"If you can't beat them, join them". At the crux of this doctrine is the belief that it is better to be a cog in the achiever's team than suffer indignities of being a big-time loser in the vanquished side. This idea, though an effective one, may not go down well with people who have their self-esteem intact, or with brave hearts who are vindictive by nature. But once you overcome the initial stirrings of ego, you will realise what a great gem of wisdom it is. Embracing it will make your life a lot more fun, and you will breathe easier, free from life's myriad daunting challenges. Imagine a life without any opponents - a life in which you always find yourself on the winning side.

Politicians know this policy too well and have refined it to an art form. Political alliances are made or broken on the basis of this policy. It has stood the test of time and remained as the only one constant factor in the unruly world of Indian politics.

You can witness this policy being played out when political parties which swear by 'secularism' making a beeline to be a part of the NDA government headed by the BJP, an ultra Hindu nationalist outfit. It explains, for instance, why dynamic and rational leader like Chandrababu Naidu supports the BJP government at the centre, though his party has nothing in common with BJP - either in ideology or popular base. Probe deeper, it will also dispel the mystery behind the fiery ladies of Indian politics, Ms. Mamata Bannerjee, Ms. Mayawati and Ms. Jayalalitha, who between them share the epithets of most unpredictable, unruly and unreliable political bed-mates in the history of Indian politics.

The latest champion of if-you-can't-beat-them-then-join-them formula is the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), a breakaway group from the Congress Party formed by Sharad Pawar and P.A Sangma over the question of Sonia Gandhi's foreign origin. There was a time when it was believed to be out of the question to effect reconciliation between the parent party and the NCP as long as Sonia Gandhi is at the helm. Now owing to declining fortunes of the NCP, it is making overtures towards Sonia Gandhi for electoral alliance or perhaps even a merger.

It is a far cry from Messrs. Pawar and Sangma's earlier stand to fight tooth and nail the Congress, the party which they hated so much for 'harbouring' a foreigner. Both of them might still nurture the same apprehensions, but the stark reality has forced them to rethink their strategies. The reality is: NCP has not been able to become a major political player, except in Sharad Pawar's backyard, Maharashtra; cuddly Sangma is almost out of the mainstream politics and Congress is on a resurgent path. It's now "join them or perish" for NCP. Long live the tactics of morphing into the enemies. Forget the principles, moral scruples, vision and godamned ideology.

Enter Manipur. You will see valiant experiments in joining enemies--rather catching (potential) enemies to join your political flock. If you are a Chief Minister of the state, you will set up camps, and turn your official residence into a fortress. It's like a war. You will kidnap enough number of legislators and hold them captive in your camps at money point and/or with promises of plum portfolios. You will let wine flow and food inexhaustible in your camps at Imphal, Kolkota and Delhi, with taxpayers' money of course. And do anything to keep together your fractious herd. You must, at any cost, prevent your rivals from poaching your party members, and if possible, 'buy' fence-sitters from your enemies' camp. During this mafia-like operation, public matters will not distract you. Being the CM, your mantra is: politicking first, public service later.

If joining the ranks of your enemies, or poaching them is not possible, well, don't worry, you have the Plan B. Call people names.

Calling your opponents names is one of the easiest way of discrediting them. And it seldom fails. Opposition calls Mr. L.K Advani "Hindu hardliner", "hawk", "extremist" and the BJP as "Hindutva", "communal" party, besides others. Advani brands the entire gamut of opposition as "pseudo-secularists". Never mind what J.M Lyngdoh calls them: "cancer". One writer modify Modifies Gujarat's Chief Minister' name as "Narendra Modi Milosevic" to draw parallels between him and the deposed Serbian President who is now facing a trial for crime against humanity. These adjectives may be justifiably used or not, but their effects on our perception of the respective subjects have stuck indelibly.

Politicians usually resort to such semantic sophistry to gain political mileage and create an instant impact on the public opinion. George Bush had named North Korea, Iran and Irag as the "Axis of Evil" in an attempt to canvass international support for invading Irag. His colourful predecessor, Bill Clinton had called Monica Lewinsky "that woman" to cast doubts on her character and project an impression of distance.

If you ever run out of arguments to substantiate your standpoint, or you find yourself in a loop, just brand your opponent with a pejorative to show him in a poor light, i.e., to raise doubts about his motives. This is what is happening all around us.

Recently, there was a spat between the historians belonging to two schools of thought - "Marxist" historians and "saffron" historians. The episode saw verbal sparks when both the parties heaped labels on each other. NCERT's historians said they were correcting the "Marxist mistakes" in the history books, while their colleagues on the other side accused them of "saffronising" and distorting the actual history. Interestingly, seemingly independent historians of the Indian History Congress have announced plans for "correcting the corrections" by the saffron historians. (Who will correct their mistakes?)

In Manipur, it is a riot of nomenclature feast. Everyone calls every other person with the choicest names, sometimes laced with a bit of profanity for greater impact. But, the simplest way of casting snipes at a person is to link him with the "naharols". If you happen to possess a fiercely independently mind, you will be dubbed "naharol-supporter" or "anti-naharol", depending on your line of thinking. This is too simplistic and reflects the Manipuris' penchant for seeing all things in black and white. Why can't anybody have a mind of his own in greys, without straddling the N territory? Can't anyone be a maverick free spirit in Manipur?

The moral of the story is, do anything and get away with impunity by calling your adversaries names. If I were given an opportunity to call anybody names, I would utilise it to express my feelings for the politicians. Will anybody mind if I call them "thieves"?