Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for January 4th, 2017

A case study of MNF movement for independence in Mizoram : India’s Counter-Insurgency Operation and Human Right Violation

Mizo National Front Emblem

By

Dr Th Siamkhum

Mizo National Front Emblem:: Pix – Wikipedia/

Introduction.

Mizoram, a tiny trans-Indo-Myanmar border state of India, located in the extreme north-east corner of India, bordering Myanmar in the East, state of Tripura in the west, Cachar District of Assam and Churachandpur District of Manipur in the North and Sylhet District of Bangladesh in the South, witnessed one of the most devastating underground movements in India for 20 years from 1966 to 1986. The movement was launched by the Mizo National Front under the charismatic leadership of Laldenga, demanding the sovereign state of Mizoram with a strong sense of will and determination to its goal of political independence from India.

The MNA (Mizo National Army) the armed wing of MNF, composed of those young Mizos with a high degree of morale for the cause they were for. The initial success of the movement in over-powering almost all security outposts in the District, except Assam Rifles Brigade Headquarters, Aizawl, could be attributed to the fighting zeal and high degree of morale of the MNA fighters to the cause of the Mizos and their independence.

The MNF, after realizing the futility of armed struggle for achieving political sovereignty, decided to have the negotiation with the Government of India in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which ultimately culminated into the signing of Peace Accord with Government of India in 1986 known as “The Mizo Peace Accord, 1986”. The Mizo Peace Accord 1986, eventually becomes the most successful peace accord ever been signed by the Government of India with any insurgent groups in the north-east, and elsewhere.

While the ‘Mautam‘ (famine) of the late 1950s and early 1960s and the apathy of government to the call of the people for relief supply was the immediate cause of the conflict, there are also a number of historical, political, economic, cultural, social and religious factors which are collectively responsible for the outbreak of violent uprising in Mizoram in 1966.

2. Historical and Political Factors:

Historically, the Mizos lived an independent political life, independent of any foreign power. Each village was ruled over by a sovereign village chief who exercised absolute and indivisible power. He was the final authority within the village in all aspects of village life, and was the chief administrator as well as the chief justice of the village, having the power to give the severest form of punishment, including death penalty to those who violate the unwritten customary laws and traditional practices. However, the British invaded the Mizo/Lushai country and took control of the entire hills on the 6th September 1895.

by AThough the British took over the administration of the whole Lushai/Mizo Hills, the chiefs were left with much power regarding customary and traditional practices were concerned. The Lushai Hills District was, then put under a superintendent who, in consultation with the village chief, administered the District. The entire District was put under the Chin Hills Regulation act of 1892 and Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation Act of 1873 and was included in the Excluded Areas along with Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh.

[Mizo People]

Sooner than expected, the time came for the British to hand over power to India.At this critical juncture, a critical question inevitably came up i.e. what should be the future status of the District (Mizo/Lushai Hills District), whether it should join Indian Union, Pakistan or Burma; choose to be a Crown Colony under the British or become an independent state.LL. Peter, the then Superintendent of the District called a joint meeting of representatives of different groups and organizations including political party (Mizo Union) Chiefs’ Union, Freedom party (those against the chiefs), Ex-Servicemen, MizoHmeichheTangrual Pawl (United Women Organization), Govt. employees etc. to decide the future of Mizo/Lushai Hills District on 14.8.1947. The meeting under the influence of Mizo Union unanimously passed the following three points of resolutions:-

In case, the Mizo Hills was merged with the Indian Union,
1. “Mizos would have the right to decide their own future i.e. right to secede from India after ten years”.
2. The traditional customary laws and practices should be preserved and protected.
3. Chin Hill Regulations Act, 1892 and Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation Act, 1873 should continue to be enforced in the District.

The Mizos interpreted these pre-conditions, though not a contractual agreement between the two parties (Mizos and India), as their rights. They asserted and re-asserted that they have the right to secede from the Indian Union which finally culminated into an armed rebellious movement for independent in 1966. The other factors responsible for the uprising was Assam Government’s language policy. Under a strong pressure from dominant Assamese, The Assamese language was made the official language of the state which was much resented to by non-Assamese speaking Districts. Khasis, Jaintias, Garos and the Mizos refused to accept the imposition of Assamese in their respective District and decided to demand a separate Hill State.

A new political party, APHLC (All Party Hill Leaders Conference) was formed to spearhead the demand for separate Hill State. In Mizoram, the Mizo Union, instead of joining hand with APHLC for separate Hill State, was in favour of a separate State for the Mizos. The MNF (Mizo National Front), on the other hand, was not interested in demanding either the separate Hills for the Khasis, Garos, and Mizos nor was it interested in a separate state for Mizos. It was in favour of demanding a separate independence sovereign state for the Mizos, not only outside Assam but also outside India.

The imposition of Assamese on the Mizos could, therefore, be seen as one of the contributing factors for the movement. The Mizos were not satisfied with the provision of Sixth Schedule of the constitution of India. They felt that the provision of Sixth schedule has not sufficiently protected their language, customs, traditions, religions etc. The imposition of Assamese language on the Mizos was much resented and there was growing apprehension that there would be a cultural invasion by the dominant Assamese speaking Hindus. The Mizos were also frustrated with the Assam Government’s lack of interest in various issues.

The Mizo Hills District was, then merged with the state of Assam and was given a special protection under the provision of Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India. The nomenclature of the District was also changed to from Lushai Hills District to Mizo Hills District on 19th April 1954.Soon after Mizoram was merged with the Indian Union, discontentment and dissatisfaction, both on the policies of Assam Government and Central government, grew on various issues.

The conduct of public examination on Sunday and the visit of Central dignitaries on Sunday were interpreted as a deliberate attempt to restrict the freedom of worship for those who were involved in such examinations. To testify this, the MNF cited the visit of JL Nehru on Sunday, 3rd April 1953. The restriction of the entry of foreign missionaries into the District was also seen as an infringement on the religious right of the Mizos. The Mizos, in order to assert their ethnic and cultural identity under the dominant Assamese political set up, strived to have a separate state of their own.

However, it was realized by a section of Mizo leadership that the assertion of Mizo identity would not be possible within the state of Assam or even under the Indian Union, the insurgency was adopted as a better means for Mizo nation building. Another worth mentioning factor responsible for the Mizo uprising of 1966 was racial and ethnic distinctiveness of the Mizos.

The Mizos belong to Mongolian ethnic and racial group with Mongolian physical feature whereas people of mainland India are having Aryan and Dravidian racial background, with quite a distinct physical feature from the Mizos. The majority of Mizos, therefore, feel that their Mongolian background could not support them to be Indians. They maintained, it is the will of nature that they are not Indians, but Mizos. Nature destined them to be Mizos of Mongolian racial stock. This feeling of natural alienation from mainland India is also partly responsible for the demand for independence by the Mizos (MNF).

Historical factors, language policy of the government of Assam, their apprehension of religious interference by dominant Hindu Indians, fear of cultural invasion, lack of development, neglect of Mizo District by government of Assam, assertion of the people that they have the right to decide their own future etc. have their own role in influencing the Mizos to fight for separate independent state. However, Mautam (Famine) which struck Mizo Hills and lack of government’s response to the call of the people for assistance is the most immediate cause of insurgency in Mizoram.

 

Reference 

 

, , ,

No Comments

Lt Gen Tariq Khan’s Superb Riposte to Professional Ranter Javaid Hashmi: A Nawaz Sharif’s Mian Mithu & Mole

From Lt Gen Tariq Khan:

Of late, a politician by the name of Javed Hashmi has taken it upon himself to accuse me of planning some sort of a coup in my time and day. He has been saying this in the past as well and I usually ignored his childish tirades on the grounds that having suffered a stroke he is probably mentally challenged and knows not what he says. His age was another factor. But his diatribe continues and even worse than before. Had it just been my person, I would allow this to fade away as most nonsense does but this involves a whole institution, belittles its leadership and defames it in the eyes of the people for no reason and as such needs a response. I have already asked the authorities concerned to deal with it officially and they have confirmed that they would.
It would suffice to state that a man involved in the Mehran Scandal and jailed for treason earlier in a similar case of defaming the Army through false allegations is standing true to habit and his personal character. Being of dubious moral standing he is passing judgment based on his own low standards. I would like to inform all that I do not know this man nor wish to know him in the future. I have never known any politician for that matter nor discussed anything with anyone in politics. Never visited a politicians house nor invited any to mine. I have never attended any celebration, ceremony, marriage or funeral with politicians in attendance. This is not because I think of politicians any lesser than myself but simply because my life, its conduct, and its meaning never needed me to engage with politicians. As such these stories that Javed Hashmi is coming up with are a figment of his own imagination and I am surprised that his mental handicap is being exploited by the media. It is an obvious case of downright false hood, childish accusations and manufactured narratives fed to a retard with intent to defame the Army. If this gentleman is of sound mental health then his accusations make him a liar lacking in self-respect. I would request for a government level inquiry into this matter to put this fellow’s rubbish to rest.
Please share this so that all know how Army bashing is done at the behest of some unscrupulous scoundrels.

, ,

No Comments

Conflict & Justice Why India’s minister of women thinks we need to accept marital rape

Brides display their hands painted with henna during a mass wedding ceremony in the western Indian city of Ahmedabad.

Credit:

Amit Dave

 

 

 

 

NEW DELHI, India — One in every four Indians is illiterate, and one out of every five lives below the poverty line. Many in the country are deeply religious.

These qualities turn ominous when they make it easier to get away with raping a woman in her own home.

While laws on domestic violence and rape exist in India, rape in the domestic sphere remains unacknowledged. India is one of the few countries in the world that have yet to criminalize marital rape, despite studies and statistics that show a terrifyingly high incidence. Earlier this month, the explanation for this oversight came from an unexpected source.

“The concept of marital rape, as understood internationally, cannot be suitably applied in the Indian context,” said Maneka Gandhi, the minister for women and child development, in response to a question posed to her in Parliament, “due to the level of illiteracy, poverty, myriad social customs and values, religious beliefs, mindset of the society to treat the marriage as a sacrament, etc.”  

 

Gandhi could not be reached this week to clarify what she meant.

But she was repeating, word for word, the Indian home minister’s answer to a similar question last April. The government officials seem to be saying that too many Indians aren’t ready to believe rape can happen within a marriage. Critics consider that idea laughable.

“The illiteracy and poverty arguments are foolish. Doctors face violence, judges face violence, lawyers face violence,” said Monika Joshi, a legal consultant with Maitri, an NGO that works with vulnerable women including victims of domestic violence. “[Former chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] R. K. Pachauri sexually harassed an employee, isn’t he educated?”

Mallarika Sinha Roy, a professor of women’s studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, pointed out that given the high frequency of marital rape found by multiple studies in India, it is unlikely that the crime is limited by economic status.

More from GlobalPostA student suicide is forcing India to talk about caste

“Illiteracy and poverty being cited as rationalization [to not criminalize marital rape] will not hold to reason, because many people belonging to those sections are more vulnerable to rape,” said Roy. “Poverty has nothing to do with people’s level of understanding of sexual violence, particularly women who actually every day show incredible substance and acumen in surviving.”

And if the government’s citation of India’s social customs and values refers to a higher moral standard that would somehow prevent marital rape, social workers find that the reverse is more likely. According to Joshi, who is also a social worker, customs that teach both boys and girls that consent isn’t relevant in a marriage have in fact forced women to accept marital rape as a norm.

“Women never use the word ‘rape’ when they talk about their husbands. They say ‘he was forceful and I didn’t like it, but I just lay there because I did not want to be beaten,’” said Joshi.

The social values that expect women to provide sex after marriage also expect them to abstain from sex before. India’s controversial and recently outlawedtwo-finger test” was, before 2014, an accepted test of a rape victim’s habituation to sex. Some have interpreted the government’s citation of “values” as a reference to the difficulty of proving rape against a married, sexually active woman.

Women protest in New Delhi against virginity tests in India’s Madhya Pradesh and Kerala states, July 29, 2009.

Indira Jaising, a prominent human rights lawyer at the Indian Supreme Court, pointed out that these moral standards on premarital sex cannot apply under judicial consideration.

“Courts are accustomed to dealing with rape of sexually active women in the case of a stranger perpetrating the rape, so why should there be a problem with married women?” she said. 

While sex is considered a spouse’s right in India — denying it is grounds for divorce — it’s not one that trumps a woman’s rights over her own body, Jaising said. The ministry’s reference to “religious beliefs” making marital rape impossible therefore rings hollow.

“The constitution does not visualize a situation where two rights conflict, there is always a way of giving full effect to both rights. There can be no conflict between the right to practice religion and the right to bodily autonomy for a woman, they must coexist. No religion sanctions rape, be it of your own wife.”

Yet acknowledging marital rape is considered a threat to the very concept of marriage, considered a “sacrament” in India. Joshi, however, insists that criminalizing marital rape will only strengthen the institution.

“When we teach people that respect and equality is important, that marriage is trust, it will strengthen the institution of marriage, not break it,” she said. 

[sgmb id=”1″]

Reference

, , ,

No Comments