The worst way of ‘protecting’ identities is through the barrel of a gun. This alternative leaves no victors, only losers. Yet, this has been tried again and again in different parts of the world, including India’s North East, with brutal results. Take the cases of the Kashmiris and the Nagas, the Tamils of Sri Lanka, the Rwandans and Burundis, and the Bosnians, Croats and Serbs. The list goes on. The burial shrouds are endless, the cemeteries and cremation grounds are full.

The State strikes back, determined to protect its interests.

The majoritarian groups strike back, determined not to lose what they believe is theirs by right. The latter strategy can take the shape of preferential policies for their own groups, economic disincentives for others, and political alliances that give rise to blocks of sympathetic voters and supporters. This is notable in those espousing regional growth through regional parties, saying these are more sympathetic to local concerns. Yet, experience has shown in the past twenty years in India, that a regional government is not necessarily more efficient, sensitive to local demands or less corrupt than ‘national party’ governments. The key lies in whether that party or political coalition can bring about better governance. This has not happened in most states, barring limited areas of southern and western India. The hype always belies reality.

How can we bring about better governance? Clearly, one way is by devolving power to the lowest unit of government so that people are encouraged to develop a stake in running their own affairs instead of depending on the sarkar at the district, state, or national level to do things for them. This is an extremely difficult task as is shown in those Indian states (Bihar and Assam to name two) which refused to hold local body elections for years, despite court orders to them. They defied court rulings and the Constitution as well, for it is laid down specifically in the Great Book that such elections must be held every five years. Unless we develop ways of dispossessing such recalcitrant state governments of those powers which harms the Constitution and local governance, the changes which we seek will remain just that—in the realm of the sought.

It is local governance which will give us a more sensitive response to the problems of local conflict and representation of ethnic, religious and linguistic communities. This does not mean that we should not develop a national, even regional, macro-approach to these problems. We must. But the problems will have to be solved at the micro-level, where the action really takes place.

Migrants, refugees and internally displaced people are among the world’s most vulnerable communities. There are three basic bonds that bind them:9

1. Disruption: Most have left behind the support of traditional values, extended families, friends, and familar ways of life. With limited means, they face new and uncertain situations.

2. Differences: Culture and language often set them apart from their new neighbours.