, seeking independence from India, have been unforthcoming about how the rights of minority tribes in their areas will fare. We do not ask how the rights of Muslims living under Tamil rule would fare if they were under the Sinhalese. That is a question the Kashmiri leaders avoided with regard to the Ladakhis and Kashmiri Pandits.

If Nepal genuinely becomes a federal country, Janajatis and Madhesis will be the new rulers. But how will the rights of minorities in the provinces be meaningfully respected? Again, not terribly well if the depth of the problem is honestly considered. Exclusion is not limited to government and armed opposition groups, after all. It goes much farther. Indeed, civil society has some of the worst offenders. In the course of my work as a mainstream human-rights activist in India's caste-ridden society, I have been forced to face innuendos, insinuations and public campaigns regarding my integrity and intellectual propriety. Many so-called liberals in Southasia are evidently still more comfortable with 'others' sticking to 'their' issues, preferring to ghettoise such activists to their own communities and issues. Southasia is a long way from pluralism. The mantra for all of these ills is the promotion of inclusion without assimilation. But 'One person, one vote' can lead quickly to the tyranny of the majority. Instead, plurality must be ensured through the Constitution, specific laws, an accessible judiciary, a range of affirmative action for the 'others' – and, above all, the rule of law.

~ Suhas Chakma is the Director of the Asian Centre for Human Rights.