Editor's Note
It has been a pleasure to work with Jaideep Saikia in transforming his manuscript into a published monograph, and I am honored that he has asked me to write this editor’s note. The journey to this completed ACDIS Occasional Paper was arduous but rewarding, one that involved the participation in some form of many individuals. It was characterized, however, especially by the author’s dedicated commitment to his project over the course of six months here at the University of Illinois. On several occasions I witnessed him burning the midnight oil or laboring on weekends when the pleasant summer weather no doubt beckoned him to partake of more leisurely activities.
Noted French author André Gide explained, “To read a writer is for me not merely to get an idea of what he says, but to go off with him and travel in his company.” While working closely with Jaideep, certainly I have traveled with the author in a literal sense—to destinations ranging from Washington, D.C. to Chicago to “Amish country” in the corn and soybean fields of East Central Illinois. However, I have also traveled with him figuratively to his native land, acquiring newfound knowledge of the region of North East India—its customs, its languages (including expanding my meager Hindi vocabulary), and particularly through efforts on this manuscript, its complex ethnic, religious, political, and social problems. At the same time—and this meaning, no doubt, Gide also intended—I have had the privilege to learn about the personality, psychology, and emotions of a remarkable human being with a very different background and set of experiences from my own.
The author and I encountered numerous examples of linguistic and cultural differences that indicated why it was imperative to have some measure of collaboration on the present work. There were too many to mention all of them, so I include a few anecdotal instances here for illustration. Thus, for example, while an Assamese would bring his tiffin to the office, an American would carry his lunchbox. An Indian might “turn a Nelson’s eye” to a problem, but stateside that same eye would be blind. Whereas in Guwahati one counts in lakhs, in Urbana-Champaign the same measure is taken in hundreds of thousands. In other words, there was no shortage of opportunities for us to compare the nuances of “British”—or more specifically Indian—English versus American English diction, spelling, and grammar. Saikia conscientiously strove to tailor his material to an American readership, with the Chicago Manual of Style and my input at his disposal. He considered questions like how best to include the quotations of texts not written by native speakers of English, such as when he quotes the published aims and objectives of the United Liberation Front of Asom or provides excerpts of Assamese newspaper accounts. We have presented such quotations verbatim in this Occasional Paper, unless otherwise noted.
While poring over the minute details of the manuscript copy, we have also had occasion to discuss the history and geography of the region of South Asia, and the unique situation—past and present—of North East India. At times during our discussions of drafts (both in tête-à-tête meetings and through communications scribbled in the margins of dog-eared typescript pages), I have challenged Jaideep’s interpretations of the facts or even badgered him about the credibility and accuracy of certain sources. This interaction, in my opinion, represents the humble contribution of the editorial process to an author’s work, and not—as a less thick-skinned writer might have been inclined to conclude—any perceived measure of the work’s merit or earnestness. Saikia deferred to my “vitriolic red pen” and manic insistence on citing references with a healthy mixture of seriousness and good humor. I have tried to apply my own perception as to the role of the editor, believing that my place is neither to censor what has been written, nor to prescribe how or what an author writes about a given subject. Rather, I see it as the editor’s responsibility to lend an ear to the author and also, as it were, a third eye. I hope and believe that Jaideep views me neither as a taskmaster nor as a nuisance, but as a colleague on level footing—disparate backgrounds, differing approaches to problems, and of course the necessity for observing deadlines aside.
In reading and re-reading multiple drafts of the present work, I have been impressed by the author’s strong convictions, but no less so by what I detect as the subtle expression of vulnerability. The writing is informed by experience more in the front-line security milieu than the secluded ivory tower. It reflects the concerns of someone who—like the rest of us—has the images of the jets crashing into the Twin Towers and the aftermath at “Ground Zero” permanently embedded in his memory. When Saikia surveys the current situation in his homeland of Assam, and indeed the rest of the world, he grimly but boldly reaches the conclusion that we face the reality of terror sans frontiers. Having a world where borders are not necessary is undoubtedly too much to wish for in the foreseeable future. At the least, then, one hopes that through attempts like this Occasional Paper to analyze both the scenarios that breed violence out of differences and the manifestations of that violence, humanity can achieve conditions where it is possible to have frontiers sans terror.
Champaign, July 2003
Matthew A. Rosenstein, Ph.D.
Associate
Director
ACDIS, University
of Illinois