By Seikholen Thomsong
Hardly had the
brouhaha over the truce signed by Kuki insurgents with agencies of
the Government died down, we hear of complaints from one of the
groups about how they were taken advantage of by an overtly
"ambitious" army officer.
The innocent
civilians welcome peace
Truce or peace
overtures with either the Govt or its agencies is welcome. Only
peace will hasten our growth in all spheres. For a change, the
hillsides would no longer echo the sound of gunfire and there
would no longer be rude awakenings from knocks on our door in the
wee hours of dawn. Dragging away of people and their bodies never
returned home would come to a stop. Idealistic view of peace! That
is if peace is followed both in word and in true spirit.
What the truce means
to the security forces
However the very
reason why the intelligence and security agencies would want truce
with Kuki insurgents is doubtful right from the beginning. One
might even suggest that it serves the purpose of the security
agencies only. Did they have ulterior motives behind inviting the
Kukis to a truce? Because to be brutally honest, our insurgent
groups do not carry that much weight even collectively to stir the
political consciences of the Netas in the parliament. Even
militarily we are small fish compared to valley insurgents, the
NSCN and the ULFA. Perhaps the motive of the security forces in
signing truce with selected few may be to drive a wedge between
the various insurgents based on community. This would sow distrust
among themselves. The first sign of which had come in the form of
grumblings from the valley of Imphal that the Kukis are given
prominence, which they do not deserve. Strangely there is no news
of the Army inviting the Meetei insurgents. Or am I mistaken? The
main advantage that the army derives is that it can concentrate on
certain insurgent groups first and then deal with the others
later. To fight so many insurgent groups all at once would
tactically be foolhardy as it would mean the scattering of army
resources and manpower.
The motive of the
Kuki insurgents
Let us now analyse
what purpose it serves for the KNA/KNF etc to sign a truce.
Students and scholars who followed insurgency closely would vouch
that in guerilla warfare a group after long period of attrition
with an army would want to regroup, re-organise or rebuild its
arsenal and firepower, would bide for time and go for temporary
truce. The LTTE did it and so did other guerilla fighters around
the globe. In the case of Kuki insurgency there hardly has been
news of the Kukis engaging the army or the police forces of the
state on a grand scale. So that angle of biding time to regroup is
out. So could it be that they have the desire to discontinue
fighting and thus settle for peace? It doesn’t seem so. Because
insurgency has its nuisance value to the political class and the
insurgents themselves that we all know. And people who have tasted
its power, glory and influence would not give it up so easily.
Perhaps the approaching assembly elections have a direct
influence. This could be true as the various groups have their
loyalties to political patrons. So groups might want to build up
on reserves till the run up to the assembly elections.
So the sincere
prayers of peaceniks like yours truly would not bear fruit soon as
there is no likelihood of true peace being ushered in. The
political class and the insurgents themselves have so much to lose
if there is actual peace all around. So the common people like you
and me might as well close our eyes again in tearful prayers for
the lord God to stop the fratricide, insanity and the gory
bloodletting in our society.
Amusingly, the Army
would not be in a position to guarantee us our political goals
which is the true means of lasting peace. Insurgency is a
political problem which can be solved politically only. Had we
signed truce with government of India itself it would have been
more reassuring. In this case, the Kukis demand for self
determination seem a far distant goal because the army at best is
the instrument of the state and not the state per se. Thus the
tail cannot wag the dog. The dog has to wag the tail. The Army
cannot sign for peace on behalf of the elected representatives of
the government.
Posted on December 31, 2005
<<
Back to What's New Page