This summer the BBC broadcast a number of programmes under the title 'India and Pakistan 07' on both television and radio to mark the sixtieth anniversary of the Partition of India on August 14th 1947, with the creation of Pakistan emerging as Indian-territory was subsequently reduced in size. There are a number of interesting issues arising from the coverage of both India and Pakistan that we would like to address in this comment. Firstly we shall focus on the BBC's coverage of Pakistan looking specifically at the presentation of the 'other' Pakistan, mostly unknown to Western viewers. Then we shall comment partly on some of the content presented on India but mostly on what was omitted from the BBC's television coverage. Therefore we would like to use this space as an opportunity to comment on an oft neglected part of the Indian story, namely the strife ridden North-Eastern region of India with its numerous rebel groups fighting an armed conflict against the Indian Government and the 'victims' of the partition in Bengal.

The two episodes on Pakistan presented by Saira Khan, called 'Pakistan Adventure', were highly revealing because Khan deliberately set out to present the 'other' Pakistan; that's the one unknown to Western viewers - the one minus the apparent ubiquitous evil fundamentalists and/or terrorists, potential or otherwise. This was a lecture; a foray into epistemology and Khan used the pulpit to press home a matter of the highest educational importance and in many ways it served equally as a stinging critique of the predicable and stereotypical representations of Pakistan in many parts of the British mainstream media, including, somewhat ironically, the BBC. Khan's presentation of Pakistan was to show a society not only deeply misunderstood but one that is also fascinating and complex.

In Britain, Pakistan is portrayed mostly as a country brimming with 'Muslim Fundamentalists' who apparently epitomise the 'clash of civilisations' dreamt up by Samuel P. Huntington who once argued that the source of the post-war conflict would not be economic or ideological difference, but rather cultural difference. Even though some thinkers have linked Huntington's views to Oswald Spengler, wrongly, well at least in its entirety, it's worth noting that the formers' sense of impending Western decline is neither primarily based on technology nor decadence but difference. Nowhere has cultural difference been more apparent than in the recurring image of the former teacher turned 'London Suicide Bomber', one Mohammed Sidique Khan whose video broadcast, from Pakistan, was featured regularly in the British media. Images that convey such cultural difference and cultural estrangement go a long way to justify supporters of Huntington's view that 'traditionalism' is the main obstacle to 'modernisation', 'reason' and 'enlightenment'.

Saira Khan deliberately set out to confute and reject this fixed image of Pakistan and amongst other matters, a key part of the two episodes showed that modernisation and progress ala Western ideals certainly exist. Artists with critical views, TV hosts (one was a male cross dresser), fashion photographers, Sufi Muslims with their transcendental mysticism and hypnotic music and almost sexually charged dancing, amongst others were shown to prove a point; to show that Pakistan is complex, progressive, modern and traditional. For neo-conservatives such complexities and paradoxes may not be convincing as they turn to Huntington who had argued that some societies were 'Torn Countries' with split cultural personalities and dysfunctional value-systems; no doubt that theory would be applied to Pakistan as it attempts to 'affiliate' to other 'civilisations', and one criteria being acceptance of new values by the people - a step too far for Huntington's lot perhaps at this moment in time. This was the importance of Khan's presentation to dispel the myths of not only the British media but also other Western media that pigeon hole Pakistan and equally to confront the bigotry of reactionary neo-cons and Huntington's warped sense of the 'other'.

Turning now to India, the BBC screened three programmes on the 'Ganges'; the British comedian Sanjeev Bhasker presented a number of programmes travelling and commenting on various parts of India, with the exception of the North East, although he did get close by visiting Kolkata (Calcutta) and Darjeeling. On Tuesday August 14th 2007 the BBC screened 'The Day India Burned: Partition', but predictably the focus was entirely on what was once 'West Pakistan' (now Pakistan proper) with hardly a mention of what was 'East Pakistan' (Bangladesh since 1971) and the political issues governing the North East at this present time. On Monday August 20th the BBC screened 'Mumbai Uncovered' (Bombay). The emphasis was an uncritical appraisal of the celebration of celebrity but more importantly of the rise of consumerism in Mumbai and by implication other parts of India. In sum, it was a celebration of India's rise as a 'global power', of 'progress' and 'modernisation'. The BBC's 'Man in India', Mark Tully, is rightly sceptical of this 'new India', condemning it in the second episode presented by Bhaskar as a imitation of the USA and losing its sense of 'Indianness' in the process.

Many people in the UK bemoan the fact that most High Streets are identikits of each other with the ubiquitous StarBucks, MacDonalds, etc., and Mumbai is quickly becoming just another clone with the usual suspects lining up to profit. Right-Wing economists gloat at the prospect of India's 'development' but we have been here before, the country is called Brazil. What 'consumerism' and 'development' really means in India and Brazil for that matter is the continuation of high levels of poverty, of a small middle class able to prosper, a political class in cahoots and/or kow-towing to the needs of Big Business and huge returns on profits for Western companies; it's all so familiar, but you would never assume this judging by the way Mumbai was presented to us by the BBC.

The BBC did present a programme on the North East titled 'Manipur's Bloody Conflict' (Thursday, August 9th) but unfortunately it only focused on the state of Manipur, therefore neglecting the other five states with similar stories, and it was 'relegated' to BBC Radio 4. The reporter Tanya Datta stated that it is a story 'rarely heard in the West', and even though it was incomplete it's a shame that it wasn't included in the partition story on television that broadcasts to a wider audience. This is important mainly because of the new image of India that is emerging in the West, which is incomplete; it's one of a new prosperity, of a new modernising India that is experiencing an economic boom. However, the economic boom doesn't reach out to the North Eastern regions and in many senses it remains a closed society; closed off mainly due to the Indian government's reluctance to allow outsiders witness what is actually occurring there, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility for the media in general to cover the entire region.

North Eastern India is largely known to the outside world as a land of rugged beauty, rich in animal life lush green river plain of the mighty Brahmaputra and a centre for tea production in Assam. For most Indians however the region is a secessionist inner land, distant in terms of hearts and mind from the rest of India. It is a puzzlement to ponder on the ideological anachronism posed by India's Northeast to the democratic ideals of Indian Nationhood. One wonders how India, nurturing a 60 years legacy of democratic ideals since the Partition, and seemingly standing at the threshold as a newly developing world power tolerates the Northeast where conflict appears to fly in the face of the democratic ideal.

The history of North East India from the mythical through recorded past to recent past is characterised by quite considerable population movements, both from west and east Asia with many entering the region as late as the 19th Century. The in-flow of people to North East India from various directions brought diverse racial and linguistic groups having distinct socio-cultural patterns and varied economic organisations. The diverse racial groups who were overwhelmingly Mongoloids settled in different localities and ecological settings of the region, which in course of time have been transformed into tribal and non-tribal entities. This has led to the conspicuous development of ethnicity in this region and in course of time it has come to play in many cases a decisive role in various political developments in Northeast India.

This cultural mosaic was made complex first as a result of the pre-independence British policy of 'importing' large numbers of administrators, plantation workers and cultivators from other parts of India. Secondly after Independence by a national government which first sought to homogenise their cultural identity under the single ambit of 'Indian Nationhood' and later by its effort to undo the wrong by granting political autonomy to every sub-national assertion.

The present situation of unrest has another vital root in the partition of India. The geographical redefinition of political boundaries gave rise to complex dynamics of conflicting loyalties between tribes and communities that were economic and political in nature. For instance, the huge exodus of refugees from Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) were already part of a society of capitalist formation when they settled in these sparsely populated and cultivable land, suddenly the pre-capitalist economic structure of this area suffered a serious setback. They also paved the way for an economic transformation that the simple economy found difficult to cope with. The situation worsened after the formation of Bangladesh when the exodus continued but this time illegally and sometimes under unofficial political patronage that saw them as 'voter-friendly' to their required needs.

The cumulative impact of these policies was a deepening of fissures between tribal and non-tribal populations, as well as a contrived and unsustainable exclusion of these regions from the processes of modernisation and democratisation. Inevitably, with the progressive and natural erosion of these artificial barriers, the local populations were brought into increasing friction with migrant populations that were far better adapted to the institutions and processes of the modern world, giving rise to a proliferation of conflicts throughout the region. The dichotomous administrative system both in the pre-and the post-Independence era, also produced wide variations between the pace of development in the hills and the plains, with the latter dominating the economic profile of the region, and the tribal areas lagging far behind. It is the wide swathe of the Brahmaputra Valley - comprising nearly 22 per cent of the region - that has long been the most economically active, with substantial plantation and industrial estates and reasonable infrastructure.

To highlight the complexity of the situation, the Indian Strategic Review, the weekly journal of the Institute for Strategic Research and Analysis, provides information on the many insurgent groups currently active in Northeastern India:

" The Assam United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) banned since November 1990.

" The Assam Tigers Force (ATF), which the police claim is another front for ULFA.

" The National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB), formerly Bodo Security Force (BSF) banned since 1992.

" The National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB), Karbi National Volunteer (KNV), Rabha National Security Force (RNSF), Bodo Liberation Tigers (BLT), Dima Halam Daoga (DHD), United People's Democratic Solidarity (UPDS), Muslim United Liberation Tigers Association (MULTA). All are active in Assam.

" The Bengali Tigers Force (BTF) who apparently exist to protect Bengali Hindus.

" The Meghalaya Achik National Volunteers Council (ANVC) and the Hynniewtrep Achik Liberation Council (HALC). Both have been banned since December 2000.

" The Tripura National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), the All Tripura Tigers Force (ATTF), and the Mizoram Hmar People's Convention (HPC) who operate out of Arunachal Pradesh; a safe heaven for Assam and Naga militants where they have their training camps and protected hide outs.

" Nagaland National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN I-M) is banned but declared a truce with the government in 1997. However, the cease-fire does not extend to Manipur, Assam and, Arunachal Pradesh.

" The National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Khaplang) is banned, as is their archrival, NSCN (I-M).

" The state of Manipur has 12 frontline militant groups. The top six of them are the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (I-M), People's Liberation Army (PLA), People's Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak, United National Liberation Front (UNLF), Kuki National Front (KNF) and the Hmar People's Convention (HPC).

The three major issues of conflict that mar this region are firstly identity assertions of sub-national movements that resort to violence, secondly ethnic conflict that arises out of policy interventions of both the central and state governments plus the large scale internal displacement of people who are rendered homeless through a loss of livelihood. The region has borne witness to large-scale ethnic violence and insurgency (see Tables 1 & 2). The first table demonstrates the different ethnic groups which have clashed creating a large pool of displaced population and the second estimates the fatalities in insurgency and armed conflict in North Eastern India.

Table 1: Number of internally displaced persons in North East India

Table 2 Fatalities in India's Northeast, 1992-2001

(Cumulative Total (All Categories) M: Militants; SF: Security Force Personnel; C: Civilians. Both Table Sources (Estimates made by USCR of what it calls the 'hidden displacement' in NEI. Reproduced from USCR, 2000, with permission of the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, 1997).

Looking at the pattern of conflict in the region, which has been in the grip of separatist insurgencies since the partition and independence of India and throughout New India's experiences of state formation and nation building we can broadly categorise the following trends of conflict in this region. Movements for freedom from the Indian nation-state; movements for full-fledged states within the Indian Union; movements for autonomy within the Indian states; movements for reservation or special protection within the autonomous structures; strife between tribal population/groups for control over land or territorial supremacy and movement against 'outsiders', foreign nationals, Bangladesh immigrants and others from the Indian hindi-speaking mainland.

Whilst Western mainstream media produce representations of a new developing and modernising India, the uncomfortable reality is that the Northeast is a region of continual armed conflict and how that fits into the new image of India is certainly open to interpretations and perhaps interesting observations!

BBC Links

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/investigation/html/bombers.stm#

http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/indiapakistan/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/6930091.stm