Surrender, SoO, Ceasefire etc etc : Confusing the essence of peace
- Sangai Express Editorial :: May 18, 2013 -

The pursuit of peace cannot get more confusing than this. Surrender is a term that has come to be loathed by numerous armed groups which have recently come forward to ostensibly talk across the negotiating table with the Government.

The Government on the other hand seems to prefer the term ‘Home Coming’ where grand ceremonies are held and the cadres, who have come over ground are paraded before the media with the assortment of arms laid down to be captured on the camera. The obsession with such terms may perhaps be traced back to August 1, 1997 when the NSCN (IM) signed the truce pact with the Government of India.

Perhaps it was for political compulsions or other tactical reasons, but it was not called ‘surrender’ in the conventional sense, though cease fire ground rules were indeed inked and designated camps sprang up.

Next came the Suspension of Operation treaties signed between the Government of India, Government of Manipur and the Kuki militant outfits under two umbrella organisations, the Kuki National Organisation and the United People’s Front. The term ‘surrender’ is nowhere to be seen here.

In the last few years, two or three years, to be more precise, Manipur has seen a number of armed outfits coming forward for talks and with each group coming overground, the term ‘surrender’ seems to have become a politically incorrect word to be used, at least to these guys.

As a policy, the Government and the armed organisations may have desisted from using this term ‘surrender’ but that has not stopped a person, occupying the post of the Union Home Minister, Shushil Kumar Shinde in using this term during his customary press briefings at Delhi.

Surrender is the very term used by the honourable Minister when he recalled some cadres of the UPPK laying down arms before the Assam Rifles at Sunrise Ground in Moreh at Chandel district on April 17.

The interesting question is whether usage of the term, ‘surrender’, ‘home coming’, ‘laying down arms’ or ‘coming to the negotiating table’ has anything to do with peace as is universally understood. What is in a name ? A lot perhaps to some of these groups who have come forward to hold political dialogues with the Government.

Technically, when an underground outfit agrees to give up the bush war, lay down their weapons and come to the negotiating table, then surrender may not be an incorrect term.

By the same logic, when an armed group agrees to adhere to certain laid down ground rules, live in designated camps and engage in a talk with the Government, it may not exactly fit the bill of the term ‘surrender’.

A merry go round exercise where the real objectives may just get lost in the usage of words ? The argument here may sound mundane and even juvenile and may not even befit a discussion here. But the fact of the matter is, it does.

Media houses in Manipur have been called up, though not actually inundated with such calls, to use the word/term of their choice.

If the issue at hand, that is peace and development, is not so serious, then surely it would have elicited guffaws from all sane persons. The harsh reality however is, the issues here are no laughing matter.

If all the parties concerned are really intent on carrying forward their agenda of bringing in peace, why should so much importance be placed on the terms used ?

A misplaced case of false ego, which has the potential to cloud the real issue.

Instead of obsessing with the term being used, the matter of greater importance should be about the question of whether the political negotiations proceeding with different armed groups have had any real positive impact on the people or not.

Jugglery of words should not reduce something as pristine as peace to a joke. This can only get more confusing.