Are the Christians responsible for terrorist activities in North East India?

It is not uncommon to come across the idea that Christian missionaries are responsible for terrorist activities in India's North East. Before I proceed to clarify the matter I wish to state that I am from northern part of Manipur in India's north east; and it's an area that has witnessed so much of unrest and killing over the last 60 years. So I am sharing this from first hand experience, and not as a distant observer writing through hearsay.

First of all, it would be debatable whether the whole thing is terrorist activities or freedom struggle movement. One side will read the matter as terrorist acts whereas the others will read it as freedom struggle. It depends on perspective! After all Bhagat Singh was a terrorist for British Raj, but for Indian nationalist he was a patriot. But since the post is written primarily to clarify the name of Christianity I won't take side. So I would prefer the term 'militants' instead of terrorists. They are militants ( because they are not moderates!).

The Nagas are roughly 90% Christians, with the remaining still counted as animists. Their number total around 2 millions. The Naga militants have taken to arms since 1950s, fighting against the government of India for the last 60 odd years. They are spread out over Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Nagaland, Manipur and Myanmar. The other ethnic community among whom militancy is active is the Manipuri/Meetei. At one point of time there were 18 different groups from this community alone fighting against the Government of India. Even today there are various groups like RPF, KYKL, UNLF, PREPAK and KCP, with most of the groups split into different faction. These people are attributed as 88% Hindus approximately; 11% Muslim and 1% others. The third community among whom militancy is active is the Assamese. If one excludes the Bodos and the Bangladeshi migrants, the percentage of Hindus among Assamese may be around 85-90, the rest comprising of Christians, Buddhists, animists and others.

If one would attribute Naga militancy to Christianity then Manipuri/Meetei and Assamese militancy would have to be attributed to Hinduism ( and that of Kashmir to Islam. But let us leave out Kashmir for now). Attributing Naga militancy to Christianity while refusing to attribute to Hinduism the militancy of Assamese and Manipuri/Meetei is just unfair. But in reality attributing the whole militant groups to a particular religious group is to be ignorant of the social and political dynamic of the North East. If one is wishes to learn the truth and at least be concerned to be helpful in solving the problem it is important that one digs deeper the social and political dynamic of the people there.

Though religion is extremely important, for people in the North East India their ethnic identity is also extremely important. For political reasons which historians know better it is not easy for many people in the North East India to identify themselves as Indian just as much a Gujarati or a Malayali or a Bengali would do. So the above ethnic groups that are taking to guns to fight for whatever cause they believe in it is not due to their religious persuasion, but due the their ethnic affiliation. Though group like NSCN is believed to have adopted “Nagaland for Christ” their cause is still due to their ethnic affiliation.

The problem in the North East India is not just their own creation; India is equally responsible, if not more, for the problem there. So it is important that we all go deeper in our engagement in each other lives. Only then can we hope for something better. 

Daniel Duomai

My son Daniel Duomai when he's 6 months old.

Justice in politics

One of the the most powerful tools of a ruler is death penalty. Sometimes ruler uses it to maintain political stability and effective governance; other times to suppress dissent voices and remain seated in power at any cost, though at times it is used for all the above reasons. One ruler in the Bible who cunningly used Death penalty to his advantage, or so he supposed, was Herod the Great. With Roman backing, he was securely king of the Jews. His troops moved around in and out to clinically suppress any uprising. Absence of serious threats, thus, provided him political atmosphere to build temples, markets, theaters, gymnasium etc. He was the President of Olympic Games in 12 BC; and used to be its patrons; and was the one who introduced for the first time in Olympic history prizes for those coming second and third in the competition. No wonder the title ‘the Great’ was conferred on him for valid reasons! However, he would also put to death his wives and children for fear of being usurped of his throne; and was willing to slaughter infants of Bethlehem to remove even future potential threat ( Mat 2.16).

Closer home—in time, we have Hosni Mubarak seemingly willing Egypt to be plundered to continue his 30 years stay in power. Not only is his stale leadership suffocating, but a ruler who does not face election hardly is accountable to the people. Democracy has an inbuilt possibility for ‘rulers’ to address problems for the fear of being voted out in the next election.

Closer home—in space, there is Dr. Binayak Sen who faced sedition charge unfairly. Let me put forth why I think it is unfair. Holocaust was an act of terror unleashed by Hitler’s Germany. It was, however, the German citizens who were paying direct and indirect (via purchasing goods) tax to the government that orchestrated the pogrom. The question that emerges then is should all German citizen, therefore, be treated as sympathizer/facilitator of such horrible crime or should the Nazis leadership alone who are directly involved in the Holocaust be indicted? Extrapolating the case to our situation the question before us is should only Maoist extremists who are directly involved in fighting or inciting against the state be charged with sedition or should friends/sympathizers be charged too? If we are to stretch and charge beyond those directly involved all Indian citizens would be guilty too. After all our Indian army, who are funded by our money, have on several occasions violated human rights in different parts of the country. Thus, whenever army officers are tried for crime against humanity his sympathizers/friends who provided him money for such crime should be tried too. But going by this logic would render all political institutions dysfunctional. For this reason I take the view that charging Dr. Binayak Sen with sedition is unfair.

No state is truly sovereign; only God is. All states, whether they acknowledge or not, is subject to God’s law and justice. Alexander Solzhenitsyn once prophesied that USSR would collapse because it was built on Gulag and its kind; and the prophecy came true. A ruler or a state that God chooses to dispose need just a blow ( Herod Agrippa I; Acts 12.22) or an earthquake ( Jericho; Joshua 6) to be purged. God is no respecter of special person or state. A nation like ours which has much historical baggage requires serious homework for peace to prevail. Food is politics; Education is politics; Employment is politics State boundary is politics; nationalism is politics. I think post-liberalisation when change has become rapid God would want to invite us as his children to read afresh the political situation… and participate with him in seeking justice so that peace prevails. Jesus who has conquered death is our side. The fear for death penalty from the ruler or state should not deter us from seeking God’s justice.