Beyond propaganda and imperial nostalgia
Refashioning Politics

A Bimol Akoijam *

"In war, truth is the first casualty" so says Aeschylus, the Greek tragic dramatist. It may not be war but this insight equally holds true for the ensuing "Manipuri-Naga" confrontation that seems to have substituted the decades old "Indo-Naga" conflict today. Indeed, the propaganda machinery such as the one that seeks to tear apart Manipur has come to twist and turn the facts of the pasts and or selectively present experiences to project questionable future.

Campaign against Manipur: Propaganda and Historical Facts

The campaign to tear apart Manipur has all the ingredients of propaganda as a political weapon. These ingredients, which are well-known to the political psychologists, are methods to influence the masses by
(a) simplifying or reducing complex issues into black and white,
(b) creating and stereotyping an enemy,
(c) making that enemy a scapegoat for one's own failures or the ills that one has,
(d) omission and commission of facts or interpreting facts out of context,
(e) asserting one's own claims with an authority, especially by linking up those claims with noble or lofty ideals (such as in the service of God or the nation), and
(f) influencing the individuals to suspend their individuality and rationality to follow the crowd, giving the individuals a sense that so many people are in the movement and therefore it must be right and the goal achievable.

Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Propaganda Minister, insisted, "(propaganda) is to persuade people of what we think right... (and) conquer the broad masses...it is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths". But history cautions us against the suppression of truths. Despite the power and grandiosity, so spectacularly displayed in the Nuremburg Rallies to convince the German population, truth ultimately caught up with the Nazis from 1945 onwards. And, the people of Germany and the rest of the world, too, had to pay a heavy price because of the World War II started by the Nazis.

Thus, to avoid a similar tragedy in this part of the world, we must recover the historical facts that have been steamrolled by the ongoing campaign against Manipur. The exercise can begin by looking at the problematic invocation of the "Unique History" of the Nagas in relation to certain section of the population in the Manipur hills.

First, the constitutional reform (Govt. of India Act, 1935) that followed the Simon Commission dealt with what was then referred to as the "problem of two Indias": British India and "Princely States". The Memorandum of the Naga Club to the Simon Commission (1929) primarily dealt with the Naga Hills of the then British Indian Province of Assam, and therefore it had no bearing on Manipur as a "Princely State".

In fact, the expression "excluded" or "partially excluded" in the Govt. of India Act (1935) referred to those areas that had nothing to do with the areas or people or polity of Manipur as a "Princely State". Indeed, the same provision that carried these two expressions ("excluded" and "partially excluded") stated that these areas were to be "administered" by "the Governor of Assam" "at his discretion".

Interestingly, the status of being "excluded" or "partially excluded" of these areas and the office/power to administer the same were derived from the Govt. of India Act (1935). And yet, many Nagas read the same provision as a proof of their being outside of the (constitutional arrangement of the then) British India!

Second, the areas or people or polity of Manipur as a "Princely State" had nothing to do with the Nine Points Agreement (1947), signed between the Naga National Council and the then Governor of Assam, which pertained to the then Naga Hills and Tuensang Area as a District. Third, the Naga Plebiscite (1951) conducted by the Naga National Council was not held in Manipur, and therefore, it did not represent the will and wishes of the people in the state.

Fourth, the total boycott of the first and the second General Elections to the Indian Parliament by the Nagas had no bearing on the history of Manipur. For, like their valley counterparts, the people in Hills of Manipur had not only participated in those elections but also sent R. Keishing (1952) and R. Suisa (1957) as MPs from Manipur. Indeed, to insist that the Nagas had totally boycotted those elections would only mean that those who took part in the same elections and these two gentlemen from the Tangkhul community were not Nagas!

Therefore, invoking the "Unique History" of the Nagas as a rationale to vivisect Manipur on "ethnic" cum religious lines is to work against the sanctity of the historical truth of Nagas' "Unique History" or that of Manipur. Contemporary Naga nationalism has another aspect that has become a cause for concern: its tendency of constantly invoking the Meitei as the "other", often couched in war-like rhetoric with expressions such as "enemy", "befitting response" or "hit back" etc.

At one level, this is an understandable posture. After all, over and above the pressing need to overcome the "inter-tribal" rivalry, the Naga nationalists are in Peace Talks with GOI, Nagas' traditional adversary in their nationalist struggle. And GOI has reportedly ruled out Nagas' "sovereignty", the prime mover of Naga nationalism. In such a scenario, positioning the Meiteis as "the" adversary (in the place of the GOI) can become handy to enhance "Naga integration" as a motivational substitute for "sovereignty" to sustain the movement while simultaneously strengthening the in-group solidarity amongst different Naga "tribes" vis-à-vis an "outside enemy".

However, it must be reiterated that nationalist articulation that rests on a clear distinction between "friend" and "enemy" with hatred for that proclaimed "enemy" can only produce or promise, as history tells us, genocidal purging of the "other" from a given area and polity. And ultimately such nationalism is self-destructive. One fervently hopes that the Nagas do not succumb to the temptation of making their liberating nationalism into a conservative ideology.

Finally, all state boundaries and cartographical representations in the world are "artificial" insofar as these are historical products of human actions. And modern (nationalist) identities are historically situated realities. Beyond the propaganda, "Nagalim" and the Naga national identity cannot be exceptions to these historical truths.

Present and Future: Beyond the Imperial Nostalgia Problematic deployment of "history" is not the sole prerogative of the Naga nationalists; many defenders of Manipur's "territorial integrity" also commit similar, if not identical, mistakes. The insinuation that Manipur has existed as a "nation-state" for 2000 years, leave alone from "time immemorial", is a classic example.

The faculty that accepts the historicity of the evolution of Manipur and its ethos across hundreds of years must also have a healthy ability to accept the historicity of Naga nationalism. To mock others for the lack of "written history" or "scripts" only reaffirms one's condition of being a wretched slave of alien ideas and perspectives.

There are remnants of regressive elements in our society which also incidentally help the cause of those who seek to tear apart Manipur. One must outrightly reject any idea that smacks of imperial nostalgia which seeks to appropriate Manipur. Indeed, mindlessly harping on the exploits of the kings and queens, particularly their autocratic and feudal ethos, is against the present and future of our collectivity.

Similarly, one must counter any form of majoritarianism that subverts a genuine democratic ethos from taking its roots in our society. Besides, the high-brow and self-righteous attitude and the repugnant superiority complex of the obsolete chauvinists that heap humiliation on fellow citizens must be eliminated. Indeed, irrespective of the challenges posed by the "Naga integrationists", fighting such regressive elements is critical to shape a better future for all of us in Manipur.

The 19th century European myth of the "nation-state" had sought to sell an idyllic image of a mono-cultural political formation. That image had given two World Wars, and mimicking that in South Asia had resulted in colossal violence and uprooting of people from their ancestral homes, and wars and mistrust to haunt the people even today. We must learn from history and evolve alternative ways to understand our world and refashion our politics for a common destiny.

In war, truth is the first casualty so says Aeschylus, the Greek tragic dramatist. It may not be war but this insight equally holds true for the ensuing "Manipuri-Naga" confrontation that seems to have substituted the decades old "Indo-Naga" conflict today. Indeed, the propaganda machinery such as the one that seeks to tear apart Manipur has come to twist and turn the facts of the pasts and or selectively present experiences to project questionable future.