India's Northeast Conflict - Just Playing By The Rules

India's founding fathers, Nehru, Ambedkar and Gandhi, might have had differing visions for India's future, but there was no doubt that they all wanted it to be a modern egalitarian place that could finally break free from centuries of feudalism, tribalism, and finally colonialism. This core group, and by extension, the drafters of the young republic's new constitution, genuinely believed that if they installed a system of Proportional Representation, then all of India’s different ethnic groups would get a say in Parliament, and that none would get marginalized in the political process.

In 1951, the new Republic of India adopted a system of Proportional Representation that would result in a parliament - of about 550 locally elected parliamentarians - reflecting the demographic makeup of India. The system did not propose national elections for any leaders.

Fast forward to 2012, and Indian parliament is made up of dozens of political parties with none holding a clear majority. Shaky coalition governments are repeatedly held hostage by small political parties threatening to withdraw support. As the system did not put in place national elections, there is no leader with enough national political support to balance this abuse.  

Aspiring Indian politicians have realized that the easiest way to get elected is not as a champion of national interests, but to be seen as a champion of local rights. One simply has to identify a large enough voting bloc, preferably poor, semi-literate and disillusioned, and start championing for their rights. It doesn’t matter how fiscally illogical those demands may be on a national level, or just plain morally abhorrent on a human level, as long as the semi-literate voting bloc is convinced that those demands are beneficial to them, they will vote you into parliament. And a spot in parliament is the ultimate goal - when the real bargaining for money begins, as seen in India's US$ 32 billion telecom scandal.

The entire system consistently rewards leaders who appeal to ever-narrower sections of society. And if such a sub-group voting bloc does not exist, then one is carved up by them.  Local Indian politicians continue to undermine national interests by offering ever increasing incentives (such as larger percentages of hiring and promotions to caste based vote banks) to ever smaller niche groups. India’s parliamentary democracy consistently rewards such dividers at the ballot, and once elected, rewards them again at the nation's coffers.  

And thats what this entire Bodo-Muslim conflict is all about. Its the only way to grab power in a game whose rules were set in 1951.  

Worse, the system seems destined to degenerate over time, as any semblance of political success immediately leads to copycat behavior. The Bodo separatist movement took its cues directly from the successful separation of Jharkhand stae in 2000. It logically follows that now India holds the dubious distinction of having the largest number of active separatist movements of any country in the world. 

  

Local political success - no matter how it is achieved - is also rewarded by national leaders. In late 2007, these leaders watched in silence as Narendra Modi ran for the Gujarat elections on a blatantly right-wing platform. The fact that he presided over communal riots in 2002 that killed over 3000 Muslims was overlooked while he was invited to Delhi by the BJP party elite to help formulate strategy for the 2009 national parliamentary elections. Not only is he now formulating national strategy, there are hundreds of other small-time politicians aspiring to be just like him. 

The scene playing out in Assam is no different; warring factions are engaging in the only power grab allowed by India's political system. The system punishes national leaders who move to stop this violence (by the withdrawl of parliamentary support by either the faction and/or its sympathizers), and rewards those who wait (with parliamentary support when the dust settles and the winner enters parliament). 

The political game set in motion in 1951, by some men who were long on idealism but short on vision, continues its grim downward spiral; thousands die, hundreds of thousands are rendered homeless, violence increases, separatist movements increase in number and intensity. 

Coming Soon: Why are the Police not protecting common citizens?