Not Necessarily Creating The Issue - Reply To P Liangmei

Khangembam Romesh *

Thanks for sharing your thought. I would like to bring to your attention that I was not talking as a representative of Meities about the prevailing issue in the wake of the proposed Muivah’s visit to Manipur. I was just expressing my feelings (that are of fact) as a common Manipuri, still the same and go further to write ahead. I did not call my target to Manipuri Nagas, but finger to the criminal Muivah. I think, Mr P Liangmei has misunderstood the concept of "sincerity" that I raised in the article.

Of course, the same yardstick of sincerity is to be applied to all groups or individual irrespective of class, creed, race and colour (to be universal). I never used to make comment in support of all the actions taken by Manipur Government (in other words we can say the performance of Chief Minister Ibobi). In some incidents, I also criticise some activities performed by AMUCO, UCM and other civil organisations in the valley (need not to mention here).

But I would suggest you not to consider all the civil organisations in the valley are for only Meities. Meities are one amongst the groups of communities live in Manipur. They are not the owner of the land of Manipur. Manipur should remain as Manipur itself for its own end. If the prevailing issue were happened in Gujarat or other states of India, the Central Government could have not taken the juvenile decision. Because of the weakness of State Government that has been renowned in many past incident and way of running the government, the Central Government took the decision (as an example, GOI has taken back the Telangana Issue, but the issue of Telangana and Muivah's demand are quite different).

The resolution of the State Government, however, to prevent Muivah from entering Manipur has its merit and validity. I appreciate the decision. It is not the question of whether CM is Meitei, Naga, Kuki, Muslim or any of the communities in Manipur. He is the duly elected constitutional head of the entire Manipur. As of now, the state government (Manipur Police or commandos) didn't exercise more extreme power of military action at Mao Gate beyond what they need to control the situation.

If it were at valley, the people might have been received more casualties. Some of the protesters started violent attacks against the security forces razing police vehicles and trying to snatch away their weapons (remark from analysing over the situation). I hope you would not misunderstand me as I am supporting all those atrocities of police forces. I was severely troubled with the lost of two Manipuri students (you may want to say Naga students). The State cabinet has decided to constitute a magisterial inquiry over the fateful death of the two youths. You mentioned about July 23 incident. If your memory is not wrong, if your thinking is not bias, I believe that you could able to judge how the state government treats these two incidents differently. You may recall how the Government reacted to the July 23 incident, even for a magisterial inquiry was declined at the beginning till Tehalka displayed those photographs about the conspiracy.

It is very distinct in my article that I was not claiming frontal organisations UNC, ANSAM, NPMHR, and NWUM as terrorist groups. I was in the opinion that the violation of a law and the punishable offence may be meted out to them, because the activities carried out by them, at the moment, disturb the existing social order. It can be extended to any civil organisations, say, UNC, AMUCO, ANSAM, and UCM etc, if they do so.

Another point I would to clarify you is that terrorists are to be determined by the state/country legal's code identifying necessary and sufficient conditions for its application so that to combat terror arises from the political violence perpetrated by non-state actors affecting directly or indirectly the security of the public or state. The NSCN (IM) terrorist actions often conform is one of the factors for the prevailing tense at Mao Gate. The term "terrorism" is frequently applied to conduct that engage in political or ideologically motivated violence that is directed against the civilians (example, like those acts of NSCN (IM)). It is not to be determined by Meities or particular majority group/communities.

In the eye of law, the whole country considers NSCN (IM) as a terrorist group (no doubt). You should also note that there are differences between NSCN (IM) and AMUCO, UCM. You can't compare these. If you wish, you can compare with RPF, UNLF etc on certain things. You can take notice of one thing that in valley there is also protest even against those plain terrorist groups (not only to Manipur police, commandos and other forces) when there is the incident of kidnapping and killing of innocent people, but hardly such demonstration in hills against NSCN (IM) outfit (I am compel to say so, as you pointed out it).

My target was to explore the proposed trip as "non-natural" and that was not to the stroke of peace agenda. If there is of peace motive in the proposed tour, why do Muivah still camp at Viswema? Does he want to see more life to die to put forth the site more dreadful at Mao so that to call others attention (who apply divide and rule policy, look in a way behind with mockering)? Where is his message of peace visit? Peace is to be considered within the framework of moral sphere that would be in relation with one's action. Being as a terrorist, as a non-Indian citizen and as a killer of many innocent lives how could the freedom of movement could be granted to him. There is something radically wrong with the state of Muivah's motive of peace and the nature of his proposed visit.

Muivah and India Government need to learn that doing right action with the intention of doing so produces good consequences and wrong action with the intention of doing so produces bad consequences. The scenario at Mao Gate looks like preparation for war. This is the disturbance of natural phenomena. To enter into the real process of peace, there is need of mental development. The restriction of "possession" is important for a new social order of peace. The Government of Nagaland, who is claiming the trip as of peace and NSCN (IM) should also learn to understand it. Their minds are to be disciplined. What is the need of Nagaland CM to camp at Delhi some days back and commenting over the issue?

Mr. P Liangmei, there is misunderstandment on your side in regard of my statement that "The kind of understanding a person will have of his own identity is irreducibly distinct from the sort of understanding he can have of the identity of other of the people". Here, not 'identity of other people' (perhaps printing mistake, you can refer to Imphal Free Press 8 May, 2010 issue) - it is to be 'the identity of other of the people'. It means that his identity is quite different, belongs to a specific type of 'other', which is distinctly different from the maximum flock/people, especially pointing to non-state actors. So he is different from us (including you and me, please don't try to target on a particular community). There is no question of appreciation for his existing identity, because the difference is still stick to that of his tendency of political violence.

You know, how violent the thought Muivah has. He even used to say "No force can stop me". I guess you can examine yourself the intention of him that he tried to put by this message. The employment of violent thoughts, words and actions considering it as 'obligation' shows lacks of peace motive and humane nature, outburst undesired consequences. Whatever he says one can suspect that there could be threat to destabilize or degrade the existing social order.

The emergence of the Naga problem was historically related with the issue of Naga Hills, which was a district of Assam, but Naga Hills/Nagaland was not a part of Manipur at all (refer to my article "Putting More Fire Fuel-Comment on Sanjoy Hazarika"). It is to be recorded while concerning about Nagas rights and the statement of Muivah that 'he is not claiming anything that is not rightly ours'. The issue is of those Nagas in Nagaland (I think, not related with Manipur), not for Nagas like P Liangmei, who is the Naga of Manipur. I am certain that Mr. Liangmei is different from the Nagas of Nagaland, simply because your life is relatively more concerned with the history and other people of Manipur. Do you think Nagaland Government has right to interfere into the issue? Respect yourself as a Naga of Manipur and feel proud of being it. We have been (someone else may say at a time) within the sphere of an integral harmonious life. The present crisis is for the reason of manipulation of Muivah. As result, we, common people are suffering. I still do believe that we are in the same boat.

"Meeteis have the right to self-determination but Nagas do not". This is your imagination. I have never heard such report from anybody else. This thought need not to derive from a sense that there is anything that one can claim for his or her benefit and the proclamation justifies based on some unusual piece of circumstances. One may claim of the sense that there is something gratuitous or contingent about one's being any particular individual at all. However, the sense of contingency is to be connected with a feeling of gratitude, perhaps of responsibility towards the whole society but not of a particular community claiming itself as less fortune bounding up with envy, or pride, or self-pity, etc., avoiding the internal opportunity that they might have received.

Whatever the attitude taken, the thought seems to be intelligible only from a first person perspective. The idea that one might have this sense of amazement concerning some other person does not seem intelligible. If your imagination were a method of inquiry: what we can or cannot imagine, it is thought, shows what kind of thing something is. But it is not clear at all what is being presupposed in this way of speaking. The idea that exercises of your imagination may actually be connected with findings things out, but perhaps resisted on the ground that the your 'imagination' often carries the sense of a contrast with the word 'reality', with what might be called responsible thought.

I call all your statements/remarks a product of your imagination, because roughly, that it is completely unfounded or that it shows poor judgment. To raise my objection of your claims, I do overlook the fact that there is also what might be called responsible appeals to your imagination, but the appeals to your imagination cannot be in fact in the order to establish matters of this sort. You may blame a person for not being able to 'imagine' someone else's feelings (somebody may wish to use this word 'imagine' instead, as 'respect', but I do not, because the claim may not be worth in certain setting to be respected, if it lacks conditions to justify).

Does Muivah or Central Government able to imagine the feelings of the people other than Nagas (Kukis, Meities, Manipuri Muslim, other small indigenous tribes)? You too mainly focus your argument especially for Nagas. But I am unable to grasp which Naga you give emphasis, whether Manipuri Naga or Nagaland Naga. Mr Liangmei, fight against militarization, opposing AFSPA is not just for Meities, but for the safeguard of all Manipuris including you. The one-sided view point of Muivah and Central Government gives rise to denial and criticism of other condition and characterizes the state of conflicts, contradiction tending towards a chaos. (you may want to apply this to Meities, but not fit)

I wonder why you make the pin point to Meiteis. The contents of your response piece seem that you try to put sharp line to demarcate between Meiteis and Manipuri Nagas. It is very unfortunate. Everybody condemned the dreadful killing of Prof. Islamuddin, which was an act of terrorism. There was no silence at that time. Everybody is against such atrocities. Please don't try to come to the line of ethnic division. Why did you point out the case of Dr. Kishan? I mentioned the case of Baby Lungnila Elizabeth too. That was just taking the example of terrorist activities like looting, rampaging, killing carried out by NSCN (IM) despite the existence of ceasefire agreement.

The structures are much more responsible for murder or killing. The language "killing many innocent people" that I used in my articles include those of Nagas, Meities, Kukis and others. I fail to understand why you try to misinterpret my article. The issues that you claim are not reflected in my articles. Of course, the concept of "sincerity" is not restricted to a specific group or individual. I think you can understand at least what I was or am trying to mean. In any case, I hope my response may be helpful to your mystification on my previous article. Please go through again the article thoroughly. My attempt is not against the sentiment of any community; it is just for total welfare of all.