Vision 2020 or re-vision 1958: the contradictory politics of counter-insurgency in India's regional engagement
Insurgency in Northeast India has long been explained as an outcome of poverty and isolation that in turn produces further poverty and militancy. In order to break this cycle and achieve ‘peace and prosperity’, the Indian Government released North Eastern Region Vision 2020 in July 2008 – a comprehensive policy agenda to achieve ‘peace and prosperity’ in the Northeast. This is to be realised through deeper economic and political engagement with neighbouring countries and a ‘paradigm shift in development strategy’ that will be simultaneously more participatory and more infrastructure intensive. This paper argues that in practice the political manifestations of increased regional engagement are contradictory. Each measure designed to break the region's isolation is countered by measures to maintain control of borders, trade, and the movement of people. At the heart of this new development vision is a re-visioning of counter-insurgency underpinned by the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (1958). Far from signalling a new era in the region, the measures contained in this new development vision appear more likely to exacerbate the grievances of people in the region and reinforce the ways the region has been governed through five decades of counter-insurgency.
Between National Security and Ethno-nationalism
Although scholarly interest in Northeast India is growing there is still relatively little discussion of the high levels of poverty in the region and the failures of development. When mentioned they are viewed instrumentally as causes and/or symptoms of ongoing insurgency and counter-insurgency. However this does not fully explain how a region that receives an extraordinarily large amount of development funding from the Indian Government, has its own development ministry, has some of India’s highest human development indicators, and has an array of institutional layers assuring autonomy and decentralisation has poverty levels well above the Indian national average. Using the state of Meghalaya, this article examines the factors underpinning the development agenda in the region and the political space for contesting this agenda. The argument presented is three-fold; the regional development agenda is underpinned by national security imperatives which characterise relations between the various levels of governance ensuring minimal deviation, contestation of the development agenda is limited by national security from above and ethno-nationalism from below narrowing the political space for negotiating development alternatives, and this situation is the result of material and ideational factors embedding development in the politics of state-formation and ethnic identity.
Integrated land degradation monitoring and assessment: Horizontal knowledge management at the national and international levels
The need for improved horizontal knowledge management at the national and international levels is essential for monitoring and assessment of land degradation and desertification. At the national level, governments utilise scientific, socio‐economic and technical data and information for strategic planning, priority setting and national environment and development planning. However, challenges including the lack of capacity and lack of collaboration and sharing of information across governments affect responses to and the effectiveness of monitoring and knowledge exchange, along with the ability to effectively implement treaties. At the international level, a number of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) share cross‐sectoral themes related to research and monitoring, information exchange, technology transfer, capacity building and financial resources. The need for increased synergies stems from the similarities between the issues they address. Challenges for improving knowledge management at the international level include insufficient interaction between the scientific bodies of the various MEAs; duplication of reporting, monitoring and assessment efforts; limited knowledge management between the various assessments addressing ecosystems and biological diversity during the past decade; and insufficient collaboration between the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the UN system and the international non‐governmental organisation (NGO) community. This paper examines these challenges and offers recommendations on how monitoring and assessment knowledge can be better managed at the national and international levels. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.