By Albert Thyrniang
From the Hynniewtrep Achik Liberation Council (HALC), the Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council (HNLC) and the Achik Magrik Liberation Army (AMLA) became the offshoots. From the Achik National Volunteer Council (ANVC) that came into being in 1995 after AMLA passed into oblivion, we now have 22 rebel groups in Garo Hills, the latest being Matchadu Matchabet. The architect of the ANVC’s splinter group that is named after an animal that half resembles half a man and a tiger, is Mat Memang. Memang claimed that majority of the ANVC-B’s cadres are now part of his ‘Tiger Man’ group.
The reason for the split is the opposition to the ‘Peace Pact’ signed between ANVC-B’s Chairman, Rimpu Marak and the State Government on January 5, last year. The breakaway group vows to fight rather than surrender their cause through negotiation. This is significant as Rimpu has stated that efforts were on to bring other groups to the negotiating table. Now the ANVC-B has two breakaway groups.
Why is Garo Hills producing so many militant groups? Why is the region a fertile soil for militancy? What are the reasons for youths to take up arms? Why have they to resort to violent means to air their demands? What are the causes of militancy in Garo Hills? A critical look at a couple of them may be beneficial. Sovereignty: The first insurgent group in Meghalaya, HALC came into existence to fight for an Independence Meghalaya. HALC did not last. Tribal differences arose and HALC split into HNLC in Khasi-Jaintia Hills and ALMA in Garo Hills. The demand for sovereignty is an impossible dream as the Indian Union will be in no mood to listen to anyone with the utopian wish. The Mighty LTTE has failed in Sri Lanka. The powerful NSCN factions in Nagaland will have to settle for a ‘non-sovereign Nagaland’. Like the HNLC, if there is any group in Garo Hills fighting for sovereignty, it will be chasing a mirage.
Statehood: Perhaps, realizing the impossibility of a sovereign Garo homeland the ALMA’s successor, the ANVC scaled down their demand and asked instead for a Garo State (Achik Land) within the Indian Union comprising the present Garo Hills, the Garo denominated areas of West Khasi Hills and a large chunk of Kamrup and Goalpara districts of Assam.
Here too, the Assam government will not entertain and oblige this demand. Therefore, this demand too is next to impossible. NGOs in Khasi Hills too have stated that they will not ‘part with an inch’ of their land. After July 23, 2004 when ANVC entered into a cease fire agreement with the Indian and Meghalaya governments the ANVC floated the idea of a Garoland Autonomous Council along the lines of the Bodoland Autonomous Council. Talks moving at snail pace.
Ever since the ANVC split various other breakaway groups are surfacing claiming to demand for a Garoland. Now, is this a popular demand? Do the civil societies, the NGOs/pressure groups and more importantly political parties in Garo Hills go along with this demand? Was the demand a major election issue by political parties during elections? In past elections, none except the Garo National Council (GNC) has fought elections on this plank. And what was the response of the electorate? In the 2002 MDC election, the GNC won just one seat. In 2003 Assembly election, only 8483 voters cast their vote for the party. In 2008 state election the party drew a blank. In 2013 election it managed to send one legislator to the Legislative Assembly. Buoyed by its ‘rejuvenation’ the party has organized rallies and sit-in demonstrations and plans to do so in the future too.
Statehood demand is, of course, legitimate. But taking up arms will yield no result. No state in India was born through armed struggle. Look at the newest Telangana state! It is a result of a mass and popular movement. The Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) and other political parties fought and won elections on the Telangana issue several times. A long fight of mass and popular movement ultimately bore fruit, not guns or firearms!
Backwardness: The region is truly backward. A tour of Songsak and Dadengre blocks will confirm the statement. Areas infested with militants are inaccessible and remote with little basic amenities. Who do we blame for this unacceptable lack of development? An accusation often flies around: Garo Hills is given step-motherly treatment! Garo Hills has been long neglected! Now, who has given this step-motherly treatment to Garo Hills? Who has neglected Garo Hills?
Commenting on a Facebook post, a person lambasted PA Sangma for keeping Garo Hills undeveloped. The veteran politician is the longest serving public servant in Garo Hills. He was Chief Minister, MP, Union Cabinet Minister and Speaker of Lok Sabha. Therefore, the Garo strongman has to responsibly accept the blame partially. But who else must the blame be pin pointed to?
Patricia Mukhim’s article, “Garo Hills sinks into lawlessness” (Shillong times, 22nd February, 2014) also published in The Statesman (24th February) pointed out that most of the Chief Ministers of Meghalaya have come from the region. Out of 11 Chief Ministers that Meghalaya has had, four of them were/are from Garo Hills. However, on the whole the four chief ministers have ruled the state 11 times (not terms) out of 25 times. Of the 44 years of Meghalaya’s statehood, CMs from Garo Hills have roughly governed the state for 24 years. Captain William Sangma was CM from 1970 to 76. He returned as CM from 1981 to 1983 and continued up to 1988. In 1988, PA Sangma took over and remained CM till 1990. SC Marak then occupied the hot heat from 1993 to 1998. He was back in office after the 1998 election to be CM till 2000. The present CM, Dr. Mukul Sangma has been in power from 2010 till date. If Garo Hills remains backward should not accountability be sought from the right persons?
We also have public representative (MLAs and MPs) who have not worked for the development of their region over the years. They have personally benefited at the expense of the constituencies they represent. The allegation of continued neglect of Garo Hills is to be taken with a pinch of salt. The reason for backwardness is internal not external.
Unemployment: Repeatedly unemployment is cited as a prime reason for militancy. The government is blamed for the joblessness. Therefore, unemployed and drop out youths turn to guerilla organizations for a promising life. Militancy is now the biggest employer after the state government. Creating job opportunities is no doubt the government’s responsibility. But no government can provide jobs to all its citizens. Supplements are private and individual enterprises. Here comes the role of skills and hard work. Do our youths realize the importance of acquiring skills and doing hard work? Though not within, jobs may be available outside the state if job seekers are equipped with the required skills and the willingness to persevere. It’s time to open up and not remain in a rat hole.
Garo Hills now has the dubious distinction of being home to at least 22 terror outfits. The region is graced by self styled ‘Chairmen’ and ‘Commanders-in-Chief’. Mat Memang will not be the last. Many opine that the cropping groups have no genuine cause. The above mentioned reasons are but a pretext for an ulterior motive. Even if they have a justified cause, violent means are no way justified. Militancy solves nothing. It makes the problems of the region more acute. It only makes the region more backward. Militancy will never take the region on the road of progress and development. So militancy has to end!