So
the 80’s onwards, there has been no Prime Minister who has not announced
a package for the Northeast. And if you look at all the packages announced
by successive Prime Ministers – although it’s a different issue that
the Gujaral package was nothing but the Deve Gowda package, the Vajpayee
package was nothing but the Gujaral package, and no doubt, Manmohan
Singh will announce a package which will not be any different from the
Vajpayee package – they were all based on this assumption that somehow
if we were to increase public expenditure in this region, all will be
well. For example, the Finance Minister last month announced that 10
percent of all spending of every government department would be in the
Northeast – this shows the mindset that has governed recent policy thinking
towards this region.
I
think it was important to give you this background of my own reading
of the situation of how India has tended to treat the Northeast. I think
first of all, the word ‘Northeast’ is particularly an unfortunate phrase
because it obviously tends to evoke images of a homogeneous, undifferentiated
mass, which certainly it is not. In fact, the repeated use of the phrase
‘Northeast’ creates more problems then it actually solves. But be that
as it may, I will not go deeper into it. The task at hand is to understand
where we ought to be going from here.
I
think we need to ask ourselves why, after 40 or 50 years of playing
around with different paradigms – the Culture Paradigm, the Security
Paradigm, the Politics Paradigm and the Development Paradigm – the region
is still in a crisis? Why is it that after looking at different models
of development, four decades later, we still have problems of ethnic
strife, we still have problems of political representation? We still
have problems of underdevelopment and we still face the problems of
a growing and expanding security apparatus in this region: one armed
personnel for every ten Northeasterners or thereabout if you go about
by some rough estimates that are available. So I think it is a very
troubling question for us to ask why is it that after so much of thinking
and so much of flexibility in approach, which I have tried to demonstrate
to you, why is it that we find ourselves in a crisis and why is it that
we are debating the question that we are debating today?
Let
me now quickly move on to the second point which I want to make, which
is basically this whole approach that has governed development, the
policy of the Government of India towards this region as I have mentioned
to you. While it has undergone these changes, it is now of course very
firmly embedded, firmly fixed in the Development Paradigm: according
to which we need to bring development into this region. We need to develop
the natural resources of this region, we need to increase public investment
in this region, in physical and social infrastructure, and if you were
to do this, many of the problems – for which we have such a very all
pervasive security apparatus here – would tend not to be present.
Now,
let me give you a few numbers here which are very interesting and which
are very telling and which often tend to get neglected in the debate-both
in India as well as the Northeast. It’s my contention that public expenditure
is the least of the problems as far as the Northeast is concerned. It’s
not the problem, infact it has become the problem. I would argue today
that public expenditure has become very much part of the problem that
we face. What is the source, what is loosely associated with the leakages
in this public expenditure? To summarise a long story, I would say what
we are doing is: we are using corruption as a mode of cohesion and we
are not able to completely recognise the dimensions of this. Let me
give you a few numbers of what I have to say here – the Government of
India contributes heavily towards the total expenditure of the 8 states
(the seven sisters and Sikkim). The total expenditure of these eight
states is almost 30,000 crores a year. When these states are spending
30,000 crores a year for a population of a roughly 32 million or thereabout
(depending on which Census Commissioner you believe), it is about, let’s
say, 30,000 crores for 30 million! 10,000 rupees per person per year
is not a small sum.
Now,
where is this money coming from? In Arunachal Pradesh 85 percent of
this money comes from the Centre; in Assam 51 percent of the money comes
from the Centre; in Meghalaya 70 percent comes from the Centre; in Manipur
80 percent comes from the Centre; in Nagaland 80 percent comes from
the Centre; in Sikkim it is a very small proportion: only about 40 percent
comes from the Centre; in Tripura 70 percent comes from the Centre and
in Mizoram 72 percent comes from the Centre. In short, of the 30,000
crores that is been spent in this region year after year, close to 20,000
crores comes as direct transfer from the Central Government. Considering
the poverty ratio in the Northeast, it would be better if the Government
of India opened a bank account in every bank in the Northeast and deposited
a cheque of 10,000 rupees for every poor family in the region. This
way, in five years time, you will have economic nirvana. You will have
all the development, you would have abolished poverty – and all the
things that Jayanta Madhab is trying to do, would be done with this
simple measure of just opening a bank account and making sure that the
20,000 crores you are transferring year after year actually goes to
the people for whom it is intend.
The
point is where is this money going? Who is utilising this money? It
is my firm belief that this money is not going for development. Is this
money going to ensure cohesiveness of this society with the rest of
India through a series of interlocutors who happen to be politicians,
who happen to be expatriate contractors, who happen to be extortionists,
who happen to be anybody but people working to deliver benefits to the
people for whom these expenditures are intended to? So I think really
the first and the foremost thing that requires to be done is to get
out of this mindset which I hear all the time that, “We need a
new development package for the Northeast, we need more money for the
Northeast”. More money is not the issue. Mere ‘more’ is going to
compound our problems because the way money is being spent today, the
way the money is actually finding its way into uses not necessarily
for which it was originally intended, in my view is striking at the
very base of the societies and is adding, is really fuelling, much of
the problems that we are trying to resolve through discussions like
these.
So
what should we do? What is the new Northeast in the new Asia? Sometime
ago, in an interview to the Singapore Strait Times – which Sanjib must
have read (and he sent me an e-mail saying, “Bravo!”) – I
had said that the future of the Northeast lies in political integration
with India and economic integration with Southeast Asia. And I think
we need to really start becoming schizophrenic for a change. I don’t
think you are going to be having much dividends by political integration
and economic integration with the rest of India with all the attendant
problems that we face which I will come to a little later with due respect
to our colleague from Bangladesh.
So
I think the political integration with the rest of India and the economic
integration with the rest of Asia, with East and Southeast Asia particularly,
is certainly one direction that this region must be certainly looking
to as a new way of development. Because clearly the erstwhile model
of economic integration with rest of the country has not worked, is
beset with a large number of logistic problems for which I don’t see
a solution in the short term horizon of the next five to ten years in
order to unleash the development potential, in order to bring about
the genuine fulfillment of the aspirations of these people. I think
we need to think somewhat differently. I think the political integration
model with India and the economic integration model with rest of Asia
is one direction that I would certainly argue holds out much promise.
Now for this to happen I think mindsets in India have to change as well.
It is not just mindsets in Northeast that have to change; I think mindsets
in India have to change because we have been traditionally very suspicious
of sub-regional cooperation. The word sub-regional is a ‘no, no’ in
the lexicon of ‘mainstream’ India, so to speak.
We
always look upon India as a single entity to have cooperation with other
countries. But clearly, a time has come when it is in the interest of
individual units of this entity to have economic cooperation with neighbouring
countries in the interest of the larger entity. I would argue – and
I have been arguing for the last ten years – to cooperating with Nepal
and Bangladesh. It may not be in the interest of India to take the position
of a downstream riparian in respect of Nepal and that of an upstream
riparian in relation to Bangladesh. These are natural stances or natural
positions that the Government of India would take. But that is not necessarily
in the best interest of all the constituent units of this larger mass
that we call India, as would be in the interest of UP. And infact you
will not be able to solve the recurring, annual problem of floods in
North Bihar and in eastern UP without ecological cooperation with Nepal
and without a larger framework of water and land cooperation with Nepal,
Bangladesh and Bhutan.
Similarly,
I think in the Northeast, while India may naturally be suspicious of
constituent units eking out their economic fortunes in some other larger
entity, not necessarily in mother India, I think it is in the interest
of the constituent units to pursue this approach and convince the rest
of India that actually you are not weakening your links with India,
you are paradoxically strengthening your links with India in the process.
I think this is a very tricky, a very delicate balance that you have
to work out. But I do believe that the time has come for the constituent
units of the Indian Union whether it is UP or Bihar in relation to Nepal,
in water sharing with Nepal or whether it is the states of the Northeast
in relation to economic cooperation with the western provinces of China
and other countries of Southeast Asia. I think it is incumbent upon
the constituent units of the Indian Union to create the climate of opinion
in their own societies to begin with. And then of course, to put pressure
on the larger mass of the Indian state and the Government of India to
ensure that this type of an arrangement that we are going to have –
a very close political linkage with the Indian union but an intimate
economic association with a different political entity – is not going
to undercut the viability of the Indian state and would actually strengthen
the Indian state. Because then, what you have is a region of the country
whose economic aspirations are at least getting fulfilled in a much
more tangible manner than they are getting fulfilled today. So, I would
say that while on the one hand the Northeast itself has to look upon
this whole standing on two legs model so to speak, political integration
with India and economic integration with rest of Asia,. I think it is
also incumbent upon the Government of India in all its various forms
and manifestations to recognise that the demand from individual units,
the demand from individual states for economic cooperation may be in
the best interest of those states and would demand different types of
responses than has been forthcoming from it. I think we need to make
a new beginning in this regard. I think we have the building blocks
of these. After many years, we have had a water sharing treaty – the
Mahakali Treaty – with Nepal, for example; we have had the water sharing
agreement with Bangladesh; we have had now five years of dialogue on
the BCIM initiative. I think slowly the thinking is gaining ground,
slowly the idea is gaining acceptability, that while India’s interest
may be different, we must safeguard the interest of the individual units
of the Indian Union for whom economic cooperation with their neighbours
may be in the best interest. This of course means that the political
model of India itself begins to undergo a change.
But
as India begins to make the transition from being a centralised democracy
to a much more federal form of democracy, that the politics of India
also begins to make a change from being a highly centralised form of
political management in which there is a premium on so called ‘Nationalist
Parties’ like mine, while regional parties are what is called in the
language of finance, ‘deep discount bonds’. I find for example, the
Chief Election Commissioner, my good friend Mr. Krishnamurthy, has given
a statement day before yesterday, saying something that will warm the
carcass of every Congressman and every BJP member. He said, “These
regional parties are bad for governance”. I think this mindset
is dangerous because if you start on the assumption that regional parties
are bad for governance, then many of the things that we are talking
about – about redrawing the contours of economic and political cooperation
between individual units of India, where India is a mythical idea, but
Assam is a reality, UP is a reality, Bihar is a reality – would require
major changes not only in the constitution but the way our constitution
operates, because our constitution, all said and done, is a unitary
constitution based on the primacy of the Union government. And this
would require changes in the Centre-state relations. It would require
changes in the way national political parties function, and it would
certainly demand a completely different approach towards the way we
have looked at regional parties.
One
of the things that the new government has announced in the Common Minimum
Programme is a new Sarkaria Commission and I think this is very important
because 20 years ago was the last exercise that we did on Centre-state
relations. But in the last 20 years, India has changed dramatically.
We have had the 73rd and the 74th amendments on Panchayats and Nagarpalikas,
we have had economic reforms, which have completely redrawn the pattern
of relationship between the Centre and the states. So I think one of
the most significant promises that this government has made is to relocate
this whole issue of Centre, state, local government relations and I
hope this exercise begins sooner rather than later so that 2-3 years
from now, we will be moving towards a situation where there is genuine
autonomy for states, where there is genuine power sharing between Centre
and states and states and local governments and India moves from being
a centralised democracy to a much more federal government in which a
strong centre, strong states and local governments contribute and coexist
harmoniously with each other. Because I think much of what we say of
the Northeast in a new Asia would not be possible without this fundamental
change in the Indian political model. Because as long as the Indian
political model is going to be a unitary, centrist, statist political
model, I am afraid the room for maneuver, the room for renovation, the
room for implementation of the time-to-time suggestions of the kinds
we will discussing in the next two days, will not be possible. So I
think, in so far as the evolution of the political culture itself is
concerned, what is needed is a a movement away from this centralised
unitary form – which all so called nationalist parties adhere to – to
a genuinely federal form of political power sharing in which the local
governments, the state governments and the Central government all have
a room.
And
let me say that it is not that the state governments are heroes and
the Central government is a villain, because the state government that
demands autonomy from the Centre is unwilling to transfer that autonomy
to local self government institutions. Its decentralisation is good
but only up to ‘me’. I don’t want to decentralise below ‘me’. And that
being the philosophy of most of our state governments, when we are talking
of autonomy from the Centre for states, I think it would be incomplete
without autonomy from states for local self-governing institutions like
Panchayats and Municipalities. So I think the evolution to a genuinely
three-tier political system, an evolution to a genuinely multi-layered
political system in which national parties, regional parties, central
government, state governments and local governments, all have their
niche roles to play, is an essential pre-requisite for redrawing the
pattern of relationship of constituent units of the Indian union – like
of the Northeast with rest of Asia.
When
we talk of a new Asia it is of course, not as if there is a gold mine
or an el Dorado waiting out there. Of course there are a large number
of challenges that we face. There are going to be very serious problems
that we will all face. I do believe that the sooner we come to grips
with some of these problems the better off that would be for us. And,
I hope I am not being too undiplomatic when I say that I think one real
problem that we are going to face is Bangladesh. I mean how India is
going to have structural relationship with Bangladesh is going to be
central to the economic future of the Northeast and here I am afraid
the prospects don’t look too bright and we need to understand why the
prospects don’t look too bright and try to do some innovative thinking.
Yesterday, I was just telling Mr. Ranganathan: ‘why can’t we just pay
two billion dollars to Bangladesh every year and build a toll bridge
and have transit facilities across Bangladesh and build up an annual
transit fee instead of going through this tortuous process of debate
and discussion on whether Bangladesh is going to give us transit, not
going to give us transit. Why don’t we just pay them?’ If it were Chinese,
they would have done a deal with Bangladesh by now. Why can’t we just
pay them off? We owe five billion dollars, after all. We have a trade
deficit with Bangladesh. We export a 100 million dollars, we import
a billion dollars, and we have a trade deficit of 900 million dollars.
Why don’t we tell Bangladesh we will pay three times the trade deficit
that we have with you provided you give us transit facilities through
Bangladesh? I do believe that we need to come up with some very serious
alternatives to the current situation. We have to have the political
courage to say that, “Look, enough is enough. We will go ahead.
If it is not BCIM, if B is not willing, we will have CIM”. Why
wait for the B? I think the best can become the enemy of the good.\
I
think that what we need to understand is that there are practical political
problems towards realising the best and if we can’t realize the best
in the short run, we might as well look for a second best option in
the hope that Bangladesh will come and be part of the solution in some
years. I think Myanmar is also going to present a very serious problem.
If there is cross-border terrorism in relation to Jammu and Kashmir,
I would say that is happening in Nagaland and Manipur also. In relation
to AIDS, it is a different form of cross-border terrorism and if we
are going to turn a blind eye towards the regional dimensions of this
issue, we are not doing justice to what is a very serious problem; a
problem I have seen and dealt with for the past few years. I think we
shouldn’t be squeamish about it but address these issues upfront and
take necessary actions even as we realise the potential for cooperation.
I think what is happening in Nagaland and Manipur is truly horrendous
and what could well happen in these two societies on account of AIDS
could parallel what is happening today in Sub Saharan Africa. The decimation
of the working age population in these two states is directly linked
to a regional pattern of narco-traffic to which India has turned a blind
eye. Perhaps because the Indian state is a willing participant in this
process… Sometimes I do believe that we have a vested interest
in creating these conditions of uncertainty that bring so much misery
to our people. And I think the sooner we come to grips with this issue
of Myanmar, the better it will be for us, for our societies.
I
think that quite clearly the conventional wisdom on the Northeast –
that all that the Northeast requires is a very heavy dose of development
spending – has really run its course. And I don’t think that there is
any thing left in that model because if the Northeast is going to have
a heavy dose of development spending under the present system of public
accountability, I don’t think that the problem is going to be alleviated.
It is going to worsen. Therefore, you must look for solutions outside
this conventional wisdom or just increase public spending.
I
think what we need to look at is a much more nuanced, a much more difficult,
a much more – I would say a tough – problem, which is separating the
politics and the economics. Have political integration with the rest
of India but have economic integration with a region to which you are
closely embedded geographically because ultimately economics is all
about geography as well. And if you are not going to be able to overcome
the constraints of geography, you are not going to be able to reap the
dividends of peace, or reap the dividends of economic expansion. So
I think in the years ahead for the Northeast, this model is something
that I would recommend and I would only say this that as far as one
of the reasons why I have come here actually is, I believe that the
thinking for the Northeast must now come from within the Northeast.
I think there are too many experts in the Northeast floating around
outside the Northeast. I think the voice of civil society, the voice
of intellectual organisations, the voice of the Northeast doesn’t get
heard – and Sanjib himself said that one of the objectives of starting
the Centre here was to have a third voice. I think it’s very important
to create a climate of opinion in this region itself rather than to
depend on external thinking because, as I mentioned to you, very often
than not that external thinking may not be in your best interest. Therefore,
it’s important to create a critical mass in civil society of people
thinking along these lines, demanding from an Indian state answers to
some of the questions that have bedeviled this region for so long and
demanding from the Indian state innovative responses so that many of
the objectives that we set for ourselves are actually fulfilled.
(Copyright
� CENISEAS)
