What's wrong with Manipur?

Pamreihor Khashimwo *

Manipur Map

What's not to like? After a disastrous flirt with New Delhi power after become statehood in 1972. Manipur is not peaceful, industrious and progressive and it pays its ethnic bills for the long period. Responsibility is not its basic credos. No new ideas take hold and cannot adhere to traditional values. The recent imbroglio revealed that the political establishment and social fabric in the state are sadly but gradually crumbling down and the political institutions turning obsolete.

Even so, Manipur has rapidly moving to the state of political crisis. Historically, Manipur is a society of well-scrubbed, honest people who do not threaten anyone, who go to bed early and work hard. So what has caused leaders to indulge such dishonest politics, heartless, domineering and awful political hubbub? The limits of our thinking are the limits of our society.

We are usually able to think the crisis and not the fact behind it. This is the archetypical sources of failing divulgence. These times of frantic disputes in the state between tribal and non-tribal, nobody will know what has been accepted or rejected by whom, or even who is to blame. There are many reasons, of course. It is certainly horrifying to consider its helplessness in the face of the approaching storms in the state. After being the centre of ethnic conflicts for so long, the state now runs the risk of becoming a pawn. Under such conditions, questions about Manipur's future are spreading.

The state had lost contact with its citizens, perhaps, should rethink everything. In this backdrop, in a state traumatised by violent upheavals, bandhs, economic blockade political deadlock, ethnic conflicts, controversial decision, etc. populations seem to demand an emotional insurance policy before accepting something new. New ideas must be sold as not really changing anything.

Change must be seen as a method of strengthening existing stability, not as a new way of doing things. Some people have been pointing to Manipur's floating with rules. But a rule is the symptom rather than the cause. Behind the rules is an existential fixation with maintaining the basic tenets of a society that has clawed its way back from near-annihilation.

As long as Imphal didn't understand the important of burying its power lines, the tribal couldn't trust. Apparently, power outages are somehow seen as a first step to chaos. In other words, what the tribal wants from Imphal is the one thing the state's leaders probably cannot deliver; that Manipur grows up and leads with the graciousness, compassion, and above all flexibility urgently needed from state's leaders, including the tribal leaders.

Manipur is still far from building the inner equilibrium that is an essential foundation for playing confidently in the risked and reward a culture of a globalised society. It somehow matters the alchemy of turning the winds of globalisation into the soft breeze of stability, Imphal lack the resilience to apply it influence cooperative with others.

New Delhi's failure to understand this special Manipur approach to change has been one of the major contributors to the image of Imphal insensitivity in tribal issues. By preaching New Delhi solutions to a society incapable of accepting both majority and minority severely weakened Imphal's ties to its most important ally (the tribals). So heated were the conflicts that the two sides even attacked each other without maintaining the dignity of being a civilised society in the globalised world.

When stubbornness meets self-righteousness, there is rarely a winner. I think that Manipuri mindset is out step with the true harmony sense of political and economic solutions regarding the tribal and main dominance group. The risk-and-reward game culture is inherently unstable in a diverse society like Manipur. The fear of the unknown is actually fear of known. Manipur as one of the Indian state is sliding down a slippery slope towards disaster and state should avoid a horrible political and economic chaos. Manipur is out of sync politically with the people and also with the practical nature of modernity.

Every time I travel back to Manipur imaginatively, the feeling of inadequacy to confront and understand the complex situation of the state. Forty-three years ago, on January 21, 1972, Manipur became a full-fledged state of the India Union. Manipur in its historical imagination was an 'independent kingdom' since 1st century AD. The people had histories and memories longer and deeper than those of most other Indian people when India attained independence.

Today, the use of the plurals is not necessary but fundamental for this historical imagination is not cherished but rejected by all. While the meitei, inhibiting the Imphal Valley share theses histories and memories, the peoples in the hills areas inhabited by tribals people cherish other histories and memories. The state is now in a pathetic condition which is surrounded by militancy, ethnic cauldrons and social and political chaos.

The political situation is worsening each passing day and moving towards a fire battling between tribals and non-tribal, tribals and tribal. There is no ending in all social and political discontentment, social solidarity has long been missing in the state. To promote peace and brotherhood, the state Government are doing nothing and is in a dilemma.

The most frustrating thing is to witness the lackadaisical attitude of the leaders towards the problem of the people. Yet even if the fact remains, what we do know is not enough to look beyond the hype and put the conflict in perspective. Thus, it is still far from clear whether the conflict fits into a larger pattern or a new doctrine under the present government. There is still that we do not know about Manipur politics and what it means. It is also unclear how this will play out in the longer term, both in terms of Imphal's troubles as well as ties with the tribals living in the outlying districts.

Therefore, it is worth stepping back and to critically investigate, where have we been, where are we and where are we heading and how those questions create out understanding of the crisis by making it 'thinkable. But not only in the ethnic crisis is the discourse in Manipur heavily metaphysical. We have to be content with politics of understanding and use them responsibly. We need to ask ourselves if a chosen policies and politics is adequate to porter a political situation, what it suggests and what discursive damage it possibly causes. Politics is a politics is a politics. Only if we realise this, we can develop fruitful communication and discourse despite the linguistic, cultural and social differences in state.

Leaders have not used the period since the formation of the full-fledged state to build a unified political, social and economic union. Instead, they have focused on divisive politics to the neglect of processes that would build social and political integration. Children are not taught a common Manipur history but instead only narrow histories. As Benedict Anderson so astutely observed, nations are imagined communities, bound together through social and political ties. The absence of these ties explains the failed responses to the current dilemma in the state.

In short, the current crisis in the state no longer about the structures of the recent controversial Bills, it is about social and political structures. The crisis has exposed the Manipur project as half-hearted, a state without the requisite of social and political foundations. Like any building lacking a strong foundation, the weakness of the structure is exposed when the ground starts shaking.

Leaders allowed to continue to play the role of divisive majoritarian political engine of state, sidestepping a more political role that would have proven difficult for many to accept owing to the nature of diversities in the state. The current imbroglio in the Bill has exposed the foundations of Manipur state as partial, heavily reliant on majoritarian attitude without commensurate levels of political and social integration.

Yet all these components are required for a functional system; the inability of leaders and policy makers to address the crisis highlights the failings of the Manipur's operational philosophy. There are no easy solutions to this disjuncture, but the problems it causes will only worsen, the longer political leaders and policy makers in the state avoid it.

Leaders and policy makers in the state must begin to think about homogenising politically and put into place policies that will strengthen the social and political elements of a state. If such was ever in doubt, the crisis has shown that Meiteis are the heart of state economically and politically, and it will be up to them to start and fuel these changes. If they do not, then the future of the Manipur is dire, indeed. To this end, the contributions of Meitei studies scholar and intellectual mind could be invaluable to this project, reminding policymakers that a community is more than an economic and politics. Bringing these lessons to light and translating them into the broader Manipur (ian) context will keep the state vibrant and relevant for many years to come.

Imphal can forge the development of deeper social and political institution by using this opportunity to lead, not to dominate and not to craft the non-zero sum solutions. In this context, public leaders, policy makers, politicians, and intellectuals mind must come together cutting across community lines. It is, however, without the change of mindset, the future of the state is in questions and the crisis will likely to remain unresolved and proliferate.

It is a cliche that we can opt friend but we cannot choose neighbours. The key here is to recognise fully the problems of the citizens. In fact, if efficient state policies substitute for faulty divisive policies, then the average citizen of the state will adopt new values and a common identity. Crises in the state can be resolved with an appropriate political and policy response, but when a policy response is appreciated or misleading, the crisis can lead to a more serious crisis of disintegration, which involves a challenge to the fundamental ethos of state- questioning the motives and existence of the state itself.

At the state level, political leaders must be coordinated in their effort to reach out and explain why the state is good for all. In this situation of creating a deep crisis, the future of the state crucially depends on able and visionary political leadership. I argue that there is hope for future, if Manipur's current generation leaders can muddle through the present crisis.