The growing tense complexities underlined by movements and assertions in the wake of new consciousness of rights and identity have been attached to the North East region with a negative connotation. The focus on Manipur further brought to light the forces of fuelled antagonism sprayed on unaddressed plights acting as the strength for the multiplying armed actors, who resorted to the extent of expressing with violence in pursuit of their interest. The once colonised region wakes to the puzzle of identifying its own interest with varied assertions in the quest for new accommodation and adjustment. This quest is seen by the growing voices as the unfinished agenda of the history that was not negotiated, consented, or consulted. The inheritance of that, by situating in new geographical context of nation state, under a new constitution has resulted in endless chaos followed by the ceaseless game of adjustment and pacification.

The celebrated unity in diversity becomes a mess, which has been eventually whetted by politicians for their power bank. Democracy’s sanctity is dwarfed in the sink of caste, class, language, identity, ethnicity and various other forces that are growing at an alarming rate. While the success of all these active forces was hidden in the guise of democracy, the function and existence of the same has been stabbed to bleed profusely. In the process it reveals the confusion and failure of the top tower where the crux of all decision making process is initiated. The problems seem to be persisting at its undisturbed pace with crucial decisions getting nipped from the distant power corridors of New Delhi, when the fringe corners shivered with disturbing and fluctuating temperatures. That is when the present continuous tense in the region has to be understood not merely through its historical defect, but also through its humane aspirations.

One inevitable question is, is it necessary to blind the challenges and demands of the diverse interest of the region in the pursuit of that ambiguous national interest? That ought to be raised, as the region’s future is sacrificed in the dim of a militarised prospect that would continue to take an immense toll on the peace, welfare, development, education, culture, human resources and generations, if the carved policy and approach continues. The history of violence, unrest, insecurity and bloodshed, then, would be long ingrained if that occurs. Militarisation, armaments, and the employment of the most sophisticated weapons in the North East are evidence of the pursuit for “a technological solution to a political problem.” That is when, instead of putting the national interest first, the need to convert the region’s hope, desire, aspirations and demands and challenges to grow along the larger interest of the nation would be the inevitable quest. This becomes more necessary in the context of the plural realities of the region. If history had failed to act as the filter towards understanding the marginalized people, culture should be the inevitable filter today. That does not mean that the historical defect could be ignored altogether. However still, that would not be an all out solution to the blown out situation, but it would very much act as the panacea than the mere inactivity with the excuse of the existence of a larger diversity outside the region.

The decades of instability accompanied by militarisation and ceaseless counter-insurgency military operations, which has already been stabilised and constitutionalised, has severely stirred the democratic establishment. Not only that, democracy is faced with the danger of losing its charm over relatively unexamined anti-democratic forces in the hands of the State. Despite America’s failure in Iraq, the principle enunciated in the US Army’s Counterinsurgency Manual should also guide the country’s hawkish policymakers who are supposedly acting as North East think tank, when it said: “The primary objective of any counterinsurgent is to foster the development of effective governance by a legitimate government.” The installation of elected representatives in the power structure has already become the problem in itself. Moreover, they are not evidence of the existence of a healthy democracy. Their ability to dominate the political process with amazing survival skill has, otherwise, snared the democratic space where they failed to represent the people’s interest nor understand the national interest or deliver governance.

We still haven’t seen our politicians extending their dogged struggle beyond their quest to wrest power for themselves. As the wheels of democracy remain rusted in their power basking game, we are confronted with too many questions. Were Manipur or other states of the North East militarised because of a massive failure by the intelligence agencies, or a leviathan failure by the so-called politicians? In either case it is appalling and it would be the last possible resort to make an excuse and blame the people, which otherwise is the practice. Tomorrow we would blame Myanmar or Bangladesh, if not the ISI or Taliban, though Pakistan is too far not to be ignored too. KPS Gill, in 1984, said, “Terrorism is encouraged most by weakness in political leadership and confusion in the security forces.” While the statement holds enough water to let us look within, the question today is, what are democracy’s chances in the region?

On June 26, 2007, Defence Minister AK Anthony reiterated that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act would stay. His tone sounded firm with no immediate intention to repeal the “draconian law.” The Defence Minister’s concern about the human rights condition and the need for a more humane touch to the existing Act, AFSPA, in the North East only reflects the absence of those democratic substance, which otherwise should function as the foundation of any democratic set-up. Many a time we have been accorded with burnt out strategies, call it policy, to negotiate the defected history, culture and aspirations. These policies are residues of suspicion despite the supposed Centre-state relations. The region has sacrificed abundantly with its dwelling in that suspicion. Today there are compelling reasons to talk about the need for more Centre-state cooperation than merely hinging on the old relations.

The perception from outside the region that comes in the language of policies, laws and acts, as well as the failed elected democratic limbs has no relation to the demands and challenges of the new people of the region. There is a need to see the region as new by shedding the old powerful spectacles of the old Leviathan that is used to scan the old geography. There is also a need to revive the sick state of education, economy, sports, infrastructure and what not, instead of oiling the politicians with never delivered promises. Otherwise, the images of insecurity, unrest, dissidents, and militants would continue to grow out of suspicion to blur the needful aspirations and visions of the region. If that were allowed, the region would certainly move towards bigger and heavier militarisation that would only lead to the decadent dance of democracy. The people would be left with nothing more than deprivation and the remains of democracy.