The Murder of Revolutionary Kishan in Manipur
- Part 4 -

By Malem Ningthouja *

Conclusion

Why should the people of Manipur protest the murder? For an immediate punishment of the murderers! There is no disagreement on this issue. Who should be the legitimate authority to carry out criminal investigation and to award punishment?

Disagreement becomes apparent on this issue. Why?

In a situation where parallel administrations are being run by various flanks contesting one another, the Indian state being a party working in tactical collusion with one or other parties, and where party cadres are involved in crime, in an attempt to defend party 'dignity & interest', jurisdictional legitimacy of a party over the criminals is being arbitrarily imposed and it become mixed up with political questions.

Trial of the murderers of Kishan have become a political issue and controversial when the NSCN-IM refused to hand over the murderers to the state government. If the murderers belong to Manipur why should they not be tried under Indian CrPC in Manipur?

This straightforward question though sounds simple directly raises an intricate issue concerning the 'Naga formation' process in which NSCN-IM had claimed for leadership since 1988 [17] . Such question, though indirectly related to the case of murder, impersonalises the crime from the immediate murderers and the target of protest is shifted towards the NSCN-IM.

When charges are being framed against the Government of Manipur for not bringing the murderers from the custody of NSCN-IM into their custody; the inability to do so on the part of the government can be interpreted from geo-territorial perspective.

The basic question is; if the ceasefire agreement between Government of India and NSCN-IM was not extended into Manipur why was NSCN-IM found to be operating in Manipur, abduct six officials of the government in broad day light, move them from village to village with arms freely despite of the heavy deployment of Indian security forces in strategic areas, refuse to hand over the criminals to the government and so on and so forth.

The government's inability to book the criminals into its custody and award punishment was interpreted as either a prelude to or pretext of or example of surrendering Manipur's territorial integrity to NSCN-IM [18] . 'Brand the NSCN-IM a terrorist organisation'! These are some of the charges and statements raised from the anti-NSCN-IM flank.

But then are we to continuously imperil ourselves through indulging in the most primitive form of browbeating with frenzied responses against one another? What would be the profit of the NSCN-IM from harbouring morally degenerated criminals and letting loose reign of terror under their dictates?

What should be the commensurable response of the protagonists of territorial integrity of Manipur if someone would raise objection to the historicity and politics of integrity?

Is it the right moment to invoke sentiments by raising emotive questions on either geographical limit of ceasefire or territorial integrity of Manipur when collective pressure had been heavily mounting upon the criminals and the party they are responsible to?

Abusive response and counter response would never end if we are to deliberately keep on surviving the fruitless course of altercation, if not bargaining. Bargaining and campaigning along communal and party lines can be carried out inexhaustibly till the dooms day. These are useless if it doesn't serve the material requirements of co-existence and progress. Such routine affair of hoodwinking and browbeating delays consensus and could let the convicts buy time in delaying punishment.

In the course of the delaying, intensive issues already in queue would become more sensitive. The murderers would be pushed into the background or out of focus as it was in the case of James Kuki who had masterminded in the kidnapping of baby Elizabeth on 4 November 2003 for ransom and later on killed her [19] .

Collective voice for identification of the murderers and awarding of punishment may not be emotively conceived and focused on from legal perspective alone. There are intricate issues around us that exist in a state of crisscrossing and its venom become apparent to distract public attention from a particular course of intercommunity consensus and collective effort.

The legal aspect functions within a political economy that had a bearing on social relation. We may avenge the murder through imposing heavy corporal punishment, but the causes of such communally twisted criminal expression cannot be ruled out in a society where growing class contradiction is being addressed through communal colouring.

When we condemn divide and rule by external factors as responsible for intercommunity conflict, are we suppose to neglect dynamics of internal contradiction along communal line promoted by class rulers within our respective communities? Are we ideologically too impoverished and myopic that we fail to realise communalism as an instrument of exploitation to perpetuate class order?

Today finance imperialism in the disguise of Look East Policy looms over us. Should we choose to accept backwardness as our manifest destiny and remain far behind the advanced countries, only to become imperialist sponsored gangsters and comprador in looting our resource?

Our underground organisations; are we really fighting for the emancipation of the people?

Why is that the NSCN-IM would charge the DC of Ukhrul for notoriety, corruption, greed and disgraceful only recently if it had known it for a long time? Will it say that it simply enjoy watching the Indian officers converting the administration machinery into a corruption den?

Can we really materialise social equality from the imperial spoils that is not under our control? What steps had the NSCN-IM planned to root out the nexus between corrupt Indian bureaucrats and the ruffians within NSCN-IM that had not only misappropriated funds meant for the poor Naga citizens but also had created class contradiction within the cadres?

Why were the civil societies in Ukhrul that were supposed to be the champion for the cause of the Ukhrul people remaining in silence when the notorious DC was looting the people?

On the different flank; how would the United National Liberation Front, Manipur Naga Revolutionary Front, Revolutionary People's Front [20] and other civil societies deal with basic social and economic grievances of the impoverished sections of Manipur from the paradigm of territorial integrity?

Our underground parties; would it be possible to create or curve out territory to build nation on the very mortal remains of communal conflict? What revolutionary vision had been drafted for the people of Manipur by our revolutionary parties and progressive fronts so that unity for a change would be appealing to more than 7.19 lakhs potential revolutionaries who were living below the poverty line?

NSCN-IM may not harbour criminals; crime should be exposed and criminals should be punished or allowed to be punished. The people of Manipur, when fighting for the cause of Kishan, Rajen and Yumnam, needs to restrain from sectarianism but to initiate for a durable collective effort to achieve development & emancipation of Manipur from any form of suppression & exploitation.



Concluded....