Site Tools
You are here: Home 
Articles English Articles Ethnicity, Autonomy and Governance - The Maras: A Case Study
Articles English Articles Ethnicity, Autonomy and Governance - The Maras: A Case Study | Ethnicity, Autonomy and Governance - The Maras: A Case Study - The Maras: A Case Study |
|
|
| Written by Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Sushil K. Pillai, PVSM | ||||||||
| Tuesday, 25 July 2006 | ||||||||
Page 1 of 6 The complexity and development of ethnicity and autonomy movements can be illustrated by the case of the Maras, an ethnic group in southeast Mizoram. Though the Maras were variously called Lakhers, Shandus and Mirams by neighbouring ethnic groups,3 the name Lakher stuck. What they called themselves did not seem to matter to others.
Three Matryoshkas - Ethnicity, Autonomy and Governance The Russian Matryoshka doll has a series of smaller dolls fitted one inside the other. A Matryoshka is, perhaps, an appropriate image to analyse the problems of autonomy, ethnicity and governance in India’s Northeast (NE). These problems, often ascribed to simpler explanations of British colonialism, cultural and geographical isolation, modernisation, poor governance and the other reasons we are familiar with, are in reality far more complex. These are dynamic issues constantly evolving, producing mutants and newer forms. The remedies that one suggests will have to take these into account, with the understanding that the remedies themselves need to change along with the developing dynamic of the situation, e.g., the nature of the Naga ‘freedom’ movement has mutated from a nationalist movement to one that also seeks a balance between a status quo which is required by the organised crime in which it is involved (extortion, facilitating drug flows, illegal collusion with the government) and the violence of a revolutionary movement. Despite its pan-Naga stance, it still remains Indo-centric and is also internally unsettled by inter-tribal power struggles. The mutation is not restricted to the Nagas and illustrates the dialectics of many ‘autonomy movements’ that are long drawn out. At this stage of an extended insurgency, the state’s continued reliance primarily on use of force becomes an inadequate response. Other conflict resolution means, such as enhanced intelligence and targeting of the underground economy, as well as international cooperation are needed. Effective conflict management is achieved when a political solution is arrived at prior to this mutation, as was seen in the case of the 1986 Government of India-Mizo ‘Memorandum of Settlement,’ as also the Mizoram Government-Hmar ‘Memorandum of Settlement’ of 1994.1 The latter settlement is, however, still unstable as the Hmars seek a larger grouping with their fellow tribesmen in Assam (Cachar) and Manipur.2 The Maras: A Case Study The complexity and development of ethnicity and autonomy movements can be illustrated by the case of the Maras, an ethnic group in southeast Mizoram. Though the Maras were variously called Lakhers, Shandus and Mirams by neighbouring ethnic groups,3 the name Lakher stuck. What they called themselves did not seem to matter to others. Indeed, apart from the Central and the Assam governments, even as late as in the mid-1950s, the Maras too referred to themselves as Lakhers4 in their interactions with the outside world. This aspect of acquired identity has its contemporary manifestation in the so-called ‘NE identity’ – a construct born out of political expediency in shaping the perspectives of both the Centre and the seven Northeastern States. In 1924, the entire Mara area became part of the British Empire and was divided into three different districts, of which two were in Burma and one in India. Even to this day, the Maras remain divided between Myanmar and India. A similar situation exists with the Lais (earlier called Pawi), a northern neighbouring tribe to the Maras. The demand for autonomy and eventual grant of Statehood to the Mizos evolved through a series of steps, which were reactive and lacking a distant perspective or understanding of the special nature of Mara ethnicity and autonomy. An underlying common dynamic of ethnicity that is situational and not primordial operates not only in Mizoram but also in all the NE States and elsewhere. During the period 1810 to 1850, twelve minor ethnic groups such as the Fanai and Kawlni merged with the Lushais5. Similar voluntary groupings are still occurring in Manipur and Nagaland e.g. the ‘old Kuki’ (a dubious colonial classification) of the small Lamkhang and Monsang tribes now claim to be Nagas6. Around the year 1946, due to growing ethnic awareness, the Lushais began to refer to themselves as Mizo7 belonging to a pan-Zomi ethnic group. In 1952, the Lushai Hills District of the Assam State became the Autonomous Mizo Hills District under a District Council. In 1953, the Pawi-Lakher tribes were also grouped into Pawi-Lakher Regional Council under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. Both these Councils, in theory, were granted a fair degree of autonomy regarding land and forest management, taxes, agricultural practices, village administration and customary law. But, in reality, the authority of the Governor, the District Commissioner and his administration overlay this autonomy.8 The Pawi-Lakher Regional Council was unable to function effectively due to ethnic power struggles. The Maras unilaterally opted out of the Regional Council in 1963 and consequently set up a self-styled Interim District Council, which functioned upto 1972, even as political turmoil and insurgency raged in the Mizo Hills9. In 1972, the Maras, Lais and Chakmas were given an Autonomous District Council (ADC) each, while the Mizo District Council became a Union Territory (UT). The three ADCs for the Pawis, Lakhers and Chakmas functioned within the UT. In 1987, Mizoram was granted Statehood. The Lakher and Pawi Autonomous Councils were later renamed as the Mara and Lai Autonomous Councils in 1989. In Myanmar, which has a different concept of autonomy, the Maras are listed as a major tribe and placed under three autonomous Townships of the Chin State.10 Similarly, the Myanmar Naga population of the Sagaing Division opposite Nagaland have been organised into three self-administered zones as designated by the Myanmar National Convention. However, local autonomy has not solved the problem of ethnic conflict. In India, the Maras are currently demanding UT status. If such a demand is not efficaciously handled, it could inevitably lead to further demands for Statehood, secession or a trans-border merger. Mizoram walks a thin dividing line between peace and separatist movements. In northeastern Mizoram, the Hmar People’s Convention seeks a larger homeland, to the south, the Chakmas and the Brus are restive, as are the Maras.11 Beyond India’s borders live the same ethnic groups. The call for a Greater Mizoram incorporating these groups emerged in the 1980s. Yet, holistically viewed, Mizoram is a success story of conflict management. Such are the many dolls within the Mizo Matryoshka. The same dynamic complexity exists in all the Northeastern States though the details are unique to each of them. The Mara case study throws up a number of issues on autonomy, ethnicity and governance. |
||||||||
| Last Updated ( Tuesday, 25 July 2006 ) | ||||||||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Copyright © 2002 - 2008 Maraland.NET.
Maraland.net do not necessarily endorse users' comments.
