In North East India, in the land mass that lies between Myanmar (formerly Burma) and Bangladesh, there lives a small group of people who have been practicing Judaism for more than 27 years. They have not taken on a "new" religion. These people, in fact, have returned to the religion of their ancestors. They call themselves Bnei Menashe, descendants of the Tribe of Menashe, one of the ten lost tribes. Also known as the Shinlung, the Bnei Menashe relate their history of exile from the Northern Kingdom of Israel in 721 B.C. across the silk route finally ending up in India and Myanmar. The story of these people is an amazing one. After thousands of years of exile they have rediscovered their roots and are returning to Judaism.
The Bnei Menashe ("Children of Menasseh", Hebrew בני מנשה) are a group of more than 9,000 people from India's North-Eastern border states of Manipur and Mizoram who claim descent from one of the Lost Tribes of Israel. The claim appeared after a Pentecostalist dreamt in 1951 that his people's pre-Christian religion was Judaism and that their original homeland was Israel. Linguistically, Bnei Menashe are Tibeto-Burmans and belong to the Mizo, Kuki and Chin peoples (the terms are virtually interchangeable). They are called Chin in Burma.
Depending upon their affiliations, each tribe refers to itself as Kuki, Mizo, Zomi or Chin. It is however more common for people to identify themselves by their subtribe, each of which has its own distinct dialect and identity.
The breakaway Judaic group was named Bnei Menashe by Eliyahu Avichail because they believe that the legendary Kuki-Mizo ancestor Manmasi was Menasseh, son of Joseph. According to the Book of Genesis, the first son of Joseph and Asenath.Asenath was an Egyptian woman whom Pharaoh gave to Joseph as wife, and the daughter of Potipherah, a priest of On. (Genesis 41:50-52) Manasseh was born in Egypt before the arrival of the children of Israel from Canaan. (Genesis 48:5). Jacob, Joseph's father, adopted Joseph's two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to share in Jacob's inheritance equally with Jacob's own sons. (Genesis 48:5) He is counted as the founder of the Israelite Tribe of Manasseh, one of the twelve Israelite tribes. Jacob also blessed Ephraim over his older brother. (Genesis 48:20). Manasseh had a son, Asriel, with his wife; and Machir with his Aramean concubine. (1 Chronicles 7:14)
Manasseh is etymologically derived from the root נשה , which means to forget, and goes on to argue that it refers to Joseph forgetting his troubles and his father's household, on account of the actions of God. Other scholars maintain that the name is of Egyptian rather than Hebrew origin
The legend
Prior to their conversion to Christianity in the 19th Century, the Chin-Kuki-Mizo were headhunters and animists who migrated in waves from East Asia until they settled in northeastern India. They have no written history but their legends refer to a beloved homeland they were driven away from called Sinlung/Chhinlung. Anthropologists and historians believe that it was located in China's Yunnan province and that the Tibeto-Burman migration from there began about 6000 years ago. National Geographic's Genographic Project plans to sample the gene pool of northeastern Indian tribes which may shed definitive light on their origins.
The Bnei Menashe believe that the traditional Mizo-Kuki harvest festival song "Sikpui Hla (Sikpui Song)" which features events paralleled in the Book of Exodus, such as enemies chasing them over a red-coloured sea, quails , and a pillar of cloud is clear evidence of their Israelite ancestry. Translation of the lyrics:
“ While we are preparing for the Sikpui Feast,
The big red sea becomes divided; As we march along fighting our foes, We are being led by pillar of cloud by day,'' And pillar of fire by night. Our enemies, O ye folks, are thick with fury, Come out with your shields and arrows. Fighting our enemies all day long, We march forward as cloud-fire goes before us. The enemies we fought all day long, The big sea swallowed them like wild beast. Collect the quails, And draw the water that springs out of the rock.
The report in 2007
On 1 April 2007, Michael Freund reported in the Jerusalem Post that the Bnei Menashe claim to have a chant they call Miriam's Prayer. The words of the chant are identical to that of the Sikpui Song and this article is the first known print reference to Miriam's Prayer aka Sikpui Hla.
Freund goes on to report that according to the Bnei Menashe "a century ago, when British missionaries first arrived in India's North-East, they were astonished to find that the local tribesmen worshipped one god, were familiar with many of the stories of the Bible, and were practicing a form of biblical Judaism".
The Vision
According to the Bnei Menashe, in 1951, a Pentecostalist called Chalianthanga or Mela Chala (the name varies) from Buallawn village dreamt that God instructed him to direct his people to return to their pre-Christian religion, which he determined to be Judaism, and to return to their original homeland, Israel[16]. The Bnei Menashe believe that Chalianthanga/MC and several followers set out on foot through the hilly jungles of North East India towards Israel but had to give up due to the sheer distance and terrain.
Despite this setback, the number of believers rose steadily (estimated to have risen by 50% in recent years) and their claims gained wider credence in the 1980s when a self-taught researcher, Zaithanchhungi, purported to have discovered similarities between their ancient animist rituals and those of Biblical Judaism, such as sacrifices
Amishav and Shavei Israel
1979: Amishav (Hebrew for "My People Return"), an Israeli organisation founded by Rabbi Eliyahu Avichail and dedicated to locating the lost tribes of Israel, heard about a group in India claiming descent from Israelites. The Rabbi traveled to India several times during the 1980s to investigate the claims. Convinced that the Bnei Menashe were indeed descendants of Israelites, he dedicated himself to converting them to Orthodox Judaism and facilitating their aliya with funds provided by benefactors such as the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, a US-Israeli organisation which raises funds from evangelical Christians for Jewish causes.
1998: US-Israeli translator and New York Sun columnist Hillel Halkin travels to India with Rabbi Avichail to meet the Bnei Menashe and writes a widely-reviewed book about it entitled Across The Sabbath River (2002).
The Rabbi eventually steps aside as leader of Amishav in favour of Michael Freund, a Jerusalem Post columnist and former deputy director of communications & policy planning in the Prime Minister's office. Freund goes on to found Shavei Israel.
July 2006: In an interview with North-East Indian magazine Grassroots Options, Hillel Halkin explains the background: "Avichail is today a man in his seventies, and several years ago, persuaded that Amishav needed younger leadership, he ceded his position to an American-Israeli journalist, Michael Freund. The two (Avichail and Freund) ultimately quarreled over organisational matters, and Freund left Amishav and founded a new organization called Shavei Israel. Both men have their supporters within the B’nei Menashe community in Israel, although Avichail continues to be the more influential and admired figure.
"Kuki-Mizo tribal rivalries and clans have also played a role in the split, with some groups supporting one man and some the other. Because Freund is independently wealthy, Shavei Israel is the better funded of the two organisations and has been able to conduct more activities, particularly in the area of supporting Jewish education for the B'nei Menashe in Aizawl and Imphal".
Freund says that the Bnei Menashe "are a blessing to the State of Israel. They have proved themselves to be dedicated Jews and committed Zionists, and I see no reason why they should not be allowed to immigrate to Israel”
July 2005: Bnei Menashe complete building a mikvah, a Jewish ritual bath, in Mizoram under the supervision of Israeli rabbis in order to begin the process of conversion to Judaism. Shortly after, a similar Mikvah was built in Manipur. In mid-2005, with the help of Shavei Israel and the local council of Kiryat Arba, the Bnei Menashe opened its first community centre in the Land of Israel.
Acceptance
1 April 2005: Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar, one of Israel's two chief rabbis, accepts the Bnei Menashe's claim because of their exemplary devotion to Judaism.[24] His decision is significant because it paves the way for all Bnei Menashe to enter Israel under Israel's Law of Return.
Although the claims of Israelite descent are rejected by most Mizo-Kuki-Chin and called into serious question by some academics, the Bnei Menashe are unshakable in their belief. Indeed, Bnei Menashe who wish to affirm their connection to the Jewish people are required to undergo Orthodox conversions, and every effort is made to ensure that they are accepted according to the strictest interpretation of Jewish law.
In the past two decades, some 1,700 Bnei Menashe have moved to Israel, mostly to settlements in West Bank[25] and Gaza strip (before disengagement). Learning Hebrew has been a great challenge, especially for the older generation, for whom the phonology of their native languages makes Hebrew especially challenging, both phonologically and morphologically. Younger members have more opportunities to learn Hebrew and gain employment as soldiers and nurses aides for the elderly and infirm
DNA Test
April 2005: In a Haaretz article In Search of Jewish Chromosomes in India, Professor Skorecki is quoted as saying the Kolkota geneticists "did not do a complete `genetic sequencing' of all the DNA and therefore it is hard to rely on the conclusions derived from a `partial sequencing, and they themselves admit this". He added that "the absence of a genetic match still does not say that the Kuki do not have origins in the Jewish people, as it is possible that after thousands of years it is difficult to identify the traces of the common genetic origin. However, a positive answer can give a significant indication".
A BBC News article on the same day, entitled Rabbi backs India's lost Jews reports that "the Central Forensic Institute in Calcutta suggests that while the masculine side of the tribes bears no links to Israel, the feminine side suggests a genetic profile with Middle Eastern people that may have arisen through inter-marriage".
July 2006: Hillel Halkin says "laboratory analysis has shown that, with one or two possible exceptions, they fail to demonstrate any link between Kuki-Mizo haplotypes, or DNA profiles, and haplotypes typical of the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East such as are common among Jews. In plain language, the study has so far come up with no clear evidence that the Kuki-Mizos, or any part of them, have a biblical “lost tribe” past". He says that in any case, Jewish DNA testing has never been and can never be a requirement in applications for Israeli citizenship. "My conclusions from my research, expounded at length in my book Across The Sabbath River, are that, although the overwhelming majority of Kuki-Mizos are not descended from the “lost tribe” of Manasseh, small numbers of them probably are. It is this small group that has transmitted certain biblical memories, traditions, and customs to the Kuki-Mizo people as a whole
Timeline (modern)
* 1894: Christian missionaries commence work among the tribal populations in the territories now known as Manipur and Mizoram. By the 1980s, almost all the population of Mizoram had accepted Christianity; In Manipur, around 30% (this being essentially the proportion of the tribal population of the state)
* 1951: A tribal leader named Challianthanga had a dream in which his people returned to Israel, and shared it with his community, which led some members of the tribe to adopt Jewish traditions, combined with faith in Jesus as the Messiah.
* 1975: Several hundred Bnei Menashe begin practicing Judaism rejecting the faith in Jesus.
* 1980's: First contact with Israel made.
* 1994-2003: with the help of Jewish organizations, 800 Bnei Menashe make Aliyah to Israel, most settle in Jewish settlements.
* 2003: Israeli Interior Minister Avraham Poraz freezes their immigration indefinitely.
* August 2004: In response to the Israeli government decision to stop their immigration, Israeli Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar sends a rabbinical fact-finding committee to investigate the Jewish roots of the Bnei Menashe.
* March 2005: Historic decision is made by Israeli Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar, announcing the state of Israel’s recognition of the Bnei Menashe as part of the lost tribe of Menashe, and therefore they can now immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return, but only after a complete Jewish conversion, because they have been separated from Judaism for millennia.
* August 2005: 146 Bnei Menashe are forced to evacuate the Gaza Strip as part of Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan.
* September 2005: A beth din fully converts 700 Bnei Menashe to Judaism (219 from Mizoram) . An estimated 9,000 people still await conversion.
* November 2005: Israel agrees to halt converting the Bnei Menashe after pressure from the Indian government. The entire rabbinical team is pulled out of the country.
* November 2006 - First group of 100 Mizoram’s ‘lost Jews’ leave for Israel
* August 2007 - More than 200 Bnei Menasche arrive in Israel
* January 2009 - More than 200 Bnei Menashe make Aliyah.
* January 2010 - The Israeli government announces that the remaining 7,200 can make Aliyah within a 1- 2 year period after undergoing a conversion process in Nepal
(extracted from wikipedia)
For reader information, descendants of Jews are also living in Kaifeng , China since ancient time,like the Arab traders. The lost tribe may be traveling from Asia Minor, to Persia, to China. The Chinese Jews in Kaifeng may be another lost tribe?....they may also descendant of actual Jewish traders from silk route in ancient time. Geographically it is possible, as the Bnei Menashe tribe who are Tibeto-Burmans and belong to the Mizo-Kuki-Chin, are originally from China, went southward, then westward to Chin Land. Kaifeng Jews provided part of historical evidence that there were interaction between China, Persian, and Jews; it is possible.....
Note: Readers of the article should be reading with open mind, with neutral view; it is just an article about people, with diversity background who are different from us. Let them decided on their religion, we read our article to know more our human brothers around the world,and become more understanding, and less racial biased.
Related articles:
1. http://www.bneimenashe.com/
2. http://www.spirit-of-india.com
3. A Long-Lost Tribe is Ready to Come Home, by Stephen Epstein, http://www.bneimenashe.com/history.html
4. BOOK: Across the Sabbath River: In Search of a Lost Tribe of Israel (In Search of a Lost Tribe of Israel), by Hillel Halk
5. Manasseh (tribal patriarch), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manasseh_%28tribal_patriarch%29(interesting if you want to know the background of Manasseh)
6. Quest for lost tribes 1-10, video can be uploaded at youtubes
7. Ten Lost Tribes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes
Showing posts with label North East India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label North East India. Show all posts
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Tawang(达旺城)
Tawang (达旺城, Hindi: तवांग) is a small town situated at an elevation of approximately 3,048 meters (10,000 feet) in the northwestern part of Arunachal Pradesh, India. The town once served as the district headquarters of West Kameng district, and became the district headquarters of Tawang district when it was formed from West Kameng. Tawang, the hill town is quite like the last frontier, strategically placed between China, Tibet and Myanmar.
Tawang town is located approximately 555km (345 miles) from Guwahati. Tawang has an average elevation of 2,669 meters (8,756 feet). Tawang is well connected to Tibet in the north by the Bum La and Tulung La passes.
A sizeable population of 20,000 live in Tawang town. The dominant ethnic group are the Monpa, who inhabit 162 out of 163 villages. The Tibetan are also found in small scattered numbers throughout Tawang. Shyo village houses about 90 families of Tibetan origin. The Takpa, a small tribal group, are found in small, scattered numbers in the West and the North.
Most of the people, which includes the Monpa, Takpa and the Tibetans, are Tibetan Buddhist by religion.
The sixth Dalai Lama was born in this region, home to the Monpa people who speak a tongue similar to Tibetan and where ancient funeral rituals comprise chopping the dead into 108 pieces and consigning them to the river.
How to get there
There are a number of ways to get to Tawang from Kolkata, the simplest being to first get to either Guwahati (1081 km from Kolkata) or Tezpur (1100 km) in Assam. You can fly or take a train to any of these cities, the most practical being Guwahati since Tezpur does not have direct connections. The closest railway station is Rangapara in Assam. From either Tezpur or Guwahati, there are regular public and private bus services to Tawang. It is a good idea to hire a jeep, Sumo or other rugged vehicle with an experienced hill driver to do the mountain drive - this is a 479 km journey of about 16 to 20 hours.
Permits
Indian tourists visiting Arunachal Pradesh require an Inner Line Permit. Foreign tourists intending to visit Arunachal need clearance from the Home Ministry and a Restricted Area Permit, which takes approximately three weeks to be issued. The Permit is valid for 10 days. A minimum of four and a maximum of fourteen tourists must travel together on a tour arranged through an approved travel agent.
View Larger Map
History
Tawang was once a part of Tibet. In 1914, the MacMahon line was drawn by the British and Tawang became a part of India. Tawang was forcefully acquired by British India using McMahon Line. By acquiring Tawang, British India totally disregard the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention. It came under effective Indian administration on February 12, 1951, when Major R Khating led Indian Army troops to relocate Chinese squatters. India assumed sovereignty of the territory and established democratic rule. Elections have taken place regularly and democratic state legislature elected peacefully.
The Dalai Lama also passed through Tawang while fleeing Tibet after a failed uprising against Chinese rule in 1959.
Tawang Monastery
Tawang Monastery was founded by the Mera Lama Lodre Gyatso in accordance to the wishes of the 5th Dalai Lama, Nagwang Lobsang Gyatso. The monastery is of the Gelugpa sect is the largest Buddhist monastery in India. It is associated with Drepung Monastery in Lhasa. The name Tawang means Chosen Horse. It is also known by another Tibetan name, Galden Namgey Lhatse, which means a true name within a celestial paradise in a clear night.
Tawang Monastery is the biggest Tibetan Buddhist monastery after the Potala Palace in Tibet's capital Lhasa, but for many exiles it is also a home away from home.
Tawang district, perched at 10,000 feet above sea level, is the home of Tawang Monastary. Winters are harsh, and summers see long periods of heavy rainfall. In Tibetan Buddhism, Tawang is of special significance as it is the birthplace of His Holiness the Sixth Dalai Lama.
Tawang is a beautiful place. It is now also a tourist attraction.
Tension between China and India
In 1914, the MacMahon line was drawn by the British. On that basis, Tawang became a part of India, forcefully taken from China with a pen on the famous line. In 1949, Chinese communist formed the People Republic of China in China, People Liberation Army (PLA) marched into Tibet in 1950 and implemented communist rule, taking over from KMT and de facto Tibet Province government. Communist rule will not tolerate religion and feudal leadership. Dalai Lama knew that his time as religion and feudal leader is short, he need to escape from the communist rule. There was an uprising in 1956, but failed. He fled to India via Tawang in 1959.
China staked its claim over Tawang as it was previously a part of Tibet, and forcefully took over by British India. India has rebutted these claims by the Chinese, as it inherited the place from British India.
During the Sino-Indian war of 1962, Tawang fell under Chinese control. The valiant last stand of Mahavir Chakra awardee Jaswant Singh Rawat took place in Tawang. After the "voluntary withdrawal of Chinese troops", Tawang was once again under Indian administration. In recent years, China has occasionally voiced its claims on Tawang and Chinese troop incursions continue to occur frequently. India has rebutted these claims by Chinese government and the Indian prime minister has stated categorically that Tawang is an integral part of India. He repeated this to the Chinese prime minister when the two prime ministers met in Thailand in October 2009.
(Note: until now the political historian still wonder why China voluntary withdrew from Tawang when she had won the war, as a victor it is not normal for a country to withdraw from a disputed border, China had the military ability to continue occupied the area. This is a strange move. China did not received any goodness as victor of the war. India later formalized their claim over the disputed border unilaterally, the actual winner of the war is India)
Dalai Lama's visit
He was received and welcomed by the democratically elected Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh and the people of Arunachal Pradesh. The residents of Tawang were elated to have the Dalai Lama among them. They painted their houses afresh and spruced up the town. The whole town wore a festive look.
The timing of Dalai Lama's visit is not appropriate, and the visit is politically pre-arranged at high profile level, with the official receiving by the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh. After the controversial visit to Taiwan(politically sensitive area for China)when he was giving prayer to a area affected by flooding, but inhabited with high concentration of Christian natives, the critic said the visit is with political intention(invited by opposition party). The visit to Tawang(a town located at border dispute area) within a short span of time from his Taiwan visit. the intention is again political publicity plot, especially after they have failed in playing Olympic politic game/sport politic game. He has shown his true color in politic. Dalai Lama may have claimed it is purely a religion visit, similar to the visit to Taiwan, any sensible Tibet analyst will know the truth..... it is political move by a person with dual personality(Religion leader & Political leader).
Related articles:
1.Remote town of Tawang sustains last vestiges of old Tibet(2009), http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-43827220091110
2.Tawang, India: History and Romance at 13,000 Feet, by Lakshmi Sarath, http://www.gonomad.com/destinations/0809/india-tawang.html
3.On The Buddhist Trail to Tawang , by Ranjita Biswas , http://www.chillibreeze.com/articles/WhattodoatTawangArunachalPradesh.asp
4.Tawang Monastery, http://www.tawangmonastery.org/
5. Tawang, www.wikipedia.org
Tawang town is located approximately 555km (345 miles) from Guwahati. Tawang has an average elevation of 2,669 meters (8,756 feet). Tawang is well connected to Tibet in the north by the Bum La and Tulung La passes.
A sizeable population of 20,000 live in Tawang town. The dominant ethnic group are the Monpa, who inhabit 162 out of 163 villages. The Tibetan are also found in small scattered numbers throughout Tawang. Shyo village houses about 90 families of Tibetan origin. The Takpa, a small tribal group, are found in small, scattered numbers in the West and the North.
Most of the people, which includes the Monpa, Takpa and the Tibetans, are Tibetan Buddhist by religion.
The sixth Dalai Lama was born in this region, home to the Monpa people who speak a tongue similar to Tibetan and where ancient funeral rituals comprise chopping the dead into 108 pieces and consigning them to the river.
How to get there
There are a number of ways to get to Tawang from Kolkata, the simplest being to first get to either Guwahati (1081 km from Kolkata) or Tezpur (1100 km) in Assam. You can fly or take a train to any of these cities, the most practical being Guwahati since Tezpur does not have direct connections. The closest railway station is Rangapara in Assam. From either Tezpur or Guwahati, there are regular public and private bus services to Tawang. It is a good idea to hire a jeep, Sumo or other rugged vehicle with an experienced hill driver to do the mountain drive - this is a 479 km journey of about 16 to 20 hours.
Permits
Indian tourists visiting Arunachal Pradesh require an Inner Line Permit. Foreign tourists intending to visit Arunachal need clearance from the Home Ministry and a Restricted Area Permit, which takes approximately three weeks to be issued. The Permit is valid for 10 days. A minimum of four and a maximum of fourteen tourists must travel together on a tour arranged through an approved travel agent.
View Larger Map
History
Tawang was once a part of Tibet. In 1914, the MacMahon line was drawn by the British and Tawang became a part of India. Tawang was forcefully acquired by British India using McMahon Line. By acquiring Tawang, British India totally disregard the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention. It came under effective Indian administration on February 12, 1951, when Major R Khating led Indian Army troops to relocate Chinese squatters. India assumed sovereignty of the territory and established democratic rule. Elections have taken place regularly and democratic state legislature elected peacefully.
The Dalai Lama also passed through Tawang while fleeing Tibet after a failed uprising against Chinese rule in 1959.
Tawang Monastery
Tawang Monastery was founded by the Mera Lama Lodre Gyatso in accordance to the wishes of the 5th Dalai Lama, Nagwang Lobsang Gyatso. The monastery is of the Gelugpa sect is the largest Buddhist monastery in India. It is associated with Drepung Monastery in Lhasa. The name Tawang means Chosen Horse. It is also known by another Tibetan name, Galden Namgey Lhatse, which means a true name within a celestial paradise in a clear night.
Tawang Monastery is the biggest Tibetan Buddhist monastery after the Potala Palace in Tibet's capital Lhasa, but for many exiles it is also a home away from home.
Tawang district, perched at 10,000 feet above sea level, is the home of Tawang Monastary. Winters are harsh, and summers see long periods of heavy rainfall. In Tibetan Buddhism, Tawang is of special significance as it is the birthplace of His Holiness the Sixth Dalai Lama.
Tawang is a beautiful place. It is now also a tourist attraction.
Tension between China and India
In 1914, the MacMahon line was drawn by the British. On that basis, Tawang became a part of India, forcefully taken from China with a pen on the famous line. In 1949, Chinese communist formed the People Republic of China in China, People Liberation Army (PLA) marched into Tibet in 1950 and implemented communist rule, taking over from KMT and de facto Tibet Province government. Communist rule will not tolerate religion and feudal leadership. Dalai Lama knew that his time as religion and feudal leader is short, he need to escape from the communist rule. There was an uprising in 1956, but failed. He fled to India via Tawang in 1959.
China staked its claim over Tawang as it was previously a part of Tibet, and forcefully took over by British India. India has rebutted these claims by the Chinese, as it inherited the place from British India.
During the Sino-Indian war of 1962, Tawang fell under Chinese control. The valiant last stand of Mahavir Chakra awardee Jaswant Singh Rawat took place in Tawang. After the "voluntary withdrawal of Chinese troops", Tawang was once again under Indian administration. In recent years, China has occasionally voiced its claims on Tawang and Chinese troop incursions continue to occur frequently. India has rebutted these claims by Chinese government and the Indian prime minister has stated categorically that Tawang is an integral part of India. He repeated this to the Chinese prime minister when the two prime ministers met in Thailand in October 2009.
(Note: until now the political historian still wonder why China voluntary withdrew from Tawang when she had won the war, as a victor it is not normal for a country to withdraw from a disputed border, China had the military ability to continue occupied the area. This is a strange move. China did not received any goodness as victor of the war. India later formalized their claim over the disputed border unilaterally, the actual winner of the war is India)
Dalai Lama's visit
He was received and welcomed by the democratically elected Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh and the people of Arunachal Pradesh. The residents of Tawang were elated to have the Dalai Lama among them. They painted their houses afresh and spruced up the town. The whole town wore a festive look.
The timing of Dalai Lama's visit is not appropriate, and the visit is politically pre-arranged at high profile level, with the official receiving by the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh. After the controversial visit to Taiwan(politically sensitive area for China)when he was giving prayer to a area affected by flooding, but inhabited with high concentration of Christian natives, the critic said the visit is with political intention(invited by opposition party). The visit to Tawang(a town located at border dispute area) within a short span of time from his Taiwan visit. the intention is again political publicity plot, especially after they have failed in playing Olympic politic game/sport politic game. He has shown his true color in politic. Dalai Lama may have claimed it is purely a religion visit, similar to the visit to Taiwan, any sensible Tibet analyst will know the truth..... it is political move by a person with dual personality(Religion leader & Political leader).
Related articles:
1.Remote town of Tawang sustains last vestiges of old Tibet(2009), http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-43827220091110
2.Tawang, India: History and Romance at 13,000 Feet, by Lakshmi Sarath, http://www.gonomad.com/destinations/0809/india-tawang.html
3.On The Buddhist Trail to Tawang , by Ranjita Biswas , http://www.chillibreeze.com/articles/WhattodoatTawangArunachalPradesh.asp
4.Tawang Monastery, http://www.tawangmonastery.org/
5. Tawang, www.wikipedia.org
Thursday, November 12, 2009
McMahon Line(藏南麦克马洪线)
McMahon Line
The McMahon Line marks boundary between Chinese-held and Indian-held territory in the eastern Himalayan region. The line was the focus of a brief war in 1962, when Indian and Chinese forces struggled to control a disputed area, much of which is a thinly populated high altitude mountain area. The disputed area is referred to as Arunachal Pradesh by India and South Tibet by China.
British was the colonist of India after its trading company, The East India Company, won the Battle of Plassey on 23 June, 1757, which was a decisive British East India Company victory over the Nawab of Bengal and his French allies, establishing Company rule in India which expanded over much of South Asia for the next 190 years. Early British efforts to create a boundary in South East India were triggered by their discovery in the mid-19th century that Tawang, an important trading town, was Tibetan territory. In 1873, the British India drew an "Outer Line," intended as an international boundary(Note: without any negotiation and consent of the bordering neighbor countries). This line follows the alignment of the Himalayan foothills, now roughly the southern boundary of Arunachal Pradesh. Britain concluded treaties with Beijing concerning Tibet's boundaries with Burma and Sikkim. However, Tibet refused to recognize the boundaries drawn by these treaties. British forces led by Sir Francis Younghusband invaded Tibet in 1904,the British army occupied Lhasa, and the 13th Dalai Lama was forced to flee from the city. The invaders compelled the Tibetan local government officials to sign the Lhasa Convention. But because the Ministry of External Affairs of the Qing government believed the Lhasa Convention would do damage to national sovereignty, the high commissioner stationed in Tibet by the Qing government refused to sign it, leaving it ineffectual. After their failure to assume full control of Tibet through direct military incursion, the imperialists changed their tack and began plotting to separate Tibet from China. On August 31, 1907, Britain and Russia signed the Convention Between Great Britain and Russia, which changed China's sovereignty over Tibet into "suzerainty." This marked the first time Chin's sovereignty over Tibet was altered into "suzerainty" in international documents. Both nations "engage not to enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese Government." (Note: At that time China was a semi-colonial country after the Opium War, a military weak country. Suzerainty is a situation in which a region or people is a tributary to a more powerful entity which controls its foreign affairs while allowing the tributary some limited domestic autonomy, which is a colonist concept).
Note: What did a country from Europe, which is far away from North East India do in Tawang and drew a line on other people's country in 1873? Why did Sir Francis Younghusband invaded Tibet in 1904?( a friendly line drew in history?)..... logically another hidden plan for a colonist.
British interest in the borderlands was renewed when the Qing government sent military forces to establish Chinese administration in Tibet (1910-12). A British military expedition was sent into what is now Arunachal Pradesh and the North East Frontier Tract was created to administer the area (1912). In 1912-13, this agency reached agreements with the tribal leaders who ruled the bulk of the region. The Outer Line was moved north, but Tawang was left as Tibetan territory.
Note: The outer line was moved north....moving the border of its colony....a clear cut invasion by British colonist.
After the fall of the Qing dynasty in China, when the Republic of China was established(which included Tibet)in 1911. Britain took advantage of the political chaos in China after the collapse of the Qing Dynasty and the new birth of the Republic of China, and put before the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs a five-point demand, indicating the denial of China's sovereignty over Tibet. When the Chinese government rejected the British demand, the British blocked all the roads leading from India to Tibet.
In 1913 the British government inveigled the Tibetan authorities into declaring independence and proposed that "Britain be the weaponry supplier after total independence of Tibet;" "Tibet accept British envoys' supervision of Tibetan financial and military affairs in return for Britain's support of Tibetan independence;" "Britain be responsible for resisting the army of the Republic of China when it reaches Tibet;" "Tibet adopt an open policy and allow freedom of movement of the British." (Zhu Xiu: 60-Year Chronology of Tibet) However, Britain's schemes failed.
In 1913, taking advantage of the fact that Yuan Shikai, who had usurped the presidency of the Republic of China, was eager to get foreign diplomatic recognition and international loans, the British government forced the Beijing government to participate in a tripartite conference of China, Britain and Tibet, namely the Simla Conference held at the behest of the British government. Before the conference, Charles Bell political officer sent to Sikkim by the British-Indian government, privately met with Lon-chen Shatra, the representative of the Tibetan local government to the conference. Bell trumpeted to Lon-chen Shatra that "suzerainty" implied "independence." In his book Tibet: Past and Present, Bell wrote, "When I met Lon-chen Shatra in Gyantse, I advised him to bring down all the documents which he could collect bearing on the Tibetan relationship to China in the past, and on the former's claims to the various provinces and districts which had from time to time been occupied by China." Stirred up by the British, the Tibetan representative raised the slogan of "Tibetan independence" for the first time. He also claimed "Tibetan territory includes Qinghai, Litang, Batang and Dajianlu." When these demands were rejected by the representative of the Chinese government, the British delegate introduced the pre-arranged "compromise" scheme, which divided China's Tibetan-inhabited areas into "inner Tibet" and "outer Tibet." "Inner Tibet," including Tibetan-inhabited areas in Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces, would be under the jurisdiction of the Chinese government. With regard to "outer Tibet," including Tibet and west Xikang, the Chinese government was requested to "recognize the autonomy of outer Tibet" and "refrain from interfering in its internal affairs;" "however, China may still send its high commissioner to Lhasa and maintain an escort army of no more than 300 soldiers." The essence of this "compromise" scheme was to change China's sovereignty over Tibet into "suzerainty," and separate Tibet from the authority of the Chinese government under the pretext of "autonomy." Naturally these unreasonable demands were strongly opposed by the Chinese people. The agreement also refers to a map with the McMahon line drawn on it. This situation is the same as to the colonist's action to China in coastal area when Qing government was forced to give Hong Kong and open her ports(Treaty ports)after the Opium Wars.
On July 3, 1914, the Chinese government representative Chen Yifan upon instruction refused to sign the Simla Convention. In his statement, Chen said, "Government of China refuses to recognize any agreement which His Majesty's Government and Tibet might conclude independently either now or in the future." The Chinese government also sent a note to the British government, reiterating its position. Therefore, the conference broke down. After Beijing repudiated Simla, the British and Tibetan delegates attached a note denying China any privileges under the agreement and signed it as a bilateral accord.
McMahon line
In 1913-1914 representatives of China, Tibet and Britain negotiated a treaty in India: the Simla Accord. This treaty's objective was to define the borders between Inner and Outer Tibet as well as between Outer Tibet and British India. British administrator, Sir Henry McMahon, drew up the 550 miles (890 km) McMahon Line as the border between British India and Outer Tibet during the Simla Conference. The Tibetan and British representatives at the conference agreed to the line, which ceded Tawang and other Tibetan areas to the British Empire. The Chinese representative had no problems with the border between British India and Outer Tibet, however on the issue of the border between Outer Tibet and Inner Tibet the talks broke down. Thus, the Chinese representative refused to accept the agreement and walked out. The Tibetan Government and British Government went ahead with the Simla Agreement and declared that the benefits of other articles of this treaty would not be bestowed on China as long as it stays out of the purview. The Chinese position since then has been that since China had sovereignty over Tibet, the line was invalid without Chinese agreement. Furthermore, by refusing to sign the Simla documents, the Chinese Government had escaped according any recognition to the validity of the McMahon Line. (Note: A colonist attempt to divide Tibet to Inner Tibet, Outer Tibet, and South Tibet(within colonist's control; if it is not invasion , then what is this?)
The new government of the Republic of China would hold nominal power over the majority of Chinese territory for only four years before war broke out between numerous armed factions.
Indeed, the span of Chinese history from 1916 to 1938 came to be called the "Warlord Era," as the different military factions sought to fill the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Qing Dynasty. China would see near-continuous civil war up to the Communist victory in 1949, and this era of conflict was exacerbated by the Japanese Occupation and World War II (1910 - 1945). Under such circumstances, the Chinese was politically too weak and showed little interest in Tibet. There is no incident occurred during the period over border dispute under The McMahon Line. At the time in 1948, India gained independence from British.
In the 1950s, India-China relations were cordial and the boundary dispute quiet. The Indian government under Prime Minister Nehru promoted the slogan Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai. (India and China are brothers). In 1954, India renamed the disputed area the North East Frontier Agency.
The Prime Minister of India,Mr Jawaharlal Nehru in his letter dated 22-4-1957 to Prime Minister of Burma, Mr. U Nu, which he stated that " I entirely agree that the use of the word "McMahon Line" is not right and should be put an end to. It reminds one of British incursions and aggression. We are, therefore, not using these words any longer. Indeed, so far as we are concerned, we have maintained all along that our frontier with China, except for the two or three very minor matters, was a fixed and well known frontier and there was no dispute about it".
Occupation of Tibetan territory by China from the former Republic of China(civil war), climaxing in the flight of the Dalai Lama to India in March 1959, created a great deal of sympathy for Tibet in India and led Chinese leaders to suspect that Nehru had designs on the region. On August 1959, Chinese troops captured an Indian outpost at Longju, three miles south of the McMahon Line according to the Geonames database (National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.) In a letter to Nehru dated 24 October 1959, Zhou Enlai proposed that India and China each withdraw their forces 20 kilometers from the "line of actual control." Shortly afterward, Zhou defined this line as "the so-called McMahon Line in the east and the line up to which each side exercises actual control in the west".
In November 1961, Nehru adopted a "Forward Policy" of setting up military outposts in disputed areas, including 43 outposts north of Zhou's LAC. Chinese leader Mao Zedong, at this time weakened by the failure of the Great Leap Forward, saw war as a means of reasserting his authority. On 8 September 1962, a Chinese unit attacked an Indian post at Dhola on the Thagla Ridge, three kilometers north of the McMahon Line. On 20 October China launched a major attack across the McMahon as well as another attack further north. The Sino-Indian War which followed was a national humiliation for India, with China quickly gaining control of NEFA. The Soviet Union, the United States, and Great Britain all pledged military aid to the Indians. China then withdrew to the McMahon Line and repatriated the Indian prisoners of war (1963)
India renamed NEFA as Arunachal Pradesh in 1972. In 1987, Arunachal Pradesh become the state of Union of India. China may have won the war, but did not benefited as a war winner, India normalized the disputed border land as the province of India, and mass migration from other part of India to the dispute land.
The McMahon Line was drawn by a strong colonist country on the area which is owned(by Tibet under Qing Dynasty of an independent China)and claimed by a newly established republic (Republic of China, a change of government with the same nation) which was still at their initial stage of nation building with internal problems, and no military power. Union of India was not formed yet, it is still colony of British Empire. Can a colonist which occupied other people's land by force, represented the country to draw a line to determine the border for other country(without their consent)? Legally that country has no legal ownership if based on today's law. It was an invasion by a strong colonist with a draw of pen...... the British then left after independence granted to India in 1948, another time bomb ( border dispute) left for the new nations to tackle. The hidden agenda behind The McMahon Line drawn by British India(a Colonist), is clearly and obviously the Tibet in the north....
The claims of both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China to Tibet are based on the principle of "succession of states", as the Yuan and Qing Dynasties had exercised sovereignty over Tibet. Britain was the only country which held the view that China held suzerainty over Tibet but not full sovereignty, until 2008.
On October 29, 2008, David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary, announced that Britain would recognize Tibet as historically part of the People’s Republic of China, i.e. recognize Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. Before this, Britain had officially recognized the PRC's relationship with Tibet as suzerainty. Britain was the last country to recognize China's sovereignty due to its prior invasion of Tibet, this recognition would impact the legitimacy of India's claim to South Tibet. Describing the old position as an anachronism and a colonial legacy, Mr. David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, even apologized for Britain's not having done so earlier.
Tibetologist Robert Barnett thinks that the decision has wider implications. India’s claim to a part of its northeast territories, for example, is largely based on the same agreements — notes exchanged during the Simla Convention of 1914, which set the boundary (the McMahon Line) between India and Tibet.
The question is can the past mistake of British India over McMahon Line still valid under International Law? Can the border of Tibet revert to the original border before the dirty hand of the colonist drew the famous line.........it is still a legal and political mess. Will the late recognizance do justice and fairness to China, and the people of China, which still suffered from the past political mistake of Britain during the colonial days, and thereafter effect of political problem in Tibet?........
Note: The video is about travel in Lohit Valley, from Tezu to Walong, Kibithu and up to the last Indian village on McMahon line. This is offered as a "Sunrise Excursion" by Vivikanand Girijan Kalyan Kendra, Tezu. The view is that of the producer not the blogger. This is to let readers have a view of the area around McMahon Line, which is security sensitive area.
麦克马洪线
麦克马洪线（英文：McMahon Line）是一条由英国探险家为印度测量时划的一条位于英属印度和西藏的边界。其走向起自不丹和西藏交界处，大致沿分水岭和山脊线至云南独龙江东南的伊素拉希山口，将传统上西藏当局享有管辖权、税收权和放牧权的约9万平方公里领土（这是传统说法，但根据矢量地图的测量方法，这块地方的面积大约是6.7万平方公里）都划进印度去。英属印度政府和印度都声称这条边界就是正式疆界。中国政府不承认该线。
1913年10月13日，西藏、英国和中华民国中央政府的代表在西姆拉举行三方会谈。西藏的立场是要求承认和保证其完全完整的独立地位，中华民国中央政府则坚持西藏是中华民国领土不可分割的一部分，要求拥有西藏的外交和国防权利，以及一定程度的地方行政权利。英国则以划分外藏和内藏的方案进行调和，并据此达成了一个三方协议，但中华民国中央政府最终拒绝在协议上签字，并拒绝承认英藏双方签订的任何条约和协议，即所谓的“麦克马洪线”单方面将部分西藏领土划归印度。结果这次会议并没有任何成效，而中国亦一直没有承认过麦克马洪线，直至1940年代印度独立以及中华人民共和国成立，这个边境问题一直都是悬而未决。
中印边境战争是1962年6月或10月至11月间发生在中国和印度的藏南边境的战争。在中国被普遍称为中印边界自卫反击战，印度则称为瓦弄之战（Battle of Walong）. 中印边界全长约１７００公里，习惯上分为东、中、西三段：东段长约６５０公里，从中国、印度、缅甸三国交界处至中国、印度、不丹三国交界之处的底宛格里；中段，长约400公里，从西藏普兰县的中国、印度、尼泊尔三国交界处至札达县的６７９５高地；西段长约６５０公里，从札达县的６７９５高地至新疆的喀喇昆仑山口。整个边界从来没有正式划定过，但根据双方历史行政管辖所及，形成了一条传统习惯边界线，东段是沿喜马拉雅山脉南麓，中段是沿喜马拉雅山脉，西段是沿喀喇昆仑山脉。中印边境战争 的爆发不是偶然的，它有着深刻的历史根源和复杂的背景
冲突起因
中国与印度的边界约2000公里，分西、中、东三段。 到1951年前后，印军向北擴張取得麦克马洪线以南约9万平方公里领土。此外，在中段和西段，印度亦占得部分印中兩國爭議领土。1959年，印军越过双方实际控制线建立了43个据点。中国政府提出谈判解决边境问题，未得印度方面的接受。
中国观点
中国政府认为，“麦克马洪线”是英国人自己定的，任何时候的中国政府都没承认过，是西方肢解中国的一部分。就像英国在巴基斯坦和印度之间的所作所为一样。由于中方認為麦克马洪线是英国殖民政府强加於西藏南部的分界线，故拒絕承认“麦克马洪线”。并且直到1951年之前，印度政府也未公開承认麦克马洪线。因此，中國表示上述争议领土應該属於中国。
印度观点
1947年印度獨立后，印度认为他们有权利继承原來的英屬印度领土。因此，他们认为上述藏南地區属于印度。
國際觀點
美國、蘇聯在当时支持印度，並向印度提供武器、物資援助。
战争过程
1962年6月起，中方稱印军向中国边防軍开枪攻擊，死伤中国軍人數十人。10月20日印方稱中国军队攻击印度，战争開始。
1962年10月20日至28日是战争的第一阶段。在东段，中国西藏的边防軍暫時攻占了藏南和达旺地区；在西段，中国新疆边防軍驅除了37处据点的印軍。10月24日，中国政府发表声明，提出停止冲突、重开谈判、和平解决边界问题的三项建议。印度表示無法接受，宣布印北地區进入“紧急状态”，并在東線的藏南及達旺地區大力增援士兵。
11月16日至21日为战争的第二阶段。11月14日和16日，印军再次於中印边境發動进攻。在东线，中国西藏边防軍在东、西段對印军施以反击，至11月21日，中国西藏边防軍佔領了印军的16处据点。在西段，中国新疆边防軍則佔領了印军在班公洛地区的据点。由於印度軍隊在東線藏南、西線新疆失敗，印度朝野提議要求美國介入，當時印度總理賈瓦哈拉爾·尼赫魯（Jawaharlal Nehru）同意此說，向美國要求國際介入調停。1962年11月，美國介入並以物資支援印度軍隊。中國邊防軍宣佈停火，此後兩國即以麥克馬洪線為控制线，但爭議並未就此平息。
中國方面於11月22日零时起下令邊防軍全线停火。12月1日起，中国边防軍开始全线后撤至1959年11月7日中印双方实际控制线内，脱离双方军事接触，实际上未再控制西藏藏南和達旺地區，另外还依約将缴获的武器、军车和军用物资交还印方。1963年5月26日前释放和遣返战俘。
战争结果
* 中国方面：從1959年实际控制線上，再向北撤退20公里。
* 印度方面：印度官方將藏南和達旺納入版圖。
1979年2月鄧小平接見印度外長時指出：“中印兩國應該求同存異，世界問題可以通過友好協商，互諒互讓，公平合理地一攬子解決”。1987年印度議會通過法令，正式在“麥克馬洪線”之南建立“阿魯納恰爾邦”。至今印度已有多少移民屯居在藏南，数字不详。但是根据阿魯納恰爾邦总人口数约为两百万来估算，在藏南地区的印度移民约为近百万。然而因为阿魯納恰爾邦和藏南地区并不完全重合，所以中国以后如果再提出边境的问题，如何处理这些移民将有很大的困难。
觀點
西方記者馬克斯韋爾在《印度對華戰爭》（Neville Maxwell ，India's China War，London：Jonathan Cape Ltd.，1970）一書中寫道，「當中國軍隊取得重大勝利的時候，中國政府突然宣佈單方面無條件撤軍，這與其說讓全世界都鬆了一口氣，不如說是讓全世界都目瞪口呆。世界戰爭史上還從沒有過這樣的事情，勝利的一方在失敗者還沒有任何承諾的情況下，就單方面無條件撤軍，實際上也就是讓自己付出巨大代價來之不易的勝利成果化為烏有。」
解放軍作家金輝在《墨脫的誘惑》書中對那段歷史作了這樣結論，「勝利者和失敗者是十分明確的。但是，經過了近三十年之後，結合現在再來看那場戰爭及其結果，卻完全是另一種情況了——勝利者除了沒有失敗的名義，卻具備了失敗者的一切；失敗者除了沒有勝利的名義，卻得到了勝利者的一切。勝利者因為勝利的飄飄然，以至連對勝利成果的徹底喪失和巨大的屈辱都無動於衷。失敗者因為唯獨還沒有得到勝利者的虛名，所以一直在摩拳擦掌，發誓要報一箭之仇。也許這就是歷史的嘲弄，如果當年印度取得了勝利，那麼現在他們在這一地區肯定不會如此占盡便宜，如果當時中國在此地失敗，那麼現在反而大概不會這麼被動和可憐。」
藏南麦克马洪线现状
* 时至今日，不论是中华人民共和国政府,还是中华民国政府都坚持要恢复麦克马洪线以南的原来边界。
* 今日中印实际控制线与此线走向比较相近，但并不重合。
* 1987年印度议会通过法令，正式将“麦克马洪线”以南中印争议地区和印缅边界一些地区合并建立阿鲁纳恰尔邦，中印争议地区的面积占该邦总面积的80％。
* 由于印度政府强烈要求占领全部争议地区，结果由于这条边界引致1962年的中印战争。
* 至今，印度已有约30万的移民屯居在这个争议的边境上。中国以后如果再提出边境问题，如何处理这些移民将有颇大困难。
(source: wikipedia)
As for China-India relationship and their border dispute, we hoped that the spirit of the slogan Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai. (India and China are brothers), which is in line with the China's traditional philosophy of " all man within four seas are brothers" will continue to prevail, and a win-win strategy to resolve the political mess left by the colonist. During the ancient time, especially the silk route era, China and India have benefited from the trading and cultural exchange, there were respect for each others. The relationship changed only after the colonist come, which took away all the riches of the two nations. As both countries have suffered from the colonization, and should know the value of peace, the benefit of trade and economic development; go on with the economic growth for the benefits of their people. Let the spirit of silk route revive.......
.....and remember the spirit of nation building of Dr Sun Yat-sen and Mahatma Gandhi...and do not fall into the traps of the global political games......the colonist will always come in different forms, they died hard and mutates....
Related articles:
1. China angered by Dalai Lama's India visit, http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/200911/s2737150.htm( Do you believed it is only religion visit or is it political visit like Taiwan visit, to politically sensitive areas to boost his political image, a publicity tactic?)
2. Bordering on Danger, By MOHAN MALIK, http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-4422775/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5kZWZlbmNlZm9ydW0uaW4vZm9ydW0vY3VycmVudC1hZmZhaXJzLXBvbGl0aWNzLzYxNDEtYm9yZGVyaW5nLWRhbmdlci5odG1s
3. 共和国战争:1962中印边境冲突(1-13), youtubes.
4. 冷暖人生2009年10月13日A:老兵往事--喜马拉雅的枪声, youtubes
The McMahon Line marks boundary between Chinese-held and Indian-held territory in the eastern Himalayan region. The line was the focus of a brief war in 1962, when Indian and Chinese forces struggled to control a disputed area, much of which is a thinly populated high altitude mountain area. The disputed area is referred to as Arunachal Pradesh by India and South Tibet by China.
British was the colonist of India after its trading company, The East India Company, won the Battle of Plassey on 23 June, 1757, which was a decisive British East India Company victory over the Nawab of Bengal and his French allies, establishing Company rule in India which expanded over much of South Asia for the next 190 years. Early British efforts to create a boundary in South East India were triggered by their discovery in the mid-19th century that Tawang, an important trading town, was Tibetan territory. In 1873, the British India drew an "Outer Line," intended as an international boundary(Note: without any negotiation and consent of the bordering neighbor countries). This line follows the alignment of the Himalayan foothills, now roughly the southern boundary of Arunachal Pradesh. Britain concluded treaties with Beijing concerning Tibet's boundaries with Burma and Sikkim. However, Tibet refused to recognize the boundaries drawn by these treaties. British forces led by Sir Francis Younghusband invaded Tibet in 1904,the British army occupied Lhasa, and the 13th Dalai Lama was forced to flee from the city. The invaders compelled the Tibetan local government officials to sign the Lhasa Convention. But because the Ministry of External Affairs of the Qing government believed the Lhasa Convention would do damage to national sovereignty, the high commissioner stationed in Tibet by the Qing government refused to sign it, leaving it ineffectual. After their failure to assume full control of Tibet through direct military incursion, the imperialists changed their tack and began plotting to separate Tibet from China. On August 31, 1907, Britain and Russia signed the Convention Between Great Britain and Russia, which changed China's sovereignty over Tibet into "suzerainty." This marked the first time Chin's sovereignty over Tibet was altered into "suzerainty" in international documents. Both nations "engage not to enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese Government." (Note: At that time China was a semi-colonial country after the Opium War, a military weak country. Suzerainty is a situation in which a region or people is a tributary to a more powerful entity which controls its foreign affairs while allowing the tributary some limited domestic autonomy, which is a colonist concept).
Note: What did a country from Europe, which is far away from North East India do in Tawang and drew a line on other people's country in 1873? Why did Sir Francis Younghusband invaded Tibet in 1904?( a friendly line drew in history?)..... logically another hidden plan for a colonist.
British interest in the borderlands was renewed when the Qing government sent military forces to establish Chinese administration in Tibet (1910-12). A British military expedition was sent into what is now Arunachal Pradesh and the North East Frontier Tract was created to administer the area (1912). In 1912-13, this agency reached agreements with the tribal leaders who ruled the bulk of the region. The Outer Line was moved north, but Tawang was left as Tibetan territory.
Note: The outer line was moved north....moving the border of its colony....a clear cut invasion by British colonist.
After the fall of the Qing dynasty in China, when the Republic of China was established(which included Tibet)in 1911. Britain took advantage of the political chaos in China after the collapse of the Qing Dynasty and the new birth of the Republic of China, and put before the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs a five-point demand, indicating the denial of China's sovereignty over Tibet. When the Chinese government rejected the British demand, the British blocked all the roads leading from India to Tibet.
In 1913 the British government inveigled the Tibetan authorities into declaring independence and proposed that "Britain be the weaponry supplier after total independence of Tibet;" "Tibet accept British envoys' supervision of Tibetan financial and military affairs in return for Britain's support of Tibetan independence;" "Britain be responsible for resisting the army of the Republic of China when it reaches Tibet;" "Tibet adopt an open policy and allow freedom of movement of the British." (Zhu Xiu: 60-Year Chronology of Tibet) However, Britain's schemes failed.
In 1913, taking advantage of the fact that Yuan Shikai, who had usurped the presidency of the Republic of China, was eager to get foreign diplomatic recognition and international loans, the British government forced the Beijing government to participate in a tripartite conference of China, Britain and Tibet, namely the Simla Conference held at the behest of the British government. Before the conference, Charles Bell political officer sent to Sikkim by the British-Indian government, privately met with Lon-chen Shatra, the representative of the Tibetan local government to the conference. Bell trumpeted to Lon-chen Shatra that "suzerainty" implied "independence." In his book Tibet: Past and Present, Bell wrote, "When I met Lon-chen Shatra in Gyantse, I advised him to bring down all the documents which he could collect bearing on the Tibetan relationship to China in the past, and on the former's claims to the various provinces and districts which had from time to time been occupied by China." Stirred up by the British, the Tibetan representative raised the slogan of "Tibetan independence" for the first time. He also claimed "Tibetan territory includes Qinghai, Litang, Batang and Dajianlu." When these demands were rejected by the representative of the Chinese government, the British delegate introduced the pre-arranged "compromise" scheme, which divided China's Tibetan-inhabited areas into "inner Tibet" and "outer Tibet." "Inner Tibet," including Tibetan-inhabited areas in Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces, would be under the jurisdiction of the Chinese government. With regard to "outer Tibet," including Tibet and west Xikang, the Chinese government was requested to "recognize the autonomy of outer Tibet" and "refrain from interfering in its internal affairs;" "however, China may still send its high commissioner to Lhasa and maintain an escort army of no more than 300 soldiers." The essence of this "compromise" scheme was to change China's sovereignty over Tibet into "suzerainty," and separate Tibet from the authority of the Chinese government under the pretext of "autonomy." Naturally these unreasonable demands were strongly opposed by the Chinese people. The agreement also refers to a map with the McMahon line drawn on it. This situation is the same as to the colonist's action to China in coastal area when Qing government was forced to give Hong Kong and open her ports(Treaty ports)after the Opium Wars.
On July 3, 1914, the Chinese government representative Chen Yifan upon instruction refused to sign the Simla Convention. In his statement, Chen said, "Government of China refuses to recognize any agreement which His Majesty's Government and Tibet might conclude independently either now or in the future." The Chinese government also sent a note to the British government, reiterating its position. Therefore, the conference broke down. After Beijing repudiated Simla, the British and Tibetan delegates attached a note denying China any privileges under the agreement and signed it as a bilateral accord.
McMahon line
In 1913-1914 representatives of China, Tibet and Britain negotiated a treaty in India: the Simla Accord. This treaty's objective was to define the borders between Inner and Outer Tibet as well as between Outer Tibet and British India. British administrator, Sir Henry McMahon, drew up the 550 miles (890 km) McMahon Line as the border between British India and Outer Tibet during the Simla Conference. The Tibetan and British representatives at the conference agreed to the line, which ceded Tawang and other Tibetan areas to the British Empire. The Chinese representative had no problems with the border between British India and Outer Tibet, however on the issue of the border between Outer Tibet and Inner Tibet the talks broke down. Thus, the Chinese representative refused to accept the agreement and walked out. The Tibetan Government and British Government went ahead with the Simla Agreement and declared that the benefits of other articles of this treaty would not be bestowed on China as long as it stays out of the purview. The Chinese position since then has been that since China had sovereignty over Tibet, the line was invalid without Chinese agreement. Furthermore, by refusing to sign the Simla documents, the Chinese Government had escaped according any recognition to the validity of the McMahon Line. (Note: A colonist attempt to divide Tibet to Inner Tibet, Outer Tibet, and South Tibet(within colonist's control; if it is not invasion , then what is this?)
The new government of the Republic of China would hold nominal power over the majority of Chinese territory for only four years before war broke out between numerous armed factions.
Indeed, the span of Chinese history from 1916 to 1938 came to be called the "Warlord Era," as the different military factions sought to fill the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Qing Dynasty. China would see near-continuous civil war up to the Communist victory in 1949, and this era of conflict was exacerbated by the Japanese Occupation and World War II (1910 - 1945). Under such circumstances, the Chinese was politically too weak and showed little interest in Tibet. There is no incident occurred during the period over border dispute under The McMahon Line. At the time in 1948, India gained independence from British.
In the 1950s, India-China relations were cordial and the boundary dispute quiet. The Indian government under Prime Minister Nehru promoted the slogan Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai. (India and China are brothers). In 1954, India renamed the disputed area the North East Frontier Agency.
The Prime Minister of India,Mr Jawaharlal Nehru in his letter dated 22-4-1957 to Prime Minister of Burma, Mr. U Nu, which he stated that " I entirely agree that the use of the word "McMahon Line" is not right and should be put an end to. It reminds one of British incursions and aggression. We are, therefore, not using these words any longer. Indeed, so far as we are concerned, we have maintained all along that our frontier with China, except for the two or three very minor matters, was a fixed and well known frontier and there was no dispute about it".
Occupation of Tibetan territory by China from the former Republic of China(civil war), climaxing in the flight of the Dalai Lama to India in March 1959, created a great deal of sympathy for Tibet in India and led Chinese leaders to suspect that Nehru had designs on the region. On August 1959, Chinese troops captured an Indian outpost at Longju, three miles south of the McMahon Line according to the Geonames database (National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.) In a letter to Nehru dated 24 October 1959, Zhou Enlai proposed that India and China each withdraw their forces 20 kilometers from the "line of actual control." Shortly afterward, Zhou defined this line as "the so-called McMahon Line in the east and the line up to which each side exercises actual control in the west".
In November 1961, Nehru adopted a "Forward Policy" of setting up military outposts in disputed areas, including 43 outposts north of Zhou's LAC. Chinese leader Mao Zedong, at this time weakened by the failure of the Great Leap Forward, saw war as a means of reasserting his authority. On 8 September 1962, a Chinese unit attacked an Indian post at Dhola on the Thagla Ridge, three kilometers north of the McMahon Line. On 20 October China launched a major attack across the McMahon as well as another attack further north. The Sino-Indian War which followed was a national humiliation for India, with China quickly gaining control of NEFA. The Soviet Union, the United States, and Great Britain all pledged military aid to the Indians. China then withdrew to the McMahon Line and repatriated the Indian prisoners of war (1963)
India renamed NEFA as Arunachal Pradesh in 1972. In 1987, Arunachal Pradesh become the state of Union of India. China may have won the war, but did not benefited as a war winner, India normalized the disputed border land as the province of India, and mass migration from other part of India to the dispute land.
The McMahon Line was drawn by a strong colonist country on the area which is owned(by Tibet under Qing Dynasty of an independent China)and claimed by a newly established republic (Republic of China, a change of government with the same nation) which was still at their initial stage of nation building with internal problems, and no military power. Union of India was not formed yet, it is still colony of British Empire. Can a colonist which occupied other people's land by force, represented the country to draw a line to determine the border for other country(without their consent)? Legally that country has no legal ownership if based on today's law. It was an invasion by a strong colonist with a draw of pen...... the British then left after independence granted to India in 1948, another time bomb ( border dispute) left for the new nations to tackle. The hidden agenda behind The McMahon Line drawn by British India(a Colonist), is clearly and obviously the Tibet in the north....
The claims of both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China to Tibet are based on the principle of "succession of states", as the Yuan and Qing Dynasties had exercised sovereignty over Tibet. Britain was the only country which held the view that China held suzerainty over Tibet but not full sovereignty, until 2008.
On October 29, 2008, David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary, announced that Britain would recognize Tibet as historically part of the People’s Republic of China, i.e. recognize Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. Before this, Britain had officially recognized the PRC's relationship with Tibet as suzerainty. Britain was the last country to recognize China's sovereignty due to its prior invasion of Tibet, this recognition would impact the legitimacy of India's claim to South Tibet. Describing the old position as an anachronism and a colonial legacy, Mr. David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, even apologized for Britain's not having done so earlier.
Tibetologist Robert Barnett thinks that the decision has wider implications. India’s claim to a part of its northeast territories, for example, is largely based on the same agreements — notes exchanged during the Simla Convention of 1914, which set the boundary (the McMahon Line) between India and Tibet.
The question is can the past mistake of British India over McMahon Line still valid under International Law? Can the border of Tibet revert to the original border before the dirty hand of the colonist drew the famous line.........it is still a legal and political mess. Will the late recognizance do justice and fairness to China, and the people of China, which still suffered from the past political mistake of Britain during the colonial days, and thereafter effect of political problem in Tibet?........
Note: The video is about travel in Lohit Valley, from Tezu to Walong, Kibithu and up to the last Indian village on McMahon line. This is offered as a "Sunrise Excursion" by Vivikanand Girijan Kalyan Kendra, Tezu. The view is that of the producer not the blogger. This is to let readers have a view of the area around McMahon Line, which is security sensitive area.
麦克马洪线
麦克马洪线（英文：McMahon Line）是一条由英国探险家为印度测量时划的一条位于英属印度和西藏的边界。其走向起自不丹和西藏交界处，大致沿分水岭和山脊线至云南独龙江东南的伊素拉希山口，将传统上西藏当局享有管辖权、税收权和放牧权的约9万平方公里领土（这是传统说法，但根据矢量地图的测量方法，这块地方的面积大约是6.7万平方公里）都划进印度去。英属印度政府和印度都声称这条边界就是正式疆界。中国政府不承认该线。
1913年10月13日，西藏、英国和中华民国中央政府的代表在西姆拉举行三方会谈。西藏的立场是要求承认和保证其完全完整的独立地位，中华民国中央政府则坚持西藏是中华民国领土不可分割的一部分，要求拥有西藏的外交和国防权利，以及一定程度的地方行政权利。英国则以划分外藏和内藏的方案进行调和，并据此达成了一个三方协议，但中华民国中央政府最终拒绝在协议上签字，并拒绝承认英藏双方签订的任何条约和协议，即所谓的“麦克马洪线”单方面将部分西藏领土划归印度。结果这次会议并没有任何成效，而中国亦一直没有承认过麦克马洪线，直至1940年代印度独立以及中华人民共和国成立，这个边境问题一直都是悬而未决。
中印边境战争是1962年6月或10月至11月间发生在中国和印度的藏南边境的战争。在中国被普遍称为中印边界自卫反击战，印度则称为瓦弄之战（Battle of Walong）. 中印边界全长约１７００公里，习惯上分为东、中、西三段：东段长约６５０公里，从中国、印度、缅甸三国交界处至中国、印度、不丹三国交界之处的底宛格里；中段，长约400公里，从西藏普兰县的中国、印度、尼泊尔三国交界处至札达县的６７９５高地；西段长约６５０公里，从札达县的６７９５高地至新疆的喀喇昆仑山口。整个边界从来没有正式划定过，但根据双方历史行政管辖所及，形成了一条传统习惯边界线，东段是沿喜马拉雅山脉南麓，中段是沿喜马拉雅山脉，西段是沿喀喇昆仑山脉。中印边境战争 的爆发不是偶然的，它有着深刻的历史根源和复杂的背景
冲突起因
中国与印度的边界约2000公里，分西、中、东三段。 到1951年前后，印军向北擴張取得麦克马洪线以南约9万平方公里领土。此外，在中段和西段，印度亦占得部分印中兩國爭議领土。1959年，印军越过双方实际控制线建立了43个据点。中国政府提出谈判解决边境问题，未得印度方面的接受。
中国观点
中国政府认为，“麦克马洪线”是英国人自己定的，任何时候的中国政府都没承认过，是西方肢解中国的一部分。就像英国在巴基斯坦和印度之间的所作所为一样。由于中方認為麦克马洪线是英国殖民政府强加於西藏南部的分界线，故拒絕承认“麦克马洪线”。并且直到1951年之前，印度政府也未公開承认麦克马洪线。因此，中國表示上述争议领土應該属於中国。
印度观点
1947年印度獨立后，印度认为他们有权利继承原來的英屬印度领土。因此，他们认为上述藏南地區属于印度。
國際觀點
美國、蘇聯在当时支持印度，並向印度提供武器、物資援助。
战争过程
1962年6月起，中方稱印军向中国边防軍开枪攻擊，死伤中国軍人數十人。10月20日印方稱中国军队攻击印度，战争開始。
1962年10月20日至28日是战争的第一阶段。在东段，中国西藏的边防軍暫時攻占了藏南和达旺地区；在西段，中国新疆边防軍驅除了37处据点的印軍。10月24日，中国政府发表声明，提出停止冲突、重开谈判、和平解决边界问题的三项建议。印度表示無法接受，宣布印北地區进入“紧急状态”，并在東線的藏南及達旺地區大力增援士兵。
11月16日至21日为战争的第二阶段。11月14日和16日，印军再次於中印边境發動进攻。在东线，中国西藏边防軍在东、西段對印军施以反击，至11月21日，中国西藏边防軍佔領了印军的16处据点。在西段，中国新疆边防軍則佔領了印军在班公洛地区的据点。由於印度軍隊在東線藏南、西線新疆失敗，印度朝野提議要求美國介入，當時印度總理賈瓦哈拉爾·尼赫魯（Jawaharlal Nehru）同意此說，向美國要求國際介入調停。1962年11月，美國介入並以物資支援印度軍隊。中國邊防軍宣佈停火，此後兩國即以麥克馬洪線為控制线，但爭議並未就此平息。
中國方面於11月22日零时起下令邊防軍全线停火。12月1日起，中国边防軍开始全线后撤至1959年11月7日中印双方实际控制线内，脱离双方军事接触，实际上未再控制西藏藏南和達旺地區，另外还依約将缴获的武器、军车和军用物资交还印方。1963年5月26日前释放和遣返战俘。
战争结果
* 中国方面：從1959年实际控制線上，再向北撤退20公里。
* 印度方面：印度官方將藏南和達旺納入版圖。
1979年2月鄧小平接見印度外長時指出：“中印兩國應該求同存異，世界問題可以通過友好協商，互諒互讓，公平合理地一攬子解決”。1987年印度議會通過法令，正式在“麥克馬洪線”之南建立“阿魯納恰爾邦”。至今印度已有多少移民屯居在藏南，数字不详。但是根据阿魯納恰爾邦总人口数约为两百万来估算，在藏南地区的印度移民约为近百万。然而因为阿魯納恰爾邦和藏南地区并不完全重合，所以中国以后如果再提出边境的问题，如何处理这些移民将有很大的困难。
觀點
西方記者馬克斯韋爾在《印度對華戰爭》（Neville Maxwell ，India's China War，London：Jonathan Cape Ltd.，1970）一書中寫道，「當中國軍隊取得重大勝利的時候，中國政府突然宣佈單方面無條件撤軍，這與其說讓全世界都鬆了一口氣，不如說是讓全世界都目瞪口呆。世界戰爭史上還從沒有過這樣的事情，勝利的一方在失敗者還沒有任何承諾的情況下，就單方面無條件撤軍，實際上也就是讓自己付出巨大代價來之不易的勝利成果化為烏有。」
解放軍作家金輝在《墨脫的誘惑》書中對那段歷史作了這樣結論，「勝利者和失敗者是十分明確的。但是，經過了近三十年之後，結合現在再來看那場戰爭及其結果，卻完全是另一種情況了——勝利者除了沒有失敗的名義，卻具備了失敗者的一切；失敗者除了沒有勝利的名義，卻得到了勝利者的一切。勝利者因為勝利的飄飄然，以至連對勝利成果的徹底喪失和巨大的屈辱都無動於衷。失敗者因為唯獨還沒有得到勝利者的虛名，所以一直在摩拳擦掌，發誓要報一箭之仇。也許這就是歷史的嘲弄，如果當年印度取得了勝利，那麼現在他們在這一地區肯定不會如此占盡便宜，如果當時中國在此地失敗，那麼現在反而大概不會這麼被動和可憐。」
藏南麦克马洪线现状
* 时至今日，不论是中华人民共和国政府,还是中华民国政府都坚持要恢复麦克马洪线以南的原来边界。
* 今日中印实际控制线与此线走向比较相近，但并不重合。
* 1987年印度议会通过法令，正式将“麦克马洪线”以南中印争议地区和印缅边界一些地区合并建立阿鲁纳恰尔邦，中印争议地区的面积占该邦总面积的80％。
* 由于印度政府强烈要求占领全部争议地区，结果由于这条边界引致1962年的中印战争。
* 至今，印度已有约30万的移民屯居在这个争议的边境上。中国以后如果再提出边境问题，如何处理这些移民将有颇大困难。
(source: wikipedia)
As for China-India relationship and their border dispute, we hoped that the spirit of the slogan Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai. (India and China are brothers), which is in line with the China's traditional philosophy of " all man within four seas are brothers" will continue to prevail, and a win-win strategy to resolve the political mess left by the colonist. During the ancient time, especially the silk route era, China and India have benefited from the trading and cultural exchange, there were respect for each others. The relationship changed only after the colonist come, which took away all the riches of the two nations. As both countries have suffered from the colonization, and should know the value of peace, the benefit of trade and economic development; go on with the economic growth for the benefits of their people. Let the spirit of silk route revive.......
.....and remember the spirit of nation building of Dr Sun Yat-sen and Mahatma Gandhi...and do not fall into the traps of the global political games......the colonist will always come in different forms, they died hard and mutates....
Related articles:
1. China angered by Dalai Lama's India visit, http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/200911/s2737150.htm( Do you believed it is only religion visit or is it political visit like Taiwan visit, to politically sensitive areas to boost his political image, a publicity tactic?)
2. Bordering on Danger, By MOHAN MALIK, http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-4422775/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5kZWZlbmNlZm9ydW0uaW4vZm9ydW0vY3VycmVudC1hZmZhaXJzLXBvbGl0aWNzLzYxNDEtYm9yZGVyaW5nLWRhbmdlci5odG1s
3. 共和国战争:1962中印边境冲突(1-13), youtubes.
4. 冷暖人生2009年10月13日A:老兵往事--喜马拉雅的枪声, youtubes
Sunday, November 8, 2009
North East India
North East India is the region in India which included the area known as Seven Sisters States, and Sikkim. The Seven Sisters States are the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura. The region had a population of 38.6 million in 2000, about 3.8 percent of India's total. There is great ethnic and religious diversity within the seven states. For most of their history, they were independent, and their complete integration with India came about only during the British Raj.
View Larger Map
Sikkim
Sikkim (सिक्किम),is a landlocked Indian state nestled in the Himalayas. It is the least populous state in India and the second-smallest in area after Goa. The thumb-shaped state borders Nepal in the west, the Tibet Autonomous Region of China to the north and the east and Bhutan in the southeast. The Indian state of West Bengal borders Sikkim to its south. Kangchenjunga, the world's third-highest peak, is located on the border of Sikkim with Nepal. Sikkim voted under a referendum to become 22nd state of India on 26-4-1975, and it was officially part of Indian on 16-5-1975.
Arunachal Pradesh
Arunachal Pradesh (अरुणाचल प्रदेश) is the easternmost state of India. Arunachal Pradesh borders with the Indian state of Assam to the south and Nagaland to the southeast. Burma/Myanmar lies towards the east, Bhutan towards the west, and its boundary with the People's Republic of China to the north is disputed and the McMahon Line is not recognised by the Chinese authorities. Itanagar is the capital of the state. Although Arunachal Pradesh is administered as an Indian State, the People's Republic of China (China) and the Republic of China (Taiwan) claim portions of the state as South Tibet.
View Larger Map
Maghalaya
Meghalaya is one of three states in India to have a Christian majority with 70.3% of the population practicing Christianity ; the other two (Nagaland and Mizoram) are also in the north-east of India. In 1971, the Parliament passed the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganization) Act, 1971, which conferred full statehood on the Autonomous State of Meghalaya. Meghalaya attained statehood on 21 January 1972, with a Legislative Assembly of its own.
Mizoram
Mizoram became the 23rd state of India on 20 February 1987. Its population at the 2001 census stood at 888,573. Mizoram ranks second in India with a literacy rate of 88.49%. Mizoram is almost entirely Christian. The church is an intimate and everyday part of Mizo culture and the Sunday School concept is actively followed by all ages. Some 87% of the population (including most ethnic Mizos) is Christian. The major Christian denominations are the Presbyterian
Nagaland
Statehood was officially granted in 1963 and the first state-level democratic elections were held in 1964. Christianity is the predominant religion of Nagaland. The census of 2001 recorded the state's Christian population at 1,790,349 (90.02% of the state's population), making it (with Meghalaya 64.58%and Mizoram85.73%) one of the three Christian-majority states in India, and the only state where Christians form 90% of the population. The state has a very high church attendance rate in both urban and rural areas. The largest of Asia's churches dominate the skylines of Kohima, Dimapur and Mokokchung. Among Christians, Baptists are the predominant group constituting more than 75% of the state's population.
Nagaland is known as "The most populated Baptist state in the world". The state's population is 1.988 million, out of which 90.02% are Christians. 75% of the state's population profess the Baptist faith, thus making it more Baptist than Mississippi (in the southern United States), where 52% of its population is Baptist
Tripura
It was formerly an independent Tripuri kingdom and was merged with independent India on 15 October 1949 by the Tripura Merger Agreement. It was also known as Hill Tippera (anglicized version of Tripura) during the British Raj period. The Bengali Ganamukti Parishad movement led to the integration of the kingdom with India in 1949 within Assam state. Hinduism is the majority religion in the state, with 85.6% of the population following the religion.Tripura is the second most populous state in North-East India, after Assam. Native Bengalis represent almost 70% of Tripura's population and the immigrant tribal populations represent the remaining 30%.
Tripura was heavily affected by the partition of India and the majority of the population are Hindu Bengalis. Tripura became a centrally administered Union Territory on July 1, 1963 and attained the status of a full-fledged state on January 21, 1972. Armed conflict in Tripura has been a problem since the end of the 1970s as an aftermath of Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Widespread insurgency and militancy in the state with groups such as the Tripura National Volunteers, the National Liberation Front of Tripura and the All Tripura Tiger Force of the Tripura tribals aiming to drive away the native Bengali people is the tripura tribal rebellion.
Manipur
Manipur came under British rule as a princely state in 1891. This ended the independent status of the Kingdom of Manipur, the last kingdom to be incorporated into British India. After the 2nd World War, the Manipur Constitution Act 1947, established a democratic form of government with the Maharaja as the Executive Head and an elected legislature. In 1949, Maharaja Bodhchandra was summoned to Shillong, capital of the then Indian province of Assam. The legislative assembly was dissolved on the CONTROVERSIAL annexation of the state with the republic of India in October 1949. Manipur was a union territory from 1956 and later became a full-fledged state in 1972.
There has been a separatist movement in Manipur since the early 1970s, with several groups engaged in violent action in order to achieve their goal, i.e. a sovereign Manipur. Special permission must also be obtained for those who wish to enter Manipur, as it is considered a "sensitive area" on account of its political troubles and geographical location.
The people of Manipur follow several faiths and religions which can be traced down to its unique historical past. Sanamahi is the main religion of the land. Manipur preserved this ancient indigenous religion rich in mythology and colorful in ritual, known in this part of the world as the Sanamahi. The Sanamahi worshiped is concentrated around the Sun God/Sanamahi. Early Manipuris were the devotees of a Supreme deity "Lainingthou Soralel" following the footprint of their Godly ancestors.
Assam
Assam became a part of India after the British occupied the region following the Treaty of Yandaboo of 1826. It become British province after 1838 and the Indian state after 1947,the state came to be known as Assam.It is famous for its Assam tea.
Siliguri Corridor or Chicken's Neck
North East India is connected to the rest of India by a narrow stretch of land , called The Siliguri Corridor or Chicken's Neck. This strip of land is only 21 to 40 km in width, with the countries of Nepal and Bangladesh lying on either side of the corridor. The Siliguri Corridor, has been the center of a regional controversy in Asia for more than 50 years. First recognized in 1947, the Siliguri Corridor is located in a region between India, Bangladesh and Nepal.
The city of Siliguri, which lies in the state of West Bengal, is the major city in this area. The city is the central node which connects Bhutan, Nepal, north-east India and mainland India.
The Siliguri Corridor was created in 1947 after the state of Bengal was partitioned between the Republic of India and Pakistan's former state of East Bengal, now independent Bangladesh. This strip was drawn on the map to allow India access to the state of Assam. Being a sensitive area amidst three countries, the strip is heavily patrolled by the Indian Army, the Assam Rifles, the Border Security Force and the West Bengal Police. In recent times the area has become the focus of illegal crossings between Bangladesh rebels and Nepali Maoist insurgents, both in search of refuge from their countrymen. A flourishing narcotics and weapons traffic also takes place in this region.
All land transportation between the rest of India and its far eastern states have to make use of this circuitous corridor as free trade between Bangladesh and India has yet to be made a reality. The route has a major broad gauge railway line in addition to the old metre gauge line which connects the north-eastern states with the rest of India. National Highway 31 connects Siliguri to Guwahati in Assam which is the most critical highway in the region, owing to the insurgents in the vicinity.
The Chicken’s Neck is heavily used by India to connect its eastern states. Because Bangladesh and Nepal do not have a border that connects them, the only area that separates the two countries is the Siliguri Corridor. Great efforts are being made to establish this diving stretch of land as a free trade zone, as free trade between Bangladesh and India has not been secured yet. Tensions are very high between India and Bangladesh, and the highway and railway that runs through the Siliguri Corridor is the only stable factor that keeps India from being independent of Bangladesh.
Siliguri Corridor has also been a known area for criminal activity. It is a popular area for rebels and insurgents to make illegal crossings and many people fleeing their dire situations take on the Siliguri Corridor in the hope to find a better life elsewhere. And together with illegal crossings, comes smuggling. It has been a hot spot for the smuggling of drugs and other narcotic substances and many weapons are also smuggled through this area.
In 2002, India, Nepal, Bhutan, and Bangladesh studied a proposal which would set a free trade zone in the area which would enable all four countries to connect directly with each other without restrictions.
Much of the region is notably ethnically and linguistically different from the rest of India. In the region several armed factions operate. Some groups call for a separate state, others for autonomy while some extreme groups demand nothing but complete independence.
The states have accused New Delhi of ignoring the issues concerning them. It is this feeling which has led the natives of these states to seek greater participation in self-governance. There are existing territorial disputes between Manipur and Nagaland.
There is a rise of insurgent activities and regional movements in the northeast, especially in the states of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Tripura. Most of these organizations demand independent state status or increased regional autonomy and sovereignty.
Regional tensions have eased off as of late, with Indian and state governments' concerted effort to raise the living standards of the people in these regions. However, militancy still exists within the region. Among the rebellions in the area are Tripura Rebellion and Assam Conflict.
Historically the North East India was a political mess left by colonist,they have clean their hands in 1948, their promises, their agreement, their treaty; all had been gone with the old colony, gone in history. It is now the burden of the new master(no more new now) to handle the problems... . Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh are two typical examples of how the British colonist handled a weak tribal nation and a weak big established nation, their strategies are in two completely different policies, used to their political advantage. As usual it left a global conflict area for the new nation to fight over it. They washed their hand and now focus on human right.....and forgot their past human right violation records in the area... and now all things are new to the colonist....that is politic. They forgot the people of North East India, the minorities, the weak ; they forgot to reinstate the Tibet border from their past mistake. They only remember McMahon Line, Tibet and Dalai Lama.....and indulged in the confused state of duality politic(sovereignty vs religion/human right) ....... a story of sour grape and hypocrisy.
Related articles:
1. Assam rebels 'arrested in Dhaka' ,By Subir Bhaumik, BBC News dated 5-11-2009, Calcutta
2. ULFA enforces shutdown in Assam, November 9th, 2009 - 10:51 am ICT by IANS
Read more: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/ulfa-enforces-shutdown-in-assam_100271903.html#ixzz0WMm7hyk8
3. China angered by Dalai Lama's India visit, http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/200911/s2737150.htm( Do you believed it is only religion visit or is it political visit like Taiwan visit, to politically sensitive areas to boost his political image, a publicity tactic?)
4. Bordering on Danger, By MOHAN MALIK, http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-4422775/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5kZWZlbmNlZm9ydW0uaW4vZm9ydW0vY3VycmVudC1hZmZhaXJzLXBvbGl0aWNzLzYxNDEtYm9yZGVyaW5nLWRhbmdlci5odG1s
View Larger Map
Sikkim
Sikkim (सिक्किम),is a landlocked Indian state nestled in the Himalayas. It is the least populous state in India and the second-smallest in area after Goa. The thumb-shaped state borders Nepal in the west, the Tibet Autonomous Region of China to the north and the east and Bhutan in the southeast. The Indian state of West Bengal borders Sikkim to its south. Kangchenjunga, the world's third-highest peak, is located on the border of Sikkim with Nepal. Sikkim voted under a referendum to become 22nd state of India on 26-4-1975, and it was officially part of Indian on 16-5-1975.
Arunachal Pradesh
Arunachal Pradesh (अरुणाचल प्रदेश) is the easternmost state of India. Arunachal Pradesh borders with the Indian state of Assam to the south and Nagaland to the southeast. Burma/Myanmar lies towards the east, Bhutan towards the west, and its boundary with the People's Republic of China to the north is disputed and the McMahon Line is not recognised by the Chinese authorities. Itanagar is the capital of the state. Although Arunachal Pradesh is administered as an Indian State, the People's Republic of China (China) and the Republic of China (Taiwan) claim portions of the state as South Tibet.
View Larger Map
Maghalaya
Meghalaya is one of three states in India to have a Christian majority with 70.3% of the population practicing Christianity ; the other two (Nagaland and Mizoram) are also in the north-east of India. In 1971, the Parliament passed the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganization) Act, 1971, which conferred full statehood on the Autonomous State of Meghalaya. Meghalaya attained statehood on 21 January 1972, with a Legislative Assembly of its own.
Mizoram
Mizoram became the 23rd state of India on 20 February 1987. Its population at the 2001 census stood at 888,573. Mizoram ranks second in India with a literacy rate of 88.49%. Mizoram is almost entirely Christian. The church is an intimate and everyday part of Mizo culture and the Sunday School concept is actively followed by all ages. Some 87% of the population (including most ethnic Mizos) is Christian. The major Christian denominations are the Presbyterian
Nagaland
Statehood was officially granted in 1963 and the first state-level democratic elections were held in 1964. Christianity is the predominant religion of Nagaland. The census of 2001 recorded the state's Christian population at 1,790,349 (90.02% of the state's population), making it (with Meghalaya 64.58%and Mizoram85.73%) one of the three Christian-majority states in India, and the only state where Christians form 90% of the population. The state has a very high church attendance rate in both urban and rural areas. The largest of Asia's churches dominate the skylines of Kohima, Dimapur and Mokokchung. Among Christians, Baptists are the predominant group constituting more than 75% of the state's population.
Nagaland is known as "The most populated Baptist state in the world". The state's population is 1.988 million, out of which 90.02% are Christians. 75% of the state's population profess the Baptist faith, thus making it more Baptist than Mississippi (in the southern United States), where 52% of its population is Baptist
Tripura
It was formerly an independent Tripuri kingdom and was merged with independent India on 15 October 1949 by the Tripura Merger Agreement. It was also known as Hill Tippera (anglicized version of Tripura) during the British Raj period. The Bengali Ganamukti Parishad movement led to the integration of the kingdom with India in 1949 within Assam state. Hinduism is the majority religion in the state, with 85.6% of the population following the religion.Tripura is the second most populous state in North-East India, after Assam. Native Bengalis represent almost 70% of Tripura's population and the immigrant tribal populations represent the remaining 30%.
Tripura was heavily affected by the partition of India and the majority of the population are Hindu Bengalis. Tripura became a centrally administered Union Territory on July 1, 1963 and attained the status of a full-fledged state on January 21, 1972. Armed conflict in Tripura has been a problem since the end of the 1970s as an aftermath of Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Widespread insurgency and militancy in the state with groups such as the Tripura National Volunteers, the National Liberation Front of Tripura and the All Tripura Tiger Force of the Tripura tribals aiming to drive away the native Bengali people is the tripura tribal rebellion.
Manipur
Manipur came under British rule as a princely state in 1891. This ended the independent status of the Kingdom of Manipur, the last kingdom to be incorporated into British India. After the 2nd World War, the Manipur Constitution Act 1947, established a democratic form of government with the Maharaja as the Executive Head and an elected legislature. In 1949, Maharaja Bodhchandra was summoned to Shillong, capital of the then Indian province of Assam. The legislative assembly was dissolved on the CONTROVERSIAL annexation of the state with the republic of India in October 1949. Manipur was a union territory from 1956 and later became a full-fledged state in 1972.
There has been a separatist movement in Manipur since the early 1970s, with several groups engaged in violent action in order to achieve their goal, i.e. a sovereign Manipur. Special permission must also be obtained for those who wish to enter Manipur, as it is considered a "sensitive area" on account of its political troubles and geographical location.
The people of Manipur follow several faiths and religions which can be traced down to its unique historical past. Sanamahi is the main religion of the land. Manipur preserved this ancient indigenous religion rich in mythology and colorful in ritual, known in this part of the world as the Sanamahi. The Sanamahi worshiped is concentrated around the Sun God/Sanamahi. Early Manipuris were the devotees of a Supreme deity "Lainingthou Soralel" following the footprint of their Godly ancestors.
Assam
Assam became a part of India after the British occupied the region following the Treaty of Yandaboo of 1826. It become British province after 1838 and the Indian state after 1947,the state came to be known as Assam.It is famous for its Assam tea.
Siliguri Corridor or Chicken's Neck
North East India is connected to the rest of India by a narrow stretch of land , called The Siliguri Corridor or Chicken's Neck. This strip of land is only 21 to 40 km in width, with the countries of Nepal and Bangladesh lying on either side of the corridor. The Siliguri Corridor, has been the center of a regional controversy in Asia for more than 50 years. First recognized in 1947, the Siliguri Corridor is located in a region between India, Bangladesh and Nepal.
The city of Siliguri, which lies in the state of West Bengal, is the major city in this area. The city is the central node which connects Bhutan, Nepal, north-east India and mainland India.
The Siliguri Corridor was created in 1947 after the state of Bengal was partitioned between the Republic of India and Pakistan's former state of East Bengal, now independent Bangladesh. This strip was drawn on the map to allow India access to the state of Assam. Being a sensitive area amidst three countries, the strip is heavily patrolled by the Indian Army, the Assam Rifles, the Border Security Force and the West Bengal Police. In recent times the area has become the focus of illegal crossings between Bangladesh rebels and Nepali Maoist insurgents, both in search of refuge from their countrymen. A flourishing narcotics and weapons traffic also takes place in this region.
All land transportation between the rest of India and its far eastern states have to make use of this circuitous corridor as free trade between Bangladesh and India has yet to be made a reality. The route has a major broad gauge railway line in addition to the old metre gauge line which connects the north-eastern states with the rest of India. National Highway 31 connects Siliguri to Guwahati in Assam which is the most critical highway in the region, owing to the insurgents in the vicinity.
The Chicken’s Neck is heavily used by India to connect its eastern states. Because Bangladesh and Nepal do not have a border that connects them, the only area that separates the two countries is the Siliguri Corridor. Great efforts are being made to establish this diving stretch of land as a free trade zone, as free trade between Bangladesh and India has not been secured yet. Tensions are very high between India and Bangladesh, and the highway and railway that runs through the Siliguri Corridor is the only stable factor that keeps India from being independent of Bangladesh.
Siliguri Corridor has also been a known area for criminal activity. It is a popular area for rebels and insurgents to make illegal crossings and many people fleeing their dire situations take on the Siliguri Corridor in the hope to find a better life elsewhere. And together with illegal crossings, comes smuggling. It has been a hot spot for the smuggling of drugs and other narcotic substances and many weapons are also smuggled through this area.
In 2002, India, Nepal, Bhutan, and Bangladesh studied a proposal which would set a free trade zone in the area which would enable all four countries to connect directly with each other without restrictions.
Much of the region is notably ethnically and linguistically different from the rest of India. In the region several armed factions operate. Some groups call for a separate state, others for autonomy while some extreme groups demand nothing but complete independence.
The states have accused New Delhi of ignoring the issues concerning them. It is this feeling which has led the natives of these states to seek greater participation in self-governance. There are existing territorial disputes between Manipur and Nagaland.
There is a rise of insurgent activities and regional movements in the northeast, especially in the states of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Tripura. Most of these organizations demand independent state status or increased regional autonomy and sovereignty.
Regional tensions have eased off as of late, with Indian and state governments' concerted effort to raise the living standards of the people in these regions. However, militancy still exists within the region. Among the rebellions in the area are Tripura Rebellion and Assam Conflict.
Historically the North East India was a political mess left by colonist,they have clean their hands in 1948, their promises, their agreement, their treaty; all had been gone with the old colony, gone in history. It is now the burden of the new master(no more new now) to handle the problems... . Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh are two typical examples of how the British colonist handled a weak tribal nation and a weak big established nation, their strategies are in two completely different policies, used to their political advantage. As usual it left a global conflict area for the new nation to fight over it. They washed their hand and now focus on human right.....and forgot their past human right violation records in the area... and now all things are new to the colonist....that is politic. They forgot the people of North East India, the minorities, the weak ; they forgot to reinstate the Tibet border from their past mistake. They only remember McMahon Line, Tibet and Dalai Lama.....and indulged in the confused state of duality politic(sovereignty vs religion/human right) ....... a story of sour grape and hypocrisy.
Related articles:
1. Assam rebels 'arrested in Dhaka' ,By Subir Bhaumik, BBC News dated 5-11-2009, Calcutta
2. ULFA enforces shutdown in Assam, November 9th, 2009 - 10:51 am ICT by IANS
Read more: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/ulfa-enforces-shutdown-in-assam_100271903.html#ixzz0WMm7hyk8
3. China angered by Dalai Lama's India visit, http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/200911/s2737150.htm( Do you believed it is only religion visit or is it political visit like Taiwan visit, to politically sensitive areas to boost his political image, a publicity tactic?)
4. Bordering on Danger, By MOHAN MALIK, http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-4422775/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5kZWZlbmNlZm9ydW0uaW4vZm9ydW0vY3VycmVudC1hZmZhaXJzLXBvbGl0aWNzLzYxNDEtYm9yZGVyaW5nLWRhbmdlci5odG1s
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Data base on Nagas
Websites
http://www.indoburmanews.net/archives-1/2008/june_08/2018a-step-by-step-transformation-of-the-indo-naga-burma-naga-conflict2019/
hhttp://www.unpo.org/content/view/634/131/ttp://www.myanmar-explore.com/eng/destinations/naga/index.html
http://www.irrawaddymedia.com/article.php?art_id=4048&page=2or Human Rights in Nagaland.
The Naga International Support Center(NISC)'s official website: http://www.nagalim.nl/
Alan Macfarlane, Cambridge University dean of Naga Research. http://alanmacfarlane.com/
Naga Database. http://alanmacfarlane.com/FILES/nagas.html
http://www.myanmar-explore.com/eng/destinations/naga/index.html
BOOKS
1. The Nagas of Burma(2006), by JD Saul, published by Orchid Press
2. The Hidden World of the Naga: Living Traditions in Northeast India and Burma(2003), by Aglaja Stirn and Peter Van Ham, published by Prestel Publishing
3. Nagas' rights to self determination: an anthropological-historical perspective(2005), by Reisang Vashum, published by Mittal Publications,
http://www.indoburmanews.net/archives-1/2008/june_08/2018a-step-by-step-transformation-of-the-indo-naga-burma-naga-conflict2019/
hhttp://www.unpo.org/content/view/634/131/ttp://www.myanmar-explore.com/eng/destinations/naga/index.html
http://www.irrawaddymedia.com/article.php?art_id=4048&page=2or Human Rights in Nagaland.
The Naga International Support Center(NISC)'s official website: http://www.nagalim.nl/
Alan Macfarlane, Cambridge University dean of Naga Research. http://alanmacfarlane.com/
Naga Database. http://alanmacfarlane.com/FILES/nagas.html
http://www.myanmar-explore.com/eng/destinations/naga/index.html
BOOKS
1. The Nagas of Burma(2006), by JD Saul, published by Orchid Press
2. The Hidden World of the Naga: Living Traditions in Northeast India and Burma(2003), by Aglaja Stirn and Peter Van Ham, published by Prestel Publishing
3. Nagas' rights to self determination: an anthropological-historical perspective(2005), by Reisang Vashum, published by Mittal Publications,
Indo-Naga-Burma-Naga Conflict
History
During the colonial times of India and Burma by the British Empire the Naga people fought the British troops for more than 40 years before they made a peace agreement. After the independence of India (1947) and Burma (1948) one part of Nagaland was annex to India and a smaller part to Burma. for many years the Naga people had fought the British because they felt they were a country and race of their own. India and Burma always felt that the Nagaland was Part of them.
After the Independence boundaries were made under English supervision, the Naga people felt very dishonored and many of them fought the Indian and Burmese Government on a guerilla warfare. In the earlier years of the guerilla warfare the Naga people caused heavy losses to the Indian Army, as the Indian Army was not very experience against the Naga hill people. But over the years the Indian Army learned a lot from the Naga hill people jungle guerilla warfare and has driven most of its pocket resistance groups into the dense, thick mountain jungles. General Mowu Gwizan was telling me how the old people and children suffer from malnutrition in the mountain jungles. The General himself was caught and put in jail four times by the Indian Government and once by the Burmese. He said he almost lost his life during his jail time in India but in the Burmese jail he was treated much better. At any time he will be caught by the Indian Government his life will be in jeopardy. Most of the Naga people, I was told, were Christians and don't like to be under Indian or Burmese Government ruling. What most disturbed me about General Gwizan's story was that the Russian KGB was heavily infiltrating among the people in that part of the world. Many young Naga men were sent to Russia for communist training. Here we have a country with a Christian population, divided and governed by two non-Christian countries, against the peoples' will, and heavily infiltrated by the communist world. Here was General Gwizan sent by his people to beg the Western world for help in their struggles for Independence and yet he wasn't able to see anybody at the State Department.
( extract from a chapter on General Mowu Gwizan from Nagaland, book from Fifty Years of My Life (1939 - 1990): A Memoir by Jeff R. Noordermeer)
‘A Step-By-Step Transformation of the Indo-Naga-Burma-Naga Conflict’by indoadmin — last modified 2009-04-23 20:09
June 3, 2008: (Morung Express) In South and South East Asian geographical locations, conflict involving India, Burma and Nagas is one of the world’s longest running yet least known conflicts that need to seek a step-by-step transformation informed by the principles of human rights, peace + justice & truth, equality, liberty and freedom.
The conflict is political in nature which does not require much deliberation in its entirety. It is sufficed to say that the conflict takes a true political meaning in the context of the Nagas as a Nation, aspiration for their right to self-determination- self-determination internally and externally.
A nation is a group of people having collective political aspiration unlike an ethnic group. An ethnic group is defined and determined more by the cultural aspects of life. Unlike an ethnic group, the Nagas as a group of people is certainly a nation in the sense that they have a collective political aspiration for self-determination.
Historically and contemporarily speaking, the Naga nationalists have not accepted the Indian and Burmese identities as they have refused to consent to any political maneuvering of the colonial and post-colonial states’ definitions and determinations of people’s identities.
The Nagas have stated their political vision to the colonial British before they left the Indian sub-continent. Also, the claims of Indian and Burmese identities upon the Naga people have already been refuted and rejected by the Nagas since the 1950s. The sincere request of the Nagas to India, Burma and international community is to recognize and upheld the Naga political identity.
However, the Naga political identity assertion is met with brute forces of the Indian and Burmese states. The inter-nations conflict or the identity conflict has taken a heavy toll of the Naga civilian lives. This deep-rooted identity conflict is yet to get transformation although; the parties have tried several times in the past.
The reasons for the failures are due to the fact that the mechanisms and models employed by the Indian state in the past were rather traditional in methods and adhoc in nature. The Indian Government has tried its best to manage the Indo-Naga conflict through constitutional means, counter-insurgency tactics and developmental packages.
But all these measures have not been successful because those thought-to-be a good solution were half-baked, incomprehensive, exclusive, out-of- political in context and content, traditional in methods and adhoc in nature. This adhoc measures were applied to divide the Naga people and their struggle for political identity.
For example, the Indian state of Nagaland was created to crush the Naga National Movement for Sovereignty. Indeed, creation of Nagaland state has greatly weakened the Nagas’ spirit of nationalism among the Naga people.
The Nagaland state is the first backdoor channel through which the Indian state has started eating the vital of the Nagas’ struggle of the right to self-determination from within which many among the Nagas may not know and agree. In fact, creation of Nagaland state was an incomplete process of unification.
The deeper question now is, are we fighting Political Sovereignty for the Indian Nagaland state or Nagas’ Land/Nagas’ Lim as a whole inclusive of the Nagas of both India and Burma? This is the challenge placed before all the Nagas. If we can get a correct answer to the above question, then we may proceed with ‘A Step-By-Step Transformation of the Indo-Naga-Burma-Naga Conflict’.
In a way, the people can fight for a political sovereignty only for the territory limited to Indian Nagaland state. Achieving Political Sovereignty or not for such a small territory is another question. However, historically and politically speaking, the Nagas struggle for Political Freedom is not of that case but of for all the Nagas of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur and Nagaland states on Indian side and Nagas of Burma as a whole.
It means Indian Nagaland state was born like a child without completing 9 months period to be a full born baby in the process of Nagas struggle for Political Sovereignty.
The analogy implies that the Indian Nagaland state could not in any case meet the political aspiration of the Nagas as the Nagas have hardly aspired for such temporary measures which satisfy small sections of the Naga people. It is pertinent to mention here that the Nagas are not temporary glory-hunters. Now, it should be cleared that we are not fighting for a Political sovereignty only for a territory limited to Indian Nagaland state which means that the Nagas are fighting for a Political Sovereignty of all Naga territories on both the Indian and Burmese sides.
However, a political solution to these conflicts could not be achieved in one go. Instead, any political solution has to be in the form of ‘A Step-By-Step Transformation’. The reason is simple and pure. As far as efforts for conflict transformation is concerned, the Nagas have been engaging with the Indian Government alone for a long time.
Political negotiations are taking place between Indian Government and the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN) of both the factions. And yet, no concrete political formula has been suggested or proposed by the Indian Government that will be able to meet the aspiration of the Nagas.
It is to be noted that the political talks are taking place only on the Indian side. It is understandable that the present Indian leadership have no guts to recognize and accept the issue of Naga Sovereignty.
It has been observed that the Indian Government will surely talk in terms of solving the conflict by granting autonomy within the Indian constitution which is not different from the past exercises. It is certain that the Indian Government will always insist on solving the political issue through constitutional mechanism even in the future. We have failed to see sincerity and honesty from the Indian Government. Indian Government is dilly-dallying the peace process by making this or that excuse.
The Indian Government policy of peace talks with the Nagas has to be read carefully. The deeper intension of the Indian Government is none other than to crush the Naga National Movement as a whole. It will employ multi-prong policies to achieve this target.
Though ceasefire has been declared between the Indian state and the Nagas, counter-insurgency tactics is also at the same time executed against the Naga Army. During the present ceasefire, more than 200 Naga nationalists including civilians have been killed by the Indian Security forces.
Another more dangerous policy of divide and rule policy of the Indian state is to pit one group against another so that Nagas kill among themselves. Such fratricidal killing is the result of the systematic game plan and machination of the Indian state which must be watched carefully.
Though the gun fighting between Indian security forces and the Naga Army has reduced to some certain extent, it is not the case among the Naga groups. What caused this killing among the Nagas? Is it because of the love for the Naga nation? The answer is a big ‘NO’. The killing among the Nagas is simply committed which is instigated by those individuals among the so-called Naga national workers who do not have a correct political perspective.
Why should the killing be encouraged within the Naga family? In all the political struggles in the world rivalries always exist but rivalries must have political connotation and maturity that will pave the way for constructive and creative engagement.
This is not the case with the Nagas in the present context. Killings are taking place because of those individuals who are power-mongering with selfish interest and political motive. The killings are born out of hatred, jealousy and lack of clear political wisdom and vision.
It can not be ruled out of connivance between those individuals who instigates these killings and the Indian state machineries who are there to sabotage the Naga people’s struggle for human rights.
These killings among the Nagas will have far-reaching negative implications for the future of the Naga National Movement. Indian Government, obviously, is having the last laugh. The Nagas must realize that fighting among themselves is not serving their own interest. Instead, it serves the interest of the Indian state. Such killing only strengthens the hands of the real or perceived enemies. The Nagas must realize this fact before it is too late.
It is high time that Nagas forgive one another and reconcile for the cause of the future Naga nation. Because, reconciling among the Nagas is the deepest desire and hope in the minds and hearts of every Naga. We must protect our unique identity that has been embedded in us, and safeguard the land- Naga Homeland- we have occupied since time immemorial.
The Nagas must put their heads together how best they govern themselves. Cooperation and solidarity is the need of the hour. Importantly, “Interactive Dialogue” across the table should be initiated for all sections of the Nagas by the Nagas themselves if they have to save the cause.
Let all sections of the Naga society respect the differences of opinions we all have. Let us bury the past and create a new vista for the sake of our future generations to come. The Nagas know the best for themselves what should be their future.
The Naga people shall be the only people who can save the Nagas cause. No other force on earth can shatter the dreams of the Nagas except the Nagas themselves. Shall we allow ourselves the 60 years old struggle going down to the drain? No, we must not allow this thing to happen at any cost.
Let us encourage one another for good things to happen for us. Though, many camps are there among the Nagas, in the final analysis, we are all belonging to the same family- the Naga family. Let us help among ourselves to revive the spirit of oneness and brotherhood of being God’s children.
The crisis within the Naga family and the deliberate policy of divide and rule of the Indian state have not helped in strengthening the hands of the Naga negotiators in this peace process. All Nagas need to do something to overcome the internal Naga family conflict and crisis. We must find an alternative to the present situation of unease and tension just for the sake of Naga people’s struggle for their political identity.
We ourselves have to find the alternative because there will be no other people who will like the Nagas to be united and strong. The only alternative to the present internal fighting among the Nagas is none other than refining the future political vision of the Naga people.
Refinement can come only when we ourselves have a conceptual clarity of the Naga National Identity and uncontaminated political ideology of the Naga National Movement. The confusion and problem among the Nagas arises due to lack of political wisdom to differentiate which are Indian ideologies and which is Naga Political Ideology.
This lack of clear understanding of various ideologies is one of the main stumbling blocks to the process of Naga integration politically, culturally and territorially. This is the reason why the Nagas are insecure and apprehensive.
This lack of clear political perspective is responsible for misidentifying who are the real enemies and friends of the Nagas. Its time the Nagas learn to appreciate this shortcomings and misidentifications.
Once the Nagas are sure of who they are and what they want, I personally think that political solution and unity is already theirs. And when the Nagas are clear of their political vision, then, who can stop them to achieve it.
Now, coming back to ‘A Step-By-Step Transformation of the Conflict, all sections of Naga people should support and cooperate to the Naga negotiators. If all Nagas, irrespective of this or that groups, are collectively and wholeheartedly supporting the negotiators in words and action we can be certainly optimistic and positive that our aspiration can be clinched with India successfully.
The present peace talk with the Indian Government is not going to completely end the conflict involving India, Burma and Nagas. However, it is important that a political solution is arrived at with the Indian Government as a first step towards the further steps. Any future political solution that is being sought between India and the Nagas is not like a kind of centre-state federal relations in India.
It’s a different kind of relationship which is greater and bigger than the centre-state relations in India. And this is an opportune time the Nagas and Indian Government reach certain concrete political agreement. For the Nagas, something has to be got during this peace process for further course of its action.
A political solution between India and the Nagas on the Indian side would necessarily be sought through the integration of all Naga areas of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur and Nagaland states. Recognition of the Naga National Identity is an essential ingredient of such a solution. The Naga should have their own Army, Police, Judiciary System, and Monetary Policy while there is a need for sharing of decision-making power in the fields of External Affairs, Defence and Communications between India and the Nagas.
The present peace talks are carried out between two entities. Once a political solution is arrived at between India and the Nagas incorporating the abovementioned points for future relationship, there is a need for peace talks between the Burmese Government and the Naga people for further steps in transforming the conflicts. In this case also all Nagas must wholeheartedly and collectively support the Nagas’ negotiators so that a political solution is effectuated.
Once Burma-Naga solution is found, then, there is a need for tripartite talks among the Indian Government, Burmese Government and the Naga people for complete transformation of the conflict. The talks will mainly cover the issue of integrating the Naga territories in India and Burma in which a new Government for all the Nagas is sought to be formed.
It will be essential to discuss the status of the Nagas in the UN and other international foras. Certainly, the intervention of the UN will be highly necessary in such future peace talks. The basic point is that, in completing the transformation of the conflict, the Nagas as a nation should have the right to determine their future and destiny in equal terms with the rest of nations.
From Indo-Burma News. http://www.indoburmanews.net/archives-1/2008/june_08/2018a-step-by-step-transformation-of-the-indo-naga-burma-naga-conflict2019/
Naga Struggle Against Tyranny
By Kekhrie Yhome/Nagaland
JUNE, 2004 - VOLUME 12 NO.6
The Naga, sandwiched between Burma and India, have had a tough lot.
If geo-politics and geo-strategy can be labeled academically as “frontiers”, then the military and political histories and realities of South Asia’s oldest insurgency—by the fiercely independent Naga of India and Burma—definitely have a long way to go.
The Naga ethnic minority of almost four million people inhabit a 48,000 square mile contiguous frontier area of Burma, China and India.
They have a long history of asserting their rights—as long ago as the mid-19th century they were contesting British colonial interests in oil and mineral resources, tea, timber and control of south-to-east Asian trade routes. Since the late 1940s their struggle has been directed at Burmese and Indian “neo-colonialism”—a struggle that has cost around 200,000 Naga lives in five decades of conflict. It’s a struggle that cries out for international support.
For 19th century Western anthropologists and explorers, the Naga were wild, savage headhunters. In today’s tourist parlance, the Naga comprise one of the last tribes in Asia to be discovered, an exotic people who speak a Tibeto-Burman derived language and renowned for their proud sense of independence, integrity and community spirit.
History left them divided between arbitrarily drawn political boundaries: the 1826 Treaty of Peace at Yandaboo, the Pemberton Line of 1934, the Government of Burma Act of 1935 and the 1978 Indo-Burma Border Agreement.
In India, the Naga occupy Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, and Nagaland. In Burma, 17 Naga tribes are found in Sagaing Division.
In the early 1990s, the Indian government organized the nomadic Kuki tribes in an armed campaign against the Naga, during which the Naga lost control of Moreh, one of their important centers. Another setback came with the signing of the India-Myanmar Border Trade Agreement in January 1995, which led to the creation of a formal trading center at the Moreh-Tamu border point. The hoped-for boost to trade between India and Burma, a consequence of the “look East policy”, is likely soon to have severe consequences if the Indian government and Indian traders try to control the markets and routes in Naga territories.
Successive ceasefire agreements between India and the Naga (the most recent one in 2001), at least gave hope of a let-up in military confrontations, despite several incidents resulting in Naga deaths and arrests.
The ceasefires were accompanied by political talks, which produced their own series of setbacks. In July 1999 the chief Indian negotiator, Swaraj Kushal, resigned, accusing the Indian Prime Minister of breaking his word. Six months later, the NSCN negotiator, Thuingaleng Muivah, was arrested and imprisoned in Thailand.
In January 2003, again a free man, Muivah headed the first official visit to New Delhi by the NSCN, and promised the Naga there would be no question of compromise on the issue of sovereignty.
Much skepticism remains, however, and even the Naga negotiating position has come in for criticism in neutral circles. A leading human rights advocate has said neither the Indian government nor the Naga had shown the “vision” necessary to break the deadlock. Successive changes of government in New Delhi also don’t help the negotiating process, despite the latest pledge by the newly-elected Indian administration that political talks with the Naga will continue.
Skepticism within the Naga community arises from many broken Indian promises and failed policies. The Naga cite such enduring draconian laws as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958, which allows even a non-commissioned officer to shoot and kill on mere suspicion. The controversial law was extended in July 2003 to cover all Naga areas, which were loosely designated as “disturbed”.
Hopes for movement in the negotiating process did, however harden with the replacement in 2003 of the Indian-backed puppet administration by a “people’s government”. The NSCN-IM has undoubtedly emerged as the most important Naga movement, both politically and militarily—its power reinforced by the reorganization of the Naga army into four political groups. On the so-called Eastern front, three Naga villages in northern Sagaing Division were destroyed in 2001 following attacks by the Burma Army and Indian paramilitary forces on a NSCN headquarters. About 3,000 of the region’s half million Naga inhabitants fled across the frontier.
In order to document and highlight such incidents and the general plight of the Naga inhabitants of Burma, a Naga Youth Organization of Burma was established in New Delhi this year.
Further attention to the Naga situation in Burma is likely as a result of the affiliation of the Eastern Naga Students Association (Burma) by the Naga Students Federation, the most powerful central Naga student body.
For now, however, the thrust of the Naga sovereignty struggle is concentrated chiefly on the ongoing political talks with the Indian government.
Said a senior military strategist of the NSCN: “Once the western frontier comes to an understanding, the energy of the Naga struggle can be redirected towards the Burmese front.” The close relationship that has developed recently between Burma and India, especially in trade and military matters, is a major calculation in the Naga approach to developments.
It is to be hoped that the consistency of the Naga struggle and their logistical links with many “military groups” in India and Burma has induced New Delhi to re-think its northeastern boundaries. Certainly, for those Naga soldiers in the jungle, it has been a long struggle.
Kekhrie Yhome works with the Policy Initiatives Division of the Naga Peoples Movement
http://www.irrawaddymedia.com/article.php?art_id=4048&page=2or Human Rights in Nagaland.
NAGA HISTORY: chronology of recent events
Prepared by Luingam Luithui and Frans Welman
1820-21 Drawing attention:
The Ava (Burmese) Kingdom occupied three Hindu kingdoms, Ahom, Cachar (they now form part of Assam) and Manipur (Imphal Valley, “…The valley of Munnipore occupies nearly the center. It is called by the Munniporees, Meithei-leipak”, Maj. W. McCulloch, 1859. “Meithei-leipak” means” Manipuri-land”) in the neighborhood of Nagaland/Nagalim, with mass slaughter and slave taking. Naga villages sheltered thousands of Manipuris for over five years.
1820-31 British arrival:
British India drove out the Burmese from Ahom and Cachar. Under the Treaty of Yandabo, Burma relinquished all her claims over these kingdoms and withdrew to the Irrawady Plains. While Assam and Cachar were made part of the Bengal Presidency, Manipur was listed among the ‘Princely Indian States’ of British colony. Britain developed a vague concept of their sphere of interests over the lands of the Nagas, Chins, Akhas, Daflas, Kashis,… lands that lay beyond the borders of the kingdoms of Ahom, Cachar, Manipur, Burma and China. The limits of this “sphere of interests” described as “the presumptive Indo-Burma frontier which… has never been defined let alone demarcated” by L.A.C. Fry Foreign Office, London, 7th March 1950 in a confidential report. However, it became the basis of drawing international boundary lines passing through the lands of the Nagas and the others when British departed from South Asia. With abundant supply of arms from the British, Manipuris began to intrude into Nagalim to loot and destroy villages
1832 British India began direct invasion of Nagalim.
1840-5 Introduction of W. McCulloch’s Policy Planting Kuki Settlements on “exposed frontiers”, arming Kuki nomads with guns to destroy Naga villages.
1845 - 80 Invasion of Nagalim: British India, with abundant manpower supply from their Hindu allies, repeatedly invaded villages in Nagalim.
British took control of a substantial number of Naga villages covering approximately a third of Nagalim and attached them to Assam and Manipur. However, British Nagaland remained under the Foreign Department of Colonial India throughout the British rule. Neither the Provincial Assembly of Assam nor Durbar of the Indian Princely State of Manipur had authority over Nagaland. The Traditional Naga Village Council continued as the only legitimate/representative authority throughout Nagaland. This was in recognition of the fundamental differences underlying the social and cultural practices between Hindu and Naga societies, differences being the Naga of communal egalitarian social structure in sharp contrast to the stratified caste system of Hindu society.
1892 British Political Agent replaced the Manipuri King as the President of Manipur Durbar, marking the beginning of direct control of Manipur by Britain. However, the Naga-areas in Manipur, referred to as “tribal areas”, remained excluded from the control of the Durbar. “Manipur State, of course, has its own tribal areas excluded from the administration of the Durbar, and most of these tribes would prefer not to come under the direct control of the Durbar as yet”, reported F.C. Bourne, Governor of Assam, 6th June 1946.
1921 The Indian Home Rule Act, 1919, classified the Naga areas in Assam as “Backward Areas” of Naga Hills district and remained outside the purview of the Assam Provincial Assembly set up under the said Act
1929 January 10, 1929, the Naga Club, in a memorandum told the British Indian Statutory Commission, called “The Simon Commission”, which the Nagas would not join India when the British departed, they should be left to live on their own, independent of others, as they were before the colonization.
1935 The Government of India Act 1935 declared the Naga Hills (“Backward Areas”) as an “Excluded Area”, meaning outside the purview of Assam Province. The Act divided the British colony in the sub-continent into “British India” and “British Burma”.
1946 To work out terms of relationship once the British withdraw: The first all Naga political organizations, the Naga National Council (NNC), were set up. As part of the arrangement for the transfer of power, Britain brought the Dominion Government of India and the Naga National Council [NNC] to work out their terms of relationship once the British withdraw.
1947 On February 20, 1947 NNC submitted a proposal for Interim Government in Nagalim with India as the Guardian Power for ten years. On 26th June 1947, the Interim Government of India and the NNC reached The Nine Points Agreement. The Agreement envisaged a Protected State in Nagalim under NNC with India as the Guardian Power for ten years at the end of which NNC will be asked to renew or to make a new agreement.
Gandhiji declared…Nagas had every right to be independent of India: The Indian Constituent Assembly, through a process of mental acrobatics, arrived at the conclusion, that the Nine Points Agreement was merely ‘district autonomy within the Indian Constitution’ and began preparations to occupy Nagalim by force. When this was brought to Gandhiji’s attention on 19 July 1947, Gandhiji declared that the Nagas had every right to be independent of India if they choose to do so. Further, he declared that he would oppose with his life if India decides to take Nagalim by force.
Nagalim declared Independent: NCC announced its decision to declare Nagalim “independent” on 14 August 1947and communicated it to UNO, Britain, the Interim Government of India, and the Commonwealth Relations Office. As the newly independent India adopted a belligerent attitude toward the declaration of independence by the Nagas, Britain decided to adopt a policy of “wait and see”.
1948 Indian police in Manipur made summery arrest and detention of many Nagas including Daiho Mao, a prominent elder, who were peacefully blockading an entry point to Nagaland from India. The police repression was justified on false claims of facing ‘incitement by Communist agitators, or the danger of Burmese Communist infiltrating Assam,’ and India used the occasion to build up its military on the Assam-Nagaland border to invade Nagalim. “…With regard to Calcutta Weekly Report No.34…about the unrest among the Nagas and the danger of Burmese Communist infiltrating Assam, Sir Akbar Hydari arrived in Delhi recently and press for release of new military equipment to forces in the Assam area”.
1951 May 16, 1951 Plebiscite: Condemning NNC as “the voice of the misguided”, India imprisoned many more Naga elders without trial. Undeterred, Nagas continued their protest and asked India to ascertain the decision of the majority of the people in a plebiscite. India rejected it. NNC notified India; they decided to conduct the plebiscite on 16 May 1951 to clear any possible doubt. The result of the plebiscite, as admitted by B.N. Mullik, the then Chief of the Indian Intelligence set up, was 99.9% for Naga independence and none for joining India.
India refused to respect the out come of the Plebiscite. Instead, India sought to destroy by force the material and spiritual basis of the Naga peoples' independence and imposed military rule over Nagalim from 1955. NNC set up the Federal Government of Nagaland in March 1956 with a military wing to drive out the Indian forces. In the next three months Naga army drove out the Indian forces from Nagalim barring a few points. India brought in more than a hundred thousand troops in re-enforcement and occupied Nagalim. The occupation army rounded up ten of thousands of Nagas in 59 concentration camps where many perished from water contamination and lack of food.
1952 Boycotted Indian elections: In 1952 with heavy military presence, the first Indian general election was imposed on the Nagas. I spite of the military threat, Nagas successfully boycotted the election.
1953 Indian Prime minister, Nehru brought the Burmese Prime minister, U Nu to Kohima and began the process of dividing Nagalim between the two countries. Human right abuses committed by Indian armed forces became rampant as they “searched the villages” for NNC elders who were by then branded “secessionists”.
1956 Nagas organized to drive oust Indian forces: NNC set up the Federal Government of Nagaland on 22 March with a military wing. India placed “Naga Hills district in Assam” under the Military rule on 2 April. Within fours of its formation, Naga Army drove out Indian forces from Nagalim barring a few points. India brought in large re-enforcement. Before the year end, there was “nearly one security troop for every adult male Naga in the Naga Hills”, says B.N. Mullik.
1958 Indian Parliament passes the Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958 – a re-incarnation of the much dreaded Armed Force Special Powers Ordinance 1942 of the era. The Act provides the Indian Armed forces legal immunity to “shoot to Kill” on mere suspicion, to enter, search, arrest and detain without. Having destroyed most the Naga villages and killed close to one hundred thousand Nagas, and rounded up thousands in 59 concentration camps built across the Naga Hills, India announced “amnesty” and asked NNC to accept “administrative autonomy”. Though reeling from the impact of massive destruction of life and means of subsistence, Nagas rejected it.
1960 In an attempt to divide Nagas, India conferred statehood (the existing State of Nagaland) on a small portion of Nagaland under its Foreign Ministry.
1963 The Indian State admitted to the aerial bombing of suspected guerrilla locations, of “Strategic hamletting” and “groupings” in which villages are forcibly relocated.
1964 Cease-fire and political negotiation: At the intervention of Bertrand Russell and Rev. Michael Scott [an old friend of Gandhiji] in 1964 India agreed to a cease-fire for peace talks. After several rounds of unproductive talks in 1966, Mr. R. Suissa, a member of the Tatar Hoho (member of Parliament of the Naga Nation), forwarded a proposal to the NCC which he had thoroughly discussed with the Prime Minister of India Mrs. Indira Gandhi. In the succeeding round of talk of Mrs. Gandhi, the Indian Prime Minister, conveyed her willingness to negotiate a Bhutan type status for Nagalim as a separate entity. But NNC rejected the offer and the talks broke off without result in 1967.
1967 Some leaders left the Federal Government of Nagaland and formed the “Revolution Military Government” with Indian support. It got dissolved in less than two years time and their members became Indian employees.
1972 The international boundary between India and Burma was officially drawn. In doing so they divided the Naga people between two nations. In some cases that border runs through villages and houses. NNC and its government were declared as “Unlawful”. The affairs of Nagaland State” was transferred from the Ministry of External Affairs to the Ministry of Home Affairs in an effort to project the Naga struggle for political rights as a “law and order problem”.
1975 India imposed the Shillong Accord on some of the Federal Government leaders. The Accord states that the Nagas leaders accept the Indian Constitution on their volition, will hand over their arms, and will formulate Naga problem for discussion in future. A people suffering from war exhaustion greeted the Shillong Accord with silent contempt. The National Assembly convened by the General Secretary of NNC, Th. Muivah 15-17 August 1976 at Suphao (in Eastern Naga Hills-Burma) rejected it as “the work of traitors”. However, NNC President, A.Z. Phizo and several other NNC elders, kept silent. This enabled the opportunist elements to join the surrendered leaders to organize, in collaboration with India, a vigilante force, in various names, like NNC, or Federal Army, or Peoples Militia of Nagaland,…The ground was left wide open for a bloody showdown between these forces and the National Resistance Forces.
1978 August 30 military coup was staged by a section of the Naga Army that was backed the Shillong accordists. All leaders of the NNC who did not support the Shillong Accord were taken captive by the military. All the office of the NNC and Federal Government of Nagaland were usurped by the pro -Shillong Accord military regime.
1979 After a number of fierce encounters with the traitors, the patriots took over the offices of the NNC and Federal Government. However, by recruiting various anti-socials, the remnance of Shillong Accord claimed to represent. They do this until today.
Khaplang then President of the Federal Government of Nagaland through the military coup denounced the organization and joined the patriotic forces leading to the merger of Eastern Nagaland (in Burma) and Western Nagaland (in India) at Nokpa village on the 30th January.
On September 9, the Naga Peoples Movement for Human Rights was formed in response to the long felt need of the Naga people to “Organize opposition” to the gross violations of human rights perpetuated by the Indian State.
1980 Raising a new National Resistance Organization. After the failure of the leadership of the NNC to carry on the Naga peoples struggle for self-determination, the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN) was formed. Under the leadership of Isak Chishi Swu, Khaplang and Th. Muivah, respectively as Chairman, Vice Chairman and General Secretary of the NSCN. They formed a new Government, the Government of the Peoples Republic of Nagalim, GPRN.
1988 Division in NSCN: With NSCN at the leadership, National Movement once again regained respect and support of the people. But NSCN Vice President, SS. Khaplang came in for grave charges relating to his financial handling and moral behavior. As news of his staying away from NSCN Council meetings became known, Choumai, Commander of the Kachin Army, encouraged Khaplang to take over NSCN. With large supply of arms from India received through Choumai, Khaplang attacked the NSCN Council Headquarters on 30 April and killed more than sixty on the spot. He appointed himself the Chairman of NSCN. In the weeks that followed, Khaplang’s followers in coordination with the Indian Army and the Burmese Army killed more than one hundred members of the national movement.
Following the abortive coup, Khaplang’s group has been armed, financed and sheltered by the Indian agents and the Nagaland State Government under its Chief Minister, S.C.Jamir.
1997 Peace-talk: Isak and Muivah led NSCN (NSCN-IM) quickly recovered from the shock. From year 1990, India’s forces, both military and political, suffered heavy losses. It helped India’s leaders to realize that military cannot solve the problem. India began to consider non-military options and in 1995 invited NSCN to begin political negotiation at the highest without conditions at a mutually agreed third country. After two years of behind the scene preparations, they announced on 25 July 1997 their decision to enter into a “cease-fire agreement” effective from 1st August 1997to pave way for political negotiations.
(1995 Meeting between the Naga representatives Isak Chishi Swu and Th. Muivah and the Prime Minister of India, Narasimha Rao at Paris in June. Preliminary talks on a prospective peace process. India’s Prime Minister’s met again with Isak Chishi Swu and Th. Muivah in September in New York, USA.
1997 Meeting between Deve Gowda, Prime minister of India and Isak Chishi Swu and Th. Muivah at Zurich in February. Continuing the preliminary peace talk process. Talks included proposition on a cease fire. March 4, prime Minister of India announced in the Parliament, his Government’s decision to enter into peace negotiation with the NSCN.
1997 The Indian Government and the NSCN on July 25 announced the Cease-fire to begin “UNCONDITIONAL PEACE-TALKS” stating:” That there be a total suspension of armed conflict between the two sides for three months, beginning on 1 August 1997”
1998 The Prime minister of India appoints the former governor of Mizoram Mr. Swaraj Khaushal as interlocutor for the talks. India’s team led by Prime Minister Vajpajee met the top leaders of the NSCN, Isak Swu, Khudao Yanthan and Th. Muivah in Amsterdam, the Netherlands
The negotiations encountered innumerable difficulties. However, both sides have emerged stronger from the many ups and downs and on 11 July 2002 the Government of India in a Joint Communiqué with the NSCN, recognized the unique history and situation of the Nagas. The Government of India also renewed the invitation of the Prime Minister to the leaders of the NSCN to come to India to expedite the peace dialogue.
To strengthen the peace-process the Nagas held three major consultation meetings. The first national consultation lasting three weeks was held in Dimapur, Nagalim in 1999. People from all walks of life took part in this consultation on the invitation of the NSCN. Two more consultations were held in Bangkok Thailand in 2002.The national consultations expressed full confidence in the NSCN leading the Naga nation in the peace-talks.
Alongside the national consultations, Nagas have also launched National Reconciliation Process for healing within the society. They have also initiated dialogue with of other communities in their neighborhood and the general public in India.
Related articles:
1. India: Threat from Nagaland(1968), http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,902255,00.html
2. Nagalim: Unbearable life in Myanmar and unwelcome in India(2004), UNPO,http://www.unpo.org/content/view/634/131/
3. Naga History: Chronology of Events from NISC(2002), http://www.manipuronline.com/Manipur/December2002/nagachronology2002.htm
4.Nagaland's Rainbow In Asia's Darkness (16th - 20th Century)(2003), by Kaka D. Iralu, http://www.manipuronline.com/opinions/September2003/nagalandrainbow07_1.htm
5. The National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Khaplang (NSCN-K), Harvard University and the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, NSAG(“non-state armed groups”)Project, http://www.armed-groups.org/6/section.aspx/ViewGroup?id=71
6. http://www.nagalimvoice.com/
During the colonial times of India and Burma by the British Empire the Naga people fought the British troops for more than 40 years before they made a peace agreement. After the independence of India (1947) and Burma (1948) one part of Nagaland was annex to India and a smaller part to Burma. for many years the Naga people had fought the British because they felt they were a country and race of their own. India and Burma always felt that the Nagaland was Part of them.
After the Independence boundaries were made under English supervision, the Naga people felt very dishonored and many of them fought the Indian and Burmese Government on a guerilla warfare. In the earlier years of the guerilla warfare the Naga people caused heavy losses to the Indian Army, as the Indian Army was not very experience against the Naga hill people. But over the years the Indian Army learned a lot from the Naga hill people jungle guerilla warfare and has driven most of its pocket resistance groups into the dense, thick mountain jungles. General Mowu Gwizan was telling me how the old people and children suffer from malnutrition in the mountain jungles. The General himself was caught and put in jail four times by the Indian Government and once by the Burmese. He said he almost lost his life during his jail time in India but in the Burmese jail he was treated much better. At any time he will be caught by the Indian Government his life will be in jeopardy. Most of the Naga people, I was told, were Christians and don't like to be under Indian or Burmese Government ruling. What most disturbed me about General Gwizan's story was that the Russian KGB was heavily infiltrating among the people in that part of the world. Many young Naga men were sent to Russia for communist training. Here we have a country with a Christian population, divided and governed by two non-Christian countries, against the peoples' will, and heavily infiltrated by the communist world. Here was General Gwizan sent by his people to beg the Western world for help in their struggles for Independence and yet he wasn't able to see anybody at the State Department.
( extract from a chapter on General Mowu Gwizan from Nagaland, book from Fifty Years of My Life (1939 - 1990): A Memoir by Jeff R. Noordermeer)
‘A Step-By-Step Transformation of the Indo-Naga-Burma-Naga Conflict’by indoadmin — last modified 2009-04-23 20:09
June 3, 2008: (Morung Express) In South and South East Asian geographical locations, conflict involving India, Burma and Nagas is one of the world’s longest running yet least known conflicts that need to seek a step-by-step transformation informed by the principles of human rights, peace + justice & truth, equality, liberty and freedom.
The conflict is political in nature which does not require much deliberation in its entirety. It is sufficed to say that the conflict takes a true political meaning in the context of the Nagas as a Nation, aspiration for their right to self-determination- self-determination internally and externally.
A nation is a group of people having collective political aspiration unlike an ethnic group. An ethnic group is defined and determined more by the cultural aspects of life. Unlike an ethnic group, the Nagas as a group of people is certainly a nation in the sense that they have a collective political aspiration for self-determination.
Historically and contemporarily speaking, the Naga nationalists have not accepted the Indian and Burmese identities as they have refused to consent to any political maneuvering of the colonial and post-colonial states’ definitions and determinations of people’s identities.
The Nagas have stated their political vision to the colonial British before they left the Indian sub-continent. Also, the claims of Indian and Burmese identities upon the Naga people have already been refuted and rejected by the Nagas since the 1950s. The sincere request of the Nagas to India, Burma and international community is to recognize and upheld the Naga political identity.
However, the Naga political identity assertion is met with brute forces of the Indian and Burmese states. The inter-nations conflict or the identity conflict has taken a heavy toll of the Naga civilian lives. This deep-rooted identity conflict is yet to get transformation although; the parties have tried several times in the past.
The reasons for the failures are due to the fact that the mechanisms and models employed by the Indian state in the past were rather traditional in methods and adhoc in nature. The Indian Government has tried its best to manage the Indo-Naga conflict through constitutional means, counter-insurgency tactics and developmental packages.
But all these measures have not been successful because those thought-to-be a good solution were half-baked, incomprehensive, exclusive, out-of- political in context and content, traditional in methods and adhoc in nature. This adhoc measures were applied to divide the Naga people and their struggle for political identity.
For example, the Indian state of Nagaland was created to crush the Naga National Movement for Sovereignty. Indeed, creation of Nagaland state has greatly weakened the Nagas’ spirit of nationalism among the Naga people.
The Nagaland state is the first backdoor channel through which the Indian state has started eating the vital of the Nagas’ struggle of the right to self-determination from within which many among the Nagas may not know and agree. In fact, creation of Nagaland state was an incomplete process of unification.
The deeper question now is, are we fighting Political Sovereignty for the Indian Nagaland state or Nagas’ Land/Nagas’ Lim as a whole inclusive of the Nagas of both India and Burma? This is the challenge placed before all the Nagas. If we can get a correct answer to the above question, then we may proceed with ‘A Step-By-Step Transformation of the Indo-Naga-Burma-Naga Conflict’.
In a way, the people can fight for a political sovereignty only for the territory limited to Indian Nagaland state. Achieving Political Sovereignty or not for such a small territory is another question. However, historically and politically speaking, the Nagas struggle for Political Freedom is not of that case but of for all the Nagas of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur and Nagaland states on Indian side and Nagas of Burma as a whole.
It means Indian Nagaland state was born like a child without completing 9 months period to be a full born baby in the process of Nagas struggle for Political Sovereignty.
The analogy implies that the Indian Nagaland state could not in any case meet the political aspiration of the Nagas as the Nagas have hardly aspired for such temporary measures which satisfy small sections of the Naga people. It is pertinent to mention here that the Nagas are not temporary glory-hunters. Now, it should be cleared that we are not fighting for a Political sovereignty only for a territory limited to Indian Nagaland state which means that the Nagas are fighting for a Political Sovereignty of all Naga territories on both the Indian and Burmese sides.
However, a political solution to these conflicts could not be achieved in one go. Instead, any political solution has to be in the form of ‘A Step-By-Step Transformation’. The reason is simple and pure. As far as efforts for conflict transformation is concerned, the Nagas have been engaging with the Indian Government alone for a long time.
Political negotiations are taking place between Indian Government and the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN) of both the factions. And yet, no concrete political formula has been suggested or proposed by the Indian Government that will be able to meet the aspiration of the Nagas.
It is to be noted that the political talks are taking place only on the Indian side. It is understandable that the present Indian leadership have no guts to recognize and accept the issue of Naga Sovereignty.
It has been observed that the Indian Government will surely talk in terms of solving the conflict by granting autonomy within the Indian constitution which is not different from the past exercises. It is certain that the Indian Government will always insist on solving the political issue through constitutional mechanism even in the future. We have failed to see sincerity and honesty from the Indian Government. Indian Government is dilly-dallying the peace process by making this or that excuse.
The Indian Government policy of peace talks with the Nagas has to be read carefully. The deeper intension of the Indian Government is none other than to crush the Naga National Movement as a whole. It will employ multi-prong policies to achieve this target.
Though ceasefire has been declared between the Indian state and the Nagas, counter-insurgency tactics is also at the same time executed against the Naga Army. During the present ceasefire, more than 200 Naga nationalists including civilians have been killed by the Indian Security forces.
Another more dangerous policy of divide and rule policy of the Indian state is to pit one group against another so that Nagas kill among themselves. Such fratricidal killing is the result of the systematic game plan and machination of the Indian state which must be watched carefully.
Though the gun fighting between Indian security forces and the Naga Army has reduced to some certain extent, it is not the case among the Naga groups. What caused this killing among the Nagas? Is it because of the love for the Naga nation? The answer is a big ‘NO’. The killing among the Nagas is simply committed which is instigated by those individuals among the so-called Naga national workers who do not have a correct political perspective.
Why should the killing be encouraged within the Naga family? In all the political struggles in the world rivalries always exist but rivalries must have political connotation and maturity that will pave the way for constructive and creative engagement.
This is not the case with the Nagas in the present context. Killings are taking place because of those individuals who are power-mongering with selfish interest and political motive. The killings are born out of hatred, jealousy and lack of clear political wisdom and vision.
It can not be ruled out of connivance between those individuals who instigates these killings and the Indian state machineries who are there to sabotage the Naga people’s struggle for human rights.
These killings among the Nagas will have far-reaching negative implications for the future of the Naga National Movement. Indian Government, obviously, is having the last laugh. The Nagas must realize that fighting among themselves is not serving their own interest. Instead, it serves the interest of the Indian state. Such killing only strengthens the hands of the real or perceived enemies. The Nagas must realize this fact before it is too late.
It is high time that Nagas forgive one another and reconcile for the cause of the future Naga nation. Because, reconciling among the Nagas is the deepest desire and hope in the minds and hearts of every Naga. We must protect our unique identity that has been embedded in us, and safeguard the land- Naga Homeland- we have occupied since time immemorial.
The Nagas must put their heads together how best they govern themselves. Cooperation and solidarity is the need of the hour. Importantly, “Interactive Dialogue” across the table should be initiated for all sections of the Nagas by the Nagas themselves if they have to save the cause.
Let all sections of the Naga society respect the differences of opinions we all have. Let us bury the past and create a new vista for the sake of our future generations to come. The Nagas know the best for themselves what should be their future.
The Naga people shall be the only people who can save the Nagas cause. No other force on earth can shatter the dreams of the Nagas except the Nagas themselves. Shall we allow ourselves the 60 years old struggle going down to the drain? No, we must not allow this thing to happen at any cost.
Let us encourage one another for good things to happen for us. Though, many camps are there among the Nagas, in the final analysis, we are all belonging to the same family- the Naga family. Let us help among ourselves to revive the spirit of oneness and brotherhood of being God’s children.
The crisis within the Naga family and the deliberate policy of divide and rule of the Indian state have not helped in strengthening the hands of the Naga negotiators in this peace process. All Nagas need to do something to overcome the internal Naga family conflict and crisis. We must find an alternative to the present situation of unease and tension just for the sake of Naga people’s struggle for their political identity.
We ourselves have to find the alternative because there will be no other people who will like the Nagas to be united and strong. The only alternative to the present internal fighting among the Nagas is none other than refining the future political vision of the Naga people.
Refinement can come only when we ourselves have a conceptual clarity of the Naga National Identity and uncontaminated political ideology of the Naga National Movement. The confusion and problem among the Nagas arises due to lack of political wisdom to differentiate which are Indian ideologies and which is Naga Political Ideology.
This lack of clear understanding of various ideologies is one of the main stumbling blocks to the process of Naga integration politically, culturally and territorially. This is the reason why the Nagas are insecure and apprehensive.
This lack of clear political perspective is responsible for misidentifying who are the real enemies and friends of the Nagas. Its time the Nagas learn to appreciate this shortcomings and misidentifications.
Once the Nagas are sure of who they are and what they want, I personally think that political solution and unity is already theirs. And when the Nagas are clear of their political vision, then, who can stop them to achieve it.
Now, coming back to ‘A Step-By-Step Transformation of the Conflict, all sections of Naga people should support and cooperate to the Naga negotiators. If all Nagas, irrespective of this or that groups, are collectively and wholeheartedly supporting the negotiators in words and action we can be certainly optimistic and positive that our aspiration can be clinched with India successfully.
The present peace talk with the Indian Government is not going to completely end the conflict involving India, Burma and Nagas. However, it is important that a political solution is arrived at with the Indian Government as a first step towards the further steps. Any future political solution that is being sought between India and the Nagas is not like a kind of centre-state federal relations in India.
It’s a different kind of relationship which is greater and bigger than the centre-state relations in India. And this is an opportune time the Nagas and Indian Government reach certain concrete political agreement. For the Nagas, something has to be got during this peace process for further course of its action.
A political solution between India and the Nagas on the Indian side would necessarily be sought through the integration of all Naga areas of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur and Nagaland states. Recognition of the Naga National Identity is an essential ingredient of such a solution. The Naga should have their own Army, Police, Judiciary System, and Monetary Policy while there is a need for sharing of decision-making power in the fields of External Affairs, Defence and Communications between India and the Nagas.
The present peace talks are carried out between two entities. Once a political solution is arrived at between India and the Nagas incorporating the abovementioned points for future relationship, there is a need for peace talks between the Burmese Government and the Naga people for further steps in transforming the conflicts. In this case also all Nagas must wholeheartedly and collectively support the Nagas’ negotiators so that a political solution is effectuated.
Once Burma-Naga solution is found, then, there is a need for tripartite talks among the Indian Government, Burmese Government and the Naga people for complete transformation of the conflict. The talks will mainly cover the issue of integrating the Naga territories in India and Burma in which a new Government for all the Nagas is sought to be formed.
It will be essential to discuss the status of the Nagas in the UN and other international foras. Certainly, the intervention of the UN will be highly necessary in such future peace talks. The basic point is that, in completing the transformation of the conflict, the Nagas as a nation should have the right to determine their future and destiny in equal terms with the rest of nations.
From Indo-Burma News. http://www.indoburmanews.net/archives-1/2008/june_08/2018a-step-by-step-transformation-of-the-indo-naga-burma-naga-conflict2019/
Naga Struggle Against Tyranny
By Kekhrie Yhome/Nagaland
JUNE, 2004 - VOLUME 12 NO.6
The Naga, sandwiched between Burma and India, have had a tough lot.
If geo-politics and geo-strategy can be labeled academically as “frontiers”, then the military and political histories and realities of South Asia’s oldest insurgency—by the fiercely independent Naga of India and Burma—definitely have a long way to go.
The Naga ethnic minority of almost four million people inhabit a 48,000 square mile contiguous frontier area of Burma, China and India.
They have a long history of asserting their rights—as long ago as the mid-19th century they were contesting British colonial interests in oil and mineral resources, tea, timber and control of south-to-east Asian trade routes. Since the late 1940s their struggle has been directed at Burmese and Indian “neo-colonialism”—a struggle that has cost around 200,000 Naga lives in five decades of conflict. It’s a struggle that cries out for international support.
For 19th century Western anthropologists and explorers, the Naga were wild, savage headhunters. In today’s tourist parlance, the Naga comprise one of the last tribes in Asia to be discovered, an exotic people who speak a Tibeto-Burman derived language and renowned for their proud sense of independence, integrity and community spirit.
History left them divided between arbitrarily drawn political boundaries: the 1826 Treaty of Peace at Yandaboo, the Pemberton Line of 1934, the Government of Burma Act of 1935 and the 1978 Indo-Burma Border Agreement.
In India, the Naga occupy Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, and Nagaland. In Burma, 17 Naga tribes are found in Sagaing Division.
In the early 1990s, the Indian government organized the nomadic Kuki tribes in an armed campaign against the Naga, during which the Naga lost control of Moreh, one of their important centers. Another setback came with the signing of the India-Myanmar Border Trade Agreement in January 1995, which led to the creation of a formal trading center at the Moreh-Tamu border point. The hoped-for boost to trade between India and Burma, a consequence of the “look East policy”, is likely soon to have severe consequences if the Indian government and Indian traders try to control the markets and routes in Naga territories.
Successive ceasefire agreements between India and the Naga (the most recent one in 2001), at least gave hope of a let-up in military confrontations, despite several incidents resulting in Naga deaths and arrests.
The ceasefires were accompanied by political talks, which produced their own series of setbacks. In July 1999 the chief Indian negotiator, Swaraj Kushal, resigned, accusing the Indian Prime Minister of breaking his word. Six months later, the NSCN negotiator, Thuingaleng Muivah, was arrested and imprisoned in Thailand.
In January 2003, again a free man, Muivah headed the first official visit to New Delhi by the NSCN, and promised the Naga there would be no question of compromise on the issue of sovereignty.
Much skepticism remains, however, and even the Naga negotiating position has come in for criticism in neutral circles. A leading human rights advocate has said neither the Indian government nor the Naga had shown the “vision” necessary to break the deadlock. Successive changes of government in New Delhi also don’t help the negotiating process, despite the latest pledge by the newly-elected Indian administration that political talks with the Naga will continue.
Skepticism within the Naga community arises from many broken Indian promises and failed policies. The Naga cite such enduring draconian laws as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958, which allows even a non-commissioned officer to shoot and kill on mere suspicion. The controversial law was extended in July 2003 to cover all Naga areas, which were loosely designated as “disturbed”.
Hopes for movement in the negotiating process did, however harden with the replacement in 2003 of the Indian-backed puppet administration by a “people’s government”. The NSCN-IM has undoubtedly emerged as the most important Naga movement, both politically and militarily—its power reinforced by the reorganization of the Naga army into four political groups. On the so-called Eastern front, three Naga villages in northern Sagaing Division were destroyed in 2001 following attacks by the Burma Army and Indian paramilitary forces on a NSCN headquarters. About 3,000 of the region’s half million Naga inhabitants fled across the frontier.
In order to document and highlight such incidents and the general plight of the Naga inhabitants of Burma, a Naga Youth Organization of Burma was established in New Delhi this year.
Further attention to the Naga situation in Burma is likely as a result of the affiliation of the Eastern Naga Students Association (Burma) by the Naga Students Federation, the most powerful central Naga student body.
For now, however, the thrust of the Naga sovereignty struggle is concentrated chiefly on the ongoing political talks with the Indian government.
Said a senior military strategist of the NSCN: “Once the western frontier comes to an understanding, the energy of the Naga struggle can be redirected towards the Burmese front.” The close relationship that has developed recently between Burma and India, especially in trade and military matters, is a major calculation in the Naga approach to developments.
It is to be hoped that the consistency of the Naga struggle and their logistical links with many “military groups” in India and Burma has induced New Delhi to re-think its northeastern boundaries. Certainly, for those Naga soldiers in the jungle, it has been a long struggle.
Kekhrie Yhome works with the Policy Initiatives Division of the Naga Peoples Movement
http://www.irrawaddymedia.com/article.php?art_id=4048&page=2or Human Rights in Nagaland.
NAGA HISTORY: chronology of recent events
Prepared by Luingam Luithui and Frans Welman
1820-21 Drawing attention:
The Ava (Burmese) Kingdom occupied three Hindu kingdoms, Ahom, Cachar (they now form part of Assam) and Manipur (Imphal Valley, “…The valley of Munnipore occupies nearly the center. It is called by the Munniporees, Meithei-leipak”, Maj. W. McCulloch, 1859. “Meithei-leipak” means” Manipuri-land”) in the neighborhood of Nagaland/Nagalim, with mass slaughter and slave taking. Naga villages sheltered thousands of Manipuris for over five years.
1820-31 British arrival:
British India drove out the Burmese from Ahom and Cachar. Under the Treaty of Yandabo, Burma relinquished all her claims over these kingdoms and withdrew to the Irrawady Plains. While Assam and Cachar were made part of the Bengal Presidency, Manipur was listed among the ‘Princely Indian States’ of British colony. Britain developed a vague concept of their sphere of interests over the lands of the Nagas, Chins, Akhas, Daflas, Kashis,… lands that lay beyond the borders of the kingdoms of Ahom, Cachar, Manipur, Burma and China. The limits of this “sphere of interests” described as “the presumptive Indo-Burma frontier which… has never been defined let alone demarcated” by L.A.C. Fry Foreign Office, London, 7th March 1950 in a confidential report. However, it became the basis of drawing international boundary lines passing through the lands of the Nagas and the others when British departed from South Asia. With abundant supply of arms from the British, Manipuris began to intrude into Nagalim to loot and destroy villages
1832 British India began direct invasion of Nagalim.
1840-5 Introduction of W. McCulloch’s Policy Planting Kuki Settlements on “exposed frontiers”, arming Kuki nomads with guns to destroy Naga villages.
1845 - 80 Invasion of Nagalim: British India, with abundant manpower supply from their Hindu allies, repeatedly invaded villages in Nagalim.
British took control of a substantial number of Naga villages covering approximately a third of Nagalim and attached them to Assam and Manipur. However, British Nagaland remained under the Foreign Department of Colonial India throughout the British rule. Neither the Provincial Assembly of Assam nor Durbar of the Indian Princely State of Manipur had authority over Nagaland. The Traditional Naga Village Council continued as the only legitimate/representative authority throughout Nagaland. This was in recognition of the fundamental differences underlying the social and cultural practices between Hindu and Naga societies, differences being the Naga of communal egalitarian social structure in sharp contrast to the stratified caste system of Hindu society.
1892 British Political Agent replaced the Manipuri King as the President of Manipur Durbar, marking the beginning of direct control of Manipur by Britain. However, the Naga-areas in Manipur, referred to as “tribal areas”, remained excluded from the control of the Durbar. “Manipur State, of course, has its own tribal areas excluded from the administration of the Durbar, and most of these tribes would prefer not to come under the direct control of the Durbar as yet”, reported F.C. Bourne, Governor of Assam, 6th June 1946.
1921 The Indian Home Rule Act, 1919, classified the Naga areas in Assam as “Backward Areas” of Naga Hills district and remained outside the purview of the Assam Provincial Assembly set up under the said Act
1929 January 10, 1929, the Naga Club, in a memorandum told the British Indian Statutory Commission, called “The Simon Commission”, which the Nagas would not join India when the British departed, they should be left to live on their own, independent of others, as they were before the colonization.
1935 The Government of India Act 1935 declared the Naga Hills (“Backward Areas”) as an “Excluded Area”, meaning outside the purview of Assam Province. The Act divided the British colony in the sub-continent into “British India” and “British Burma”.
1946 To work out terms of relationship once the British withdraw: The first all Naga political organizations, the Naga National Council (NNC), were set up. As part of the arrangement for the transfer of power, Britain brought the Dominion Government of India and the Naga National Council [NNC] to work out their terms of relationship once the British withdraw.
1947 On February 20, 1947 NNC submitted a proposal for Interim Government in Nagalim with India as the Guardian Power for ten years. On 26th June 1947, the Interim Government of India and the NNC reached The Nine Points Agreement. The Agreement envisaged a Protected State in Nagalim under NNC with India as the Guardian Power for ten years at the end of which NNC will be asked to renew or to make a new agreement.
Gandhiji declared…Nagas had every right to be independent of India: The Indian Constituent Assembly, through a process of mental acrobatics, arrived at the conclusion, that the Nine Points Agreement was merely ‘district autonomy within the Indian Constitution’ and began preparations to occupy Nagalim by force. When this was brought to Gandhiji’s attention on 19 July 1947, Gandhiji declared that the Nagas had every right to be independent of India if they choose to do so. Further, he declared that he would oppose with his life if India decides to take Nagalim by force.
Nagalim declared Independent: NCC announced its decision to declare Nagalim “independent” on 14 August 1947and communicated it to UNO, Britain, the Interim Government of India, and the Commonwealth Relations Office. As the newly independent India adopted a belligerent attitude toward the declaration of independence by the Nagas, Britain decided to adopt a policy of “wait and see”.
1948 Indian police in Manipur made summery arrest and detention of many Nagas including Daiho Mao, a prominent elder, who were peacefully blockading an entry point to Nagaland from India. The police repression was justified on false claims of facing ‘incitement by Communist agitators, or the danger of Burmese Communist infiltrating Assam,’ and India used the occasion to build up its military on the Assam-Nagaland border to invade Nagalim. “…With regard to Calcutta Weekly Report No.34…about the unrest among the Nagas and the danger of Burmese Communist infiltrating Assam, Sir Akbar Hydari arrived in Delhi recently and press for release of new military equipment to forces in the Assam area”.
1951 May 16, 1951 Plebiscite: Condemning NNC as “the voice of the misguided”, India imprisoned many more Naga elders without trial. Undeterred, Nagas continued their protest and asked India to ascertain the decision of the majority of the people in a plebiscite. India rejected it. NNC notified India; they decided to conduct the plebiscite on 16 May 1951 to clear any possible doubt. The result of the plebiscite, as admitted by B.N. Mullik, the then Chief of the Indian Intelligence set up, was 99.9% for Naga independence and none for joining India.
India refused to respect the out come of the Plebiscite. Instead, India sought to destroy by force the material and spiritual basis of the Naga peoples' independence and imposed military rule over Nagalim from 1955. NNC set up the Federal Government of Nagaland in March 1956 with a military wing to drive out the Indian forces. In the next three months Naga army drove out the Indian forces from Nagalim barring a few points. India brought in more than a hundred thousand troops in re-enforcement and occupied Nagalim. The occupation army rounded up ten of thousands of Nagas in 59 concentration camps where many perished from water contamination and lack of food.
1952 Boycotted Indian elections: In 1952 with heavy military presence, the first Indian general election was imposed on the Nagas. I spite of the military threat, Nagas successfully boycotted the election.
1953 Indian Prime minister, Nehru brought the Burmese Prime minister, U Nu to Kohima and began the process of dividing Nagalim between the two countries. Human right abuses committed by Indian armed forces became rampant as they “searched the villages” for NNC elders who were by then branded “secessionists”.
1956 Nagas organized to drive oust Indian forces: NNC set up the Federal Government of Nagaland on 22 March with a military wing. India placed “Naga Hills district in Assam” under the Military rule on 2 April. Within fours of its formation, Naga Army drove out Indian forces from Nagalim barring a few points. India brought in large re-enforcement. Before the year end, there was “nearly one security troop for every adult male Naga in the Naga Hills”, says B.N. Mullik.
1958 Indian Parliament passes the Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958 – a re-incarnation of the much dreaded Armed Force Special Powers Ordinance 1942 of the era. The Act provides the Indian Armed forces legal immunity to “shoot to Kill” on mere suspicion, to enter, search, arrest and detain without. Having destroyed most the Naga villages and killed close to one hundred thousand Nagas, and rounded up thousands in 59 concentration camps built across the Naga Hills, India announced “amnesty” and asked NNC to accept “administrative autonomy”. Though reeling from the impact of massive destruction of life and means of subsistence, Nagas rejected it.
1960 In an attempt to divide Nagas, India conferred statehood (the existing State of Nagaland) on a small portion of Nagaland under its Foreign Ministry.
1963 The Indian State admitted to the aerial bombing of suspected guerrilla locations, of “Strategic hamletting” and “groupings” in which villages are forcibly relocated.
1964 Cease-fire and political negotiation: At the intervention of Bertrand Russell and Rev. Michael Scott [an old friend of Gandhiji] in 1964 India agreed to a cease-fire for peace talks. After several rounds of unproductive talks in 1966, Mr. R. Suissa, a member of the Tatar Hoho (member of Parliament of the Naga Nation), forwarded a proposal to the NCC which he had thoroughly discussed with the Prime Minister of India Mrs. Indira Gandhi. In the succeeding round of talk of Mrs. Gandhi, the Indian Prime Minister, conveyed her willingness to negotiate a Bhutan type status for Nagalim as a separate entity. But NNC rejected the offer and the talks broke off without result in 1967.
1967 Some leaders left the Federal Government of Nagaland and formed the “Revolution Military Government” with Indian support. It got dissolved in less than two years time and their members became Indian employees.
1972 The international boundary between India and Burma was officially drawn. In doing so they divided the Naga people between two nations. In some cases that border runs through villages and houses. NNC and its government were declared as “Unlawful”. The affairs of Nagaland State” was transferred from the Ministry of External Affairs to the Ministry of Home Affairs in an effort to project the Naga struggle for political rights as a “law and order problem”.
1975 India imposed the Shillong Accord on some of the Federal Government leaders. The Accord states that the Nagas leaders accept the Indian Constitution on their volition, will hand over their arms, and will formulate Naga problem for discussion in future. A people suffering from war exhaustion greeted the Shillong Accord with silent contempt. The National Assembly convened by the General Secretary of NNC, Th. Muivah 15-17 August 1976 at Suphao (in Eastern Naga Hills-Burma) rejected it as “the work of traitors”. However, NNC President, A.Z. Phizo and several other NNC elders, kept silent. This enabled the opportunist elements to join the surrendered leaders to organize, in collaboration with India, a vigilante force, in various names, like NNC, or Federal Army, or Peoples Militia of Nagaland,…The ground was left wide open for a bloody showdown between these forces and the National Resistance Forces.
1978 August 30 military coup was staged by a section of the Naga Army that was backed the Shillong accordists. All leaders of the NNC who did not support the Shillong Accord were taken captive by the military. All the office of the NNC and Federal Government of Nagaland were usurped by the pro -Shillong Accord military regime.
1979 After a number of fierce encounters with the traitors, the patriots took over the offices of the NNC and Federal Government. However, by recruiting various anti-socials, the remnance of Shillong Accord claimed to represent. They do this until today.
Khaplang then President of the Federal Government of Nagaland through the military coup denounced the organization and joined the patriotic forces leading to the merger of Eastern Nagaland (in Burma) and Western Nagaland (in India) at Nokpa village on the 30th January.
On September 9, the Naga Peoples Movement for Human Rights was formed in response to the long felt need of the Naga people to “Organize opposition” to the gross violations of human rights perpetuated by the Indian State.
1980 Raising a new National Resistance Organization. After the failure of the leadership of the NNC to carry on the Naga peoples struggle for self-determination, the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN) was formed. Under the leadership of Isak Chishi Swu, Khaplang and Th. Muivah, respectively as Chairman, Vice Chairman and General Secretary of the NSCN. They formed a new Government, the Government of the Peoples Republic of Nagalim, GPRN.
1988 Division in NSCN: With NSCN at the leadership, National Movement once again regained respect and support of the people. But NSCN Vice President, SS. Khaplang came in for grave charges relating to his financial handling and moral behavior. As news of his staying away from NSCN Council meetings became known, Choumai, Commander of the Kachin Army, encouraged Khaplang to take over NSCN. With large supply of arms from India received through Choumai, Khaplang attacked the NSCN Council Headquarters on 30 April and killed more than sixty on the spot. He appointed himself the Chairman of NSCN. In the weeks that followed, Khaplang’s followers in coordination with the Indian Army and the Burmese Army killed more than one hundred members of the national movement.
Following the abortive coup, Khaplang’s group has been armed, financed and sheltered by the Indian agents and the Nagaland State Government under its Chief Minister, S.C.Jamir.
1997 Peace-talk: Isak and Muivah led NSCN (NSCN-IM) quickly recovered from the shock. From year 1990, India’s forces, both military and political, suffered heavy losses. It helped India’s leaders to realize that military cannot solve the problem. India began to consider non-military options and in 1995 invited NSCN to begin political negotiation at the highest without conditions at a mutually agreed third country. After two years of behind the scene preparations, they announced on 25 July 1997 their decision to enter into a “cease-fire agreement” effective from 1st August 1997to pave way for political negotiations.
(1995 Meeting between the Naga representatives Isak Chishi Swu and Th. Muivah and the Prime Minister of India, Narasimha Rao at Paris in June. Preliminary talks on a prospective peace process. India’s Prime Minister’s met again with Isak Chishi Swu and Th. Muivah in September in New York, USA.
1997 Meeting between Deve Gowda, Prime minister of India and Isak Chishi Swu and Th. Muivah at Zurich in February. Continuing the preliminary peace talk process. Talks included proposition on a cease fire. March 4, prime Minister of India announced in the Parliament, his Government’s decision to enter into peace negotiation with the NSCN.
1997 The Indian Government and the NSCN on July 25 announced the Cease-fire to begin “UNCONDITIONAL PEACE-TALKS” stating:” That there be a total suspension of armed conflict between the two sides for three months, beginning on 1 August 1997”
1998 The Prime minister of India appoints the former governor of Mizoram Mr. Swaraj Khaushal as interlocutor for the talks. India’s team led by Prime Minister Vajpajee met the top leaders of the NSCN, Isak Swu, Khudao Yanthan and Th. Muivah in Amsterdam, the Netherlands
The negotiations encountered innumerable difficulties. However, both sides have emerged stronger from the many ups and downs and on 11 July 2002 the Government of India in a Joint Communiqué with the NSCN, recognized the unique history and situation of the Nagas. The Government of India also renewed the invitation of the Prime Minister to the leaders of the NSCN to come to India to expedite the peace dialogue.
To strengthen the peace-process the Nagas held three major consultation meetings. The first national consultation lasting three weeks was held in Dimapur, Nagalim in 1999. People from all walks of life took part in this consultation on the invitation of the NSCN. Two more consultations were held in Bangkok Thailand in 2002.The national consultations expressed full confidence in the NSCN leading the Naga nation in the peace-talks.
Alongside the national consultations, Nagas have also launched National Reconciliation Process for healing within the society. They have also initiated dialogue with of other communities in their neighborhood and the general public in India.
Related articles:
1. India: Threat from Nagaland(1968), http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,902255,00.html
2. Nagalim: Unbearable life in Myanmar and unwelcome in India(2004), UNPO,http://www.unpo.org/content/view/634/131/
3. Naga History: Chronology of Events from NISC(2002), http://www.manipuronline.com/Manipur/December2002/nagachronology2002.htm
4.Nagaland's Rainbow In Asia's Darkness (16th - 20th Century)(2003), by Kaka D. Iralu, http://www.manipuronline.com/opinions/September2003/nagalandrainbow07_1.htm
5. The National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Khaplang (NSCN-K), Harvard University and the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, NSAG(“non-state armed groups”)Project, http://www.armed-groups.org/6/section.aspx/ViewGroup?id=71
6. http://www.nagalimvoice.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
