Why is the 'problem' of North East India always seen in such dichotomous terms? This creates separatism, and ' ethnic ' feelings which in turn leads to sharp divisions and complex issues. Again and again this region of the country is seen in separatist and paradoxical terms. But what is happening to the Maoists in Central and South India? Why are they also being viewed in terms of separatism, and a threat to the much vaunted unity of the country? Why are they presented in diabolical terms as posing a threat to the unity of the country?
Any failure in governance or any livelihood issue will automatically pose the question of disintegration. Poverty can lead to separatist feelings. The issues of Maoists are: livelihood and bad governance. There is already a talk of them joining hands with some of the North East recalcitrant groups. That is because they have a common underling, but in many cases the issues are the same for both the groups.
When militancy began in Punjab in the 80s, many did not comprehend the reason for this, as Punjab had always been on thresholds of economic upswing and prosperity. Then why did this happen, people asked? We forgot the question of sentiments, an alienated culture (for whatever reason) and then the behemoth created shocked us into retaliatory violence, so much so that a pogrom virtually was launched against a particular community in the wake of the brutal assassination of one of our Prime Ministers.
The same retaliation took place in North East India beginning with the Mizos, where the common man was torn asunder between forces of militarism and militancy, and still is. The common man is the worst sufferer in North East and also in Jammu and Kashmir, where a secessionist movement has seen various violent and non-violent phases since past six decades.
Then there is religious fanaticism seen in the light of the Hindu Muslim divide. Godhra came and Gujarat followed, in abysmal ways, but there have been instances of the true sufferers being the poor or the common person especially in Gujarat. The Hindu Muslim divide in India has to be understood against the backdrop of the country, clearly wedged in between feelings of separatism, fanned by political leaders and a machinating British Govt. which was loathe to leave the country, and wanted to sound a final death knell.
One forgot Islamic contributions to the country in the form of architecture, art, language etc. The argumentative Indian in Amartya Sen's words was undoubtedly Akbar who in the sixteenth century with his prescient eyes saw an undivided and unified India. He was 'argumentative' as Sen states like Asoka and Tagore, because in early times even before independence they intuitively saw a unified cosmic culture in the best Indian traditions. Tagore also was a visionary as he saw a composite world order. The' argument ' has stopped now, there are skirmishes between politicians and fractious elements. What is the 'argument'? To extend Sen's exegesis, it is one of sublimated order, tolerance, religious and cultural, a pan Indian culture and vision, equalitarian rights, religious tolerance, inter and intra cultural connections etc. Akbar, Ashoka and Tagore saw this beautiful assimilated India, or tried to forge ahead with eclectic and rational thinking.
The next question is that of language. Linguistic chauvinism still continues, whether in the form of ethnic intolerance, or a misplaced superiority, as in the case of Bengalis.
Then, of course casteism which surreptitiously is present among some communities and blatantly among others. I won't like to go into anarchic acts like dowry and sati here. Both are too primeval to be given any consideration, in the context of what I am trying to say.