Insurgency in North-East India
The North-East India is presently enduring relative instability. The acute signs of stability are imminent in the Central Government’s success in utilizing cross-border military co-operation for emphasizing pressure on the rebellious groups and ceasefires are in line with some of the largest insurgents in North-East India. Inter-community violence and partisan rebellion continue to prevail all the same, while the unending demand for local sovereignty, alterations in boundaries and creation of new states continue to thrive rapidly.
The central government’s efforts are evident in a plethora of factors: decrease in the number of attacks on the government, indefatigably violent local politics demonstrate their strategy for sustaining stability in the region. This also represents the support for localized authority in the region. The central government has made substantial investments so far in the North-Eastern state and group leaders by a myriad of resources like finance and other coercive resources, while tolerating the endless years of erosion of democracy and laws and regulations. This kind of financial assistance has enabled leaders to unify powers and limit violence against substances the central government considers most crucial for the economy, such as infrastructure and industrial facilities, among others. If this strategy is deemed successful, the outcome is most likely minimized threats against national security. Investment in a localized sovereignty means the spread of corruption and emergence of local political violence and prevailed incentives for the leaders to protest against the central government targets, as and when the opportunity arises.
To begin with, there has been an ensuing debate over the authenticity of democracy in India in general. The deficiencies in the context are perceived to be the most threatening in the Asian sub-continent. The drawbacks of the country’s democracy pattern are also represented elsewhere. These points are taken into consideration in this study, while somewhat different claims are entertained, depending on how well the center creates and maintains localized sovereignties in North-East India and establishes that the progression of these local regimes are a representation of evolving security situation. The study also establishes the impact of the country’s policy (peace and otherwise) in the North-Eastern region, rather than the analysis of the center’s perceptions and motives.