Propelling inter-state trade (Manipur-Nagaland) and a crying need to ensure vibrant highways
By Aküm Longchari
SPIDER WEB
Friends, as one whose primary engagement has been on issues of conflict and JustPeace, I confess I feel rather out of place at this distinguished gathering of entrepreneurs. I appreciate being invited into your midst.
Ever since Neichute offered me this opportunity to be here with you this afternoon, I have been wrestling in my mind with this very pertinent and crucial issue of inter-state trade and vibrant highways. And, I keep seeing this image of a spider’s web, and the web seems to be reminding me that all these aspects are inter-related and inter-connected.
The questions of inter-state trade and vibrant highways do not exist in a vacuum, nor can they be seen in isolation. They are only strands of a spider-web that is primarily concerned with human dignity and a shared humanity. In other words, they are only pieces of a jigsaw puzzle!
Allow me to acknowledge that it is the spider-web which has given me the confidence to stand up before you this afternoon and offer you a perspective of inter-state trade and vibrant highways that connects these individual strands to the broader complexities of the web of life here in this region.
Essentially, given our geography, our histories and political situation, the existential situation of Manipur and Nagaland requires us to locate the question of Inter-State Trade within a decolonization framework. This suggests the need to understand and define inter-state trade primarily as one of inter-cultural and cross-cultural relations. When we see through the cultural lens, then the connections are clearer, and not limited to geographic boundaries defined by others.
When we limit the understanding of inter-state trade within the existing paradigm as defined by the State, its dynamism is lost as it is regulated by rigid boundaries and legal norms where people are reduced to consumers and statistics.
By (re)defining inter-state trade as one of inter-cultural and cross-cultural relations, our shared humanity will realize benefits for everyone because our human aspirations assume the foundational stone in building common ground, and our inter-dependent and inter-connected nature become our guiding principles.
This removes people from the status of being dependent subjects to being makers of their own destiny in which boundaries are no longer lines drawn on a map to separate and divide, but provide fluid and soft lines where tensions are creatively transformed as shared and respectful spaces.
Inevitably, to constructively create conditions that can propel inter-cultural trade, we need to acknowledge the current context where basic human needs are deprived, perceived and real conflicts of interest have led to a climate of suspicion, distrust and polarity. It further requires us to meaningful address the state of poverty, structural violence, institutionalized and social corruption and the asymmetrical power structures.
Thus, inherent to the question of trade is its inter-relation with peace.
Here I will focus on the interplay of geography, history and politics as it has been central in determining the nature and scope of relations between cultures. Historically, trade was the fulcrum to this dialectical relationship of geography, history and politics – and ultimately, peace.
Many scholars have written about this inescapable relationship between trade, war and peace. Lucia Coppolaro and Francine McKenzie in their essay, “” refer to how trade and conflict were commonly connected. Jan Pieterszoon Coen, the Dutch East India Company’s Governor-General in the Indies, who observed that trade and war were inseparably linked is quoted to have said that, “we cannot make war without trade nor trade without war.”
Notwithstanding this point of view, Amir M. Kamel in argues that an increase in trade leads to universal benefits (which expand to include peace). This notion, he says, was first mentioned at around AD 100, when Plutarch wrote about how sea trade allowed humans to cooperate and “redress defects” in their relationship with one another through mutual exchange. Imagine that this was noted more than two thousand years ago and probably much earlier by the Phoenicians and Egyptians.
It was in 1748, Charles de Montesquieu incisively made a fundamental conclusion that trade was an instrument of peace and gave rise to the idea that, “.”
Thereafter, it was Adam Smith who popularized the connection of trade and peace. It was in his (1776) that the idea of trade promoted concepts of interdependence, which in turn enhanced the understanding around the economic benefits of peace and the economic costs of war.
In today’s interdependent world, the interrelationship between trade and peace is more acute and critical to human co-existence and the vision of a shared humanity. In his collection of essays in , E. F. Schumacher hones the view that it is not economics that is at stake, but culture, not the standard of living but the quality of life. This also translates to the economics of peace.
Schumacher’s emphasis on culture and quality of life has underpinnings when the boundary itself is the centre of political differences. Diana Klein in points out there are no shortage of examples of disputes about boundaries with significant cross-border economic dynamics. In these types of situations, maintaining the border usually becomes a political goal.
In these conditions, the concept of trade assumes a more sensitive and complex demeanor, providing opportunities for both conflict and peace.
In places emerging from conflict, Graham Carrington informs us that trade offers opportunities to a region, relationships and between communities estranged by violence. In Carrington explores how trade policy and practice along the Uganda-Sudan border is contributing to peacebuilding and socio-economic recovery in the region – and in some cases even aggravating or creating tensions that require careful management.
Carrington’s study reveals that conflict has had an enormous impact on the skills base in Southern Sudan and Northern Uganda, where most of the population is under 18 years old, with limited or no education or marketable skills. Because many have either grown up as refugees, internally displaced or fighting in different armed groups they are unfamiliar with farming, despite it being the region’s main livelihood.
From a peacebuilding perspective, their current economic hardship could trigger future conflict. Greater effort, the study says, is needed to ensure the groups most affected by conflict can become involved and reap the benefits of cross-border trade which includes receiving livelihood skills. This translates to the need to be inclusive and recognize the people’s capabilities when designing trade initiatives.
Cross-border trade has a vital role in recovery and reconciliation efforts, but important changes to policy and practice are needed to help harness its peacebuilding potential and avoid intensifying conflict.
Inter-state trade policies need to consciously promote mutual interdependence. If both sides of the border benefit, then the stakes for achieving peace increase which support being able to live side by side in harmony. Klien cautions that, economic development in conflict-affected regions should not be confined to one side of the border. The resulting asymmetry may fuel the conflict or maintain the conflict status quo – as is the case between Israel and Palestine; or may simply be counterproductive to rapprochement efforts – as between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Klien says promoting inter-state trade cooperation, and resource-sharing as a means to build peace can bring tangible benefits to everyone. It could contribute towards creating or strengthening markets, restoring livelihoods or reviving environments, creating ‘pockets of stability’, providing employment for people who might otherwise be mobilised by armed groups, or more generally creating a ‘peace constituency’ by increasing stakes in stability. Building relationships through trade has the potential to build or rebuild trust, to breakdown stereotypes, and to begin laying the foundations for interdependency, as well as providing incentives for cooperation and peace.
While pointing out that business often responds quicker across borders than diplomacy or civil society, Klien is quick to caution that, “Cooperation across borders does not necessarily stop during fighting, but in some circumstances can increase as the economy and businesses adapt to conditions of war.”
The value of cross-border trade has also been experienced in a somewhat unintended and coincidental way in Kashmir. While peacebuilding was not a primary objective, Ayesha Saeed in tells us that cross-border trade helped Kashmiri communities to start to rebuild severed relationships across the LoC.
She says it has the potential to “provide an entry point to help build confidence in the India-Pakistan peace process, and to strengthen Kashmiri capacity to contribute to peacebuilding in Kashmir.” She further adds that, “In official discourse, cross-LoC trade has been framed as a peacemaking step and marketed as a confidence-building measure.”
These various findings including the evaluation by Search for Common Ground on highlights that cross-cultural trade had led to positive changes, reduced prejudice, improved relations and increased trust. In turn, this has also improved trade on both sides of the border from which everyone benefits.
I believe there are vital lessons for us to learn from these experiences and together offer pragmatic ways to make trade as a means to peace applicable in our own context.
The land-linked geography and history of Manipur and Nagaland ensure we are interdependent and interconnected to each other. The highways, therefore, are not just a utility for transporting commodities from one location to another. They provide the means through which cross-cultural interactions are nurtured and relationships are cultivated.
However, the colonial project in this region cannot be ignored while exploring the possibilities for new patterns of relationships based on mutual respect. The impact on our cultures and the imposition of boundaries without people’s informed consent has had far-reaching consequences.
Furthermore, the roadways during the colonial project were a means of invasion, exploitation, control and movement of its armed forces. Nonetheless, for the people it provided opportunities to connect and facilitate mobility of people, goods and ideas.
Today, the People-State conflict has been effectively reduced to a People-People conflict in which the Indian State not only re-defines the problem to suit its own purposes, but has also ironically assumed the role of a peace mediator. To maintain the contested border seems to have become the functional political goal of the Indian State.
Unfortunately, this means the root causes of the problem have been misplaced, leading to entrenched positions and severed relationships between peoples whose traditional relationship of mutual inter-dependence and overlapping boundaries existed long before this intrusion into our space and land.
It is in the backdrop of this complex and unfolding situation that the crying need to ensure vibrant highways are being explored. Any initiative towards this must meaningfully assure that the basic fundamental needs of people in the Imphal Valley and the surrounding “peoples of the hills” in Manipur are at the center of the process.
The hill peoples’ sense of deliberate denial and systematic marginalization coupled with a strong perception that the core political power and economic resources are concentrated in the valley for their own purposes need to be acknowledged and addressed. Similarly, the constant economic blockades which have drastically impacted the people’s stability and well-being in the valley causing deep anguish and humanitarian concerns need to be addressed.
Empirical evidence informs us that in times of crisis the highways have constantly been used as a political tool for bargaining and as leverage for the governments to hear and heed to the demand. This assumption is erroneous and counter-productive. In fact, such approaches only weakens and undermines people’s legitimate rights, and only further deepens the divide as it tears at the broken relationship between the hills and the valley.
The contentions around the highway are but a reflection of the broader and deeper issues that remain inconclusive. The stakeholders have polarized perceptions on the same issue and are unable to understand the problem from the position of the other. Entrenched in their own narrative, all the stakeholders are in danger of being consumed by their single story.
Hence, from a peacebuilding perspective it is precisely because of this precarious position that the Highways need to become part of the broader cross-cultural interaction of exploring new relationships.
By way of conclusion I wish to remind us of Schumacher’s observation that, “Development does not start with goods; it starts with people and their education, organization, and discipline. Without these three, all resources remain latent, untapped potential.” Furthermore, economic growth needs to reflect “social cohesion, cooperation, mutual respect, and above all, self-respect, courage in the face of adversity, and the ability to bear hardship.”
Ultimately, cross-cultural trade is inherently about cross-cultural relationships between people. It is also about reflecting mutual respect, reciprocal trust, critical cooperation and establishing partnerships with understanding – which is the understanding of differences.
The relationship between cross-cultural trade and peace presents a means for harmonious co-existence among neighbors. In essence, cross-cultural trade is an opportunity to make a difference and to build peace through entrepreneurial collaborations.
Finally I wish to make a concrete suggestion inspired by the , Lavin Center and Fred J. Hansen Institute Drive Peace In the Middle East. As part of their goal to establish and sustain economic partnerships among Arab and Israeli farmers, they agreed to collaboratively produce a “blended Israeli-Palestinian” olive oil. Today I challenge entrepreneurs from all the stakeholders to collaborate to produce a product that symbolically represents our relationships.
The future of the people of Manipur and Nagaland are deeply intertwined, tied together. We need to share our stories, listen to each other and define our problems and solutions together. It is essential that we do not allow the State to tell our stories for us and to define the problems for us and to offer solutions that do not meet the basic needs of our circumstances.
Friends, the need for a partnering cross-cultural framework that promotes values and principles of shared responsibility, mutual respect, shared benefits and the realization that our humanity is tied to one another is of the essence. The sooner we realize it, the better it is for our shared future. And, today’s gathering is a stepping stone along this pathway.
