Critically examine Birendra Bhattacharyyas portrait of sub-nationalism and identity in the novel Yaruingam.

The Assamese novel Yaruingam whose title in the English translation is Love in the Time of Insurgency traces the beginnings of the Naga insurgency and political changes that happened just before and after India was declared independent in 1947. The very first chapter opens with the time before independence with the scene in which Sharengla, a Naga woman is shown to be living with a Japanese soldier who is about to leave her after the defeat of the Japanese forces in the second world war . The novel tries to trace the kind of political forces which influenced the Naga people during this period. While the novel also provides glimpses of the life of the villagers and the Naga people in general the focus of the novel is more towards mapping the political options that they were faced with and the dilemmas. While focussing on these issues the novel also deals with the problem of Identity and what has been called sub-nationalism and demands for separatism among the Naga people. In this paper I will try to concentrate on the issue of sub-nationalism as dealt with in the novel and try to show how Bhattacharya tries to negotiate the concept of identity and nationalism/sub-nationalism as it emerged during the time immediately after the independence of India with the assimilationist vision of the Indian state. The novel has been written in the realistic mode and the various dominant ideologies which gained currency has been discussed from the point of view of the major characters. In that sense Yaruingam is a novel of ideas and all the major characters have been made to represent the dominant views as affecting the Naga people during the time. It should be noticed that although Videsselie certainly seems to represent one of the major concerns which the novel tries to discuss which is that of insurgency and the demand for separatism, his character has been provided much less narrative space than those representing the other major points of view which is that of assimilationist nationalist view of the Indian state. The main protagonist in terms of narrative space is certainly Rishang who represents the point of view which accepts being a part of the India nation state. This is the point of view which the author seems to endorse and therefore it inevitable tries to suppress the point of view which is the most against it, that of separatism represented in the novel by the rebel leader Videsselie. Rishang the other great ideologue in the novel stands for a more participatory form of democracy while still remaining a part of India

and is an idealist who is inspired by Gandhi as well as the preacher Dr Brock. Rishang as well as the author seems to be very optimistic about the future possibilities of being a part of India. This however might be a realistic reflection of the kind of postcolonial optimism which must have been quite popular in the years soon after independence. The portrait of the Naga society as it emerges from the novel is that of a isolated society which during the time of the independence movement in India and the years immediately after was being influenced by ideas from outside which radically influences and changed them. The two major forces that the Nagas have been shown to be contending with in the novel is that of the pull of the nationalist discourse of the Indian state and that of separatism or sub-nationalism defined in terms of a Naga identity. It should be mentioned here that while Videsselie has been the sole representative of the movement for separatism, Rishang is not the sole representative of the point of view which favours remaining a part of the Indian state. Here he is supported by the Assamese Jivan and many others including the two main female characters Khathingla and Sharengla. Virendra Bhattacharya seems to have not been able to depict the separatist point of view through the character of Videsselie in as detailed and satisfactory a manner as the opposing point of view. In the novel we hardly ever see Videsselie even having a talk with any like-minded person. We see in the novel that the nativist Ngazek admired Videsselie(he makes him his thilakapoo) and he himself says once that only Ngazek was able to understand him. This makes it seem that the discourse of separatism is a very minority discourse but strong only because of the capabilities and in influence of Videsselie alone pitted against which the discourse of assimilitiaon in the Indian state seems like a more popular option which might be historically inaccurate. The portrait which emerges is that of a somewhat simplistic binary between the tribal/nativist/separatist(because these views have been shown as similar through confusing the views of Ngazek and Videsselie) point of view versus the modern/Indian/ assimilationist point of view. The text also seems to promote a reading of the same two opposing forces into terms of a peace (or Gandhian nonviolence) vs violence discourse. The text or the author ignores the fact that peace is only possible by remaining a part of the Indian state and that it is not such an innocent peace but comes with a cost. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the district of Ukhrul which is the exact geographical location in which the novel is based is still not a part of the state of Nagaland as it was formed in the year 1963,but is in Manipur. It is important to read the novel against its grain to deconstruct the ways in which the complexity of the situation is revealed unconsciously in the

text in spite of the ideological somewhat Indian-nationalist views of the author. We find in the beginning of the novel that Ngazek admires Videsselie and towards the later part Videsselie too claims that he was understood by Ngazek only. This seems to imply a complementarities between the nativist view represented by the old man Ngazek and the militant separatist view advocated by Ngazek. This complementarity is one of the aspects of the issue which has been ignored by the novel. We see that Rishang too wonders how Videsselie was fortunate enough to be able to understand the old generation like Ngazek. It is not coincidental that sharengla and khatingla are both in love with Rishang who is the character who seems to mirror the point of view of the author. The character of Sharengla is also an important one and through her Bhattacharya has tried to talk about the condition of women in the novel. She is considered as a fallen woman by most people although we know that her association with the Japaneese had been a forced one. The women seem to identify in a rather simplistic manner to the way Rishang thinks and consequently the separatist point of view holds no charm for them in spite of the fact that he is able to offer Sharengla no solution except Christian abstinence and service to the people. She is made to seek redemption and expiate for no fault of hers and she seems to have internalised the religious ideology unquestioningly. However both the women are shown to have been grappling with both the dominant political points of view through their association with Rishang and Phanitphang. Phanitphang is not able to influence either of them and in fact himself quits the videsselies rebel faction he had joined and is later killed for it. He is shown as someone who is impressionable, gullible and unstable although good-natured. He is an interesting character in the sense that he is probable the only character who does not clearly fall in either of the two opposing camps. It can be argued that his character is an important one in understanding Bhattacharyas views on the way the Naga people were reacting to the two opposing current that they are being pulled towards. He is adventurous and it seems that insurgency has only a romantic appeal for him and that he does not know much about the real reasons for why separatism is being demanded by the rebel militant faction led by Videsselie. When he begins to understand the issue better and comes to know the truth about the whole issue he quits the movement. Although nobody understands Videsselie, the support for his point of view is explained through the logic that the villagers know that he is admired by Ngazek and that his programme is bold and adventurous; it held romantic appeal. It is interesting that it the omniscient narrator who says this. And quite firmly after a few lines it pronounces again that the majority of the people disliked violence and the idea of secession. The

discourse is turned into a binary between violence and non-violence or peace and the novel pronounces the denouement at the very end although not through the voice of the omniscient narrator but by getting Phanitphang killed through the hands of the rebel forces. The last two lines soon after the news of Phanitphangs death has reached Sharengla, uttered by the omniscient narrator are that, Sharengla could not speak. The bullet had pierced her heart. The message however is clear, that the path of violence is very wrong and demand for separatism is not right. The violence on the part of the state is not touched upon by Bhattacharya. We also get to know towards the end that Jonathan a villager has also been arrested without cause by the police. This is a reference to the violence from the other side, committed by the Indian state- a state which claims to represented non-violence. It should be noticed that the Indian state is often symbolised in the novel through the figure of Gandhi. The novel although focuses on both the two dominant views but with an Indiannationalist bias.