indigenousnagaland #21 — Ethnic Conflict Or Colonial CATEGORY MISTAKE?

[Ethnic Conflict — Category Mistake? — Objectivity — Subjectivity? — Opium Wars — Kuki-Naga Conflict: Was the "Kuki-Naga Conflict" a bonafide ethnic-conflict, or an example of colonial Category Mistake? — Conclusion]

Ethnic Conflict: An ethnic conflict is a form of conflict in which the objectives of at least one party are defined in ethnic terms, and the conflict, its antecedents, and possible solutions are perceived along ethnic lines.

The individuals in conflict must expressly fight for their ethnic group's position within society, while the source of the conflict may be political, social, economic or religious. This criterion differentiates ethnic conflict from other forms of struggle.

Category Mistake: The error of assigning to something a quality or action which can only properly be assigned to things of another category, for example treating abstract concepts as though they had a physical location.

Objectivity: Objectivity is a noun that means a lack of bias, judgment, or prejudice.

Subjectivity: Subjectivity refers to how someone’s judgment is shaped by personal opinions and feelings.

Opium Wars: Opium Wars, two armed conflicts in China in the mid-19th century between the forces of Western countries and China. The first Opium War (1839–42) was fought between China and Britain, and the second Opium War (1856–60), also known as the Arrow War or the Anglo-French War in China, was fought by Britain and France against China.

Kuki-Naga Conflict: Was the "Kuki-Naga Conflict" a bonafide ethnic-conflict, or an example of colonial Category Mistake?

Kuki and Naga are 2 of the 220 ethnic groups in northeast India. Archeological evidence, external historical sources, oral tradition, etc., indicate the autochthon status of Nagas in their present habitat. Kukis, according to British sources, came to their present habitat from Myanmar in the 1800s; Kuki's autochthon status ("The Kukis in Manipur or the Luseis of Mizoram have migrated to their present areas of dominance from South China and Chin Hills only a couple of centuries back" — Bijoy, 2003) can easily be contested.

British sources boasted that Kukis were transplanted into Naga areas, to create a buffer between the Naga resistance and the colonial British; then the Indian govt., after the British departure, has used the Kukis in the colonial pattern — pitting one group with another.

Kuki historians have acknowledged (conceded) that Nagas gave them lands; in Naga tradition, land is not sold, only given to anyone that they deem as brother; because of these established facts, Kukis, as a community, directed all their quarrels and allegations (if or when they have one) at Th. Muivah (head of a break-away armed faction from the Naga National Council (NNC)), instead of directing their energy against the Nagas as a whole.

Kukis and Nagas have never fought solidly with each other — while a section of Nagas and kukis has assumed the form of a conflict, another section will be found paired together and inseparable.

Important question

Will there be such a thing called "Kuki-Naga Conflict" had the third parties not made invented it? The third parties are: the colonial British in colonial era and the Indian actors in Indian military regime (AFSPA; AFSPA itself is a colonial British invention, to facilitate a war on the indigneous; it stands for Armed Forces Special Powers Act; the Act gives the alien troops the power to shoot to kill the indigenous).

Speaking of (a) antecedents and (b) possible solutions

Antecedents: Kukis and Nagas have had displayed no animosity for each other anymore than how Nagas had fought other Nagas and Kukis with other Kukis. It would seem that the colonial British had orchestrated the antecedents from day one.

Possible solutions: The alien troops, who terrorize the indigenous in their own homeland, have the motive to disturb communal harmony so as to make the fortress of resistance powerless. This motive, unless taken care of, will continue to thwart off any possible solution or communal harmony. The correct identification of the motive, of puppeteers, is key to any possible solution.

In the Opium Wars, the colonisers — who carried on their shoulders the "White men's burden" — perceived themselves as superior beings; they have endeavored for a White men's position or White ethnic group's position. Their conflicts were of their own artithmetics — no third parties had invented their wars. The Opium Wars came closer to ethnic conflict than the Kuki-Naga Conflict.

Hindus And Sikhs Riot (1966)

Gujarat riots Firstpost.com

There are bonafide communal conflicts, such as the lynching of Dalits by the upper-caste, the Gujarat riots, etc., whose credit goes solely to the parties involved. No third party is involved in those cases. However, in the so-called "Kuki-Naga Conflict", the credit goes to the puppeteers.

The colonial British as well as the Indian troops do not deny of their role in inventing the so-called Kuki-Naga Conflict.

Conclusion

The Kuki-Naga Conflict is neither a bonafide ethnic-conflict nor does it belong to the category of communal cases such as the lynching of Dalits and Gujarat riot, wherein the credit belongs to the parties involved — as opposed to credit going to some third party or puppeteer. To say otherwise would be to assign something to a category where it does not belong.

References

Adivasi: A Contentious Term to denote Tribes as Indigenous Peoples of India
The Kuki-Naga conflict: Juxtaposed in the colonial context (Kuki source)
No ‘Naga-Kuki’ conflict; only NSCN (IM)-led aggression: KNO (Kuki source)

Previous posts

Separating The Wheat From The Chaff
Press Freedom Or Its Absence
Hindu Right Wing To Hold Rally
Headhunting

###