The Lamka Inferno – Hype And Reality Of Socio-political Movement

Thangbiaklian Hangzo *

Unprepared, yet highly coordinated, socio-political movement erupted in Lamka in August last year (2015). Having been a witness to all, or most, of the uprising in town, there had never been such a clinically operated mass-led protest so far. The divide is clear – the people were sick of the pseudo-elites who conned them with their honey-dipped words and pseudo-nationalist political doctrines, which were also proved true by the lethal silence of the elected people’s representatives over the threat of losing their ancestral land. This was further fuelled by the silence and inaction of the armed groups whom the people had raised to support their political cause.

There are obvious power connections, nexus and unholy alliances between the power-that-be who were determined to maintain the status quo while the people want change. The people, we know, wanted change, but change in such a highly complex scenario does not suffice in removing a leader from a position. This will only exchange the personality of the leader and leave the way things work the same way. The change that we seek is more than a leadership change, as important as that may be; it is a change in structure, approach, objective, values, morals and spiritual. To seek a better future – a future free of marginalisation, oppression, exploitation, tyranny – and a place where there is responsible freedom, compassionate justice, fair play and the rule of law.

It would be naïve to think that a certain constitutional political provision, the likes of sixth schedule or a separate administration (whatever that may be), will wipe off our entire problem. These were important provisions, and fight, we must. But there are larger and more innate problems we have to deal with – how we govern ourselves within or without the new structure. And these are the very issues we have to deal with in our movement for change.

Moreover, seeing our challenges as a set of contests between Meitei and tribal people will not render any gains we make permanent. And we may hope that by withdrawal of the 3 bills or getting a new constitutional provision – sixth schedule or separate administration - we will win the war and usher in a new future. But while we must battle the injustice done by the 3 bills and claim our rights, these are not enough. Even if we are successful, the self-style elites of the present structure will always ensure that they will win at the contests they have defined and adapt the contest in their favour even if they lose a battle or two. Worse still, a combat mentality will undermine our creativity for possibilities of a deeper socio-political transformation, which is also the long term change we seek.

We should realize that we are not fighting the Meitei people, nor should we be afraid of them. If we see this as a fight between the Meitei and the tribal people, we will forever be locked into a contest that is permanently stacked against our winning. The Meitei people will always be our friendly neighbour. The fear of the Meiteis, if it exists, is because of the incapacity and inability of our selected or elected leaders to handle the politics they were called to play. We should neither think that we are fighting against cohorts of our incompetent leaders. Dislike as we must, they will always be our people.

We must reaffirm that we are fighting for a better future, a better relationship with the Meitei people, an alternative relationship and engagement. We fight for better ways to represent ourselves – within and outside of us - a new way to select or elect our leaders. We need to be wiser and look beyond the immediate and present context. We did not land up in this mess by an accident. Our political doctrines, approaches, principles; social behaviour, value system, morals had played an integral part, and had been decisively determining where we should be - corruption, UGs, breakdown of law and order, power monopoly, unfair elections, job swindling, communal strife and all the vices that permeate our society today. Our quest, rather, is for a different future. And we will not arrive there if we do not change the way we organize ourselves.

We also need to understand the game we play. For instance, one of the most frequently referred political change by rebel leaders was the disintegration of the erstwhile USSR as an example for future possibilities of political aspiration. The assumptions were that the erstwhile USSR had disintegrated because of the activities of armed rebels. This was a totally wrong rendering of history. The underlying cause of USSR’s political disintegration was because of the economic breakdown as oil price plummets rendering USSR unable to secure its vast geographical area militarily and cater to the welfare of its ethnic nationalities. In this rendering of history, the economic bloom and the military might of India renders our armed rebels as irrelevant political tools. There has to be an alternative.

We should be reminded that the strength of any armed outfit is more because of the international platform gained through the activities of people who might never saw a real rifle, let alone pull a trigger than the arms itself. Our glamorisation of arms as a political tool is more of an enculturation - a reversion to savagery, an outgrowth of our primitive thinking. It is a proof of our ignorance on the changing socio-political landscape and inability to play the right political card at the right time. Arms, is a sign of our political ignorance, not our flair. We are trapped in this game, in the thrall of a system that oppressed the people and serves nobody's long-term interests. The game itself needs transforming, with an alternative thinking or logic, different principles and values, through transforming the people and organisations who play it and by experimenting with new forms of organisation, relationship and engagement.

The Zapatistas of Mexico will serve as an appropriate example here. Having laid down their arms and faced with the possibility of winning political power in Mexico in the 1990s, they chose a different role, acknowledging that if they won and took power they would become like other parties, compromised and corrupt. Instead they have focused on transforming their relationship with the idea of government itself, beginning with changing the way they do things themselves. In the Chiapas region, they are re-creating government from below autonomous and sovereign self-government, authentically theirs, an image of future possibilities.

Another recent and relevant political development is the attempted separation of Scotland from the mighty Great Britain. The Scots believed that they were competent to run the affairs of their politics and welfare. They were competent too! The leave the decision on a referendum according to the union law without a drop of blood being spilled, no life taken, yet they have made their aspiration clear. They failed once, yet they were still secure even without a separation. And if the people so desired, and will serve their mutual interests, they will garner more support and will certainly exist as a separate Scotland. Future possibilities, yes!

Our socio-political movement, therefore, is not only about whether the demand for the withdrawal for the 3 bills were granted, or if a separate administration was given; but the way we pursue those and how well prepared we are to administer if, and when, they were granted. As R. Buckminster Fuller aptly states, “You never change anything by fighting existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” What exactly is the new model that we have in mind? Tough question indeed!