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.
Understanding Northeast India through a ‘ Spatial ’ Lens
Applying ‘spatial’ lens to Northeast India (NEI) is merely not for hermeneutic purposes but for a nuanced understanding of the flux accompanying the region.Spatial analysis helps us to move beyond the ‘territorial trap’ imposed on NEI through various cartographic exercises. The implications of applying the territoriality principle during the colonial and post-colonial periods are quite evident in NEI today. Now with the advent of globalization, as capital seeks to reinforce its spatiality, new imaginaries are being created both by the Indian state as well as the ‘people’ in the region, which have both overlapping and contradictory connotations. Spatial analysis helps us to understand these overlappings and contradictions between the economic imperatives of the state and the socio-cultural imperatives of the communities, all linked to their respective imaginaries associated with the region. Under such a scenario, what are its ramifications? Will it change the somatic proximity of the communities with their land? Is the region entering into a new era of transforming itself into a ‘pawn’ and a ‘pathway’ on behalf of the state and global capital? Or, the birth of newer batches of insurgents is becoming ominous under the present conditions? The paper analyses related issues about Northeast India in terms of its
Analysis: The Agenda 2007 Proposals: Evolution or Revolution?
On 10 February 2004 the Commission published its proposal for the financial perspective 2007-2013. A week later it adopted the third report on economic and social cohesion. These two documents form the basis of the so-called ‘Agenda 2007 reforms’. They will be the greatest challenge for the enlarged EU after the intergovernmental conference, since they will determine the financial basis for EU policy-making until the middle of the next decade. The Agenda 2007 proposals certainly hint at courageous reforms, because they place a previously unheard-of emphasis on performance and quality. Under the proposals, structural operations should generate value for money, and the funds should focus on projects which generate added value at a European level. Overall the Commission’s proposals point in the right direction, because they balance, on the one hand, solidarity for the new Member States and weak regions in the old Member States with, on the other hand, investments in future tasks. Moreover, they constitute a paradigm shift. For the first time, the Common Agricultural Policy will not be the dominant expenditure category. Now it is up to the Member States to examine the proposals politically and find a compromise between sometimes very divergent interests. It is to be hoped that, during the debate over expenditure limits and division of funds, national interests do not outweigh European interests.