The 'national failing' and Ah Q-ism of the people of Manipur
- Part 1 -

Puyam Nongdrei *

Lu Xun, the famous Chinese writer, in "The True Story of Ah Q" analysed why the Chinese people had been experiencing 'national failing' which he traced to their "Ah Q-ism syndrome" caused by long history of despotic rule and brutal oppression of the Chinese people in the hands of the barbarous foreign invaders. According to him, the Chinese people longed to be slaves, but could not; or succeeded in being slaves for the time being.

Lu Xun believed that 'the material and spiritual damage' inflicted on the Chinese people by centuries of feudal despotism and barbarous foreign aggression led to Ah Q-ism (it typifies a state of mind). Ah Q-ism led to the use of 'moral victories' to reconcile oneself to failure, venting one's anger on someone weaker when oppressed and insulted by someone stronger, and an ability to forget injuries easily. Thus, the 'national failing' was related to slavish characteristics of the people cutting across all social classes in China of that time.

Feng Xuefeng in "On The True Story of Ah Q" writes: "the defeatism and deceptive moral victories of the reactionary ruling class do not concern it alone, but are most harmful to the people and the nation; for not only does the ruling class use them for consolation and self-deception, but also to deceive and oppress the people, to weaken and stifle their fighting spirit and resistance to the aggressors."

Moreover, in the story, Ah Q, an oppressed soul under the feudal system living at the time of 1911 Revolution, suddenly became ashamed of his lack of spirit as he could not sing a line from the opera when he was about to be executed. When he tried to sing the line "I thrash you with a Steel Mace" after rejecting the lines "The young widow at her husband's grave" and "I regret to have killed" as less heroic, Ah Q realised that his hands were already bound together. So he did not sing I thrash you either.

After coming back from Shillong, Maharaja Bodha Chandra could not raise the Royal Banner against the evil designs of the Indian Dominion as he had already signed the Merger Agreement following some negotiations over the contents of the agreement and the Privy Purse. There was lack of cooperation between the King and the State Assembly and disunity was clearly visible among the sections of the populace demanding for responsible government in Manipur shouting against monarchy. The King died a miserable death, no doubt. What about those who shouted for responsible government? And the people of Manipur who had voted to elect their representatives in 1948?

As reported in the Shillong Times dated 27 September 1949, the Dewan of Manipur, Major General Amar Singh issued a statement to the press requesting the "law-abiding Manipur residents to look upon troop movement as an indispensable arrangement in defence of peace and order" while noting that "detachments of Assam Rifles and regular troops in Manipur are carrying an intensive patrolling of the eastern border and the interior areas also." The statement further added that "this measure has been resorted to in order to guard against disorder within the state with its strategically important position on the frontier of India." Hijam Irabot's communist movement in Manipur and India's security concern in the face of rising Chinese communist activities in Myanmar and other Southeast Asian countries were visibly influencing the policy of India towards Manipur state.

The State Assembly and the Council of Ministers did not do anything worthwhile to challenge the militaristic policy of India so that their posterity could be proud of their acts whenever we remember the Merger Agreement, 1949. The 'spinelessness' of the elected leaders and 'self-consolation' of the King after signing the agreement thinking that he had done something to save the land from Indian military action left the situation to linger on leading to present armed conflict situation.

Like elsewhere, when the rulers of slaves become enslaved, they always show themselves more servile than anyone else. Their 'servile defeatism and submission' turned defeat into victory while pocketing public funds as culture of corruption is their sole identity that harms the people more. They 'slaughtered and sacrificed the people' in an attempt to win the approval of their masters even in twenty-first century using every possible repressive measure to silence the voice of the people.

In Manipur, security forces and armed opposition groups are fighting for decades destroying peace and order in the land. The 'blood sucking den of cannibals' which passed draconian laws ignoring strong opposition from the then Manipur MPs, Laishram Achaw (inner) and Rungsung Suisa (outer) is truly racist and undemocratic in its spirit. Systematic denial of the right to life of the people of the state despite many mass movements and condemnations from the public shows that this 'den of cannibals' are manned by people who are blood thirsty all the time no matter which party or parties form(s) the government.

Unlike the then leaders, the present ruling class of Manipur live in their world of 'moral victories' while the people suffer in the hands of black laws and demonised forces unleashing repressive measures. They seek for consolation of their defeat by punishing the people and proving that they are also masters in the face of repeated insults from their masters. Under draconian laws and heavy militarisation of the state, for decades, the people of Manipur have been suffering while the ruling class of Manipur live in their 'world of defeatism and self-consolation' thinking that the repressive measures are justified as the armed opposition groups also indulges in the act of killing.

On November 23, following a petition filed by the Extra-judicial Execution Victims Families' Association of Manipur, the state government submitted an affidavit which was tantamount to stating "they are killing us and so we are killing them" reflecting the true mentality of our ruling class. The two-member bench of the Supreme Court constituting Justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana P Desai asked the state government "Is there a war going on?"

There is a hidden war by deploying the Indian Army against the people of Manipur and elsewhere which is meant to be used against foreign aggression. Either Manipur is an occupied foreign nation under Indian colonialism or the people of Manipur must be Indian citizens protected by the Constitution of India. Both cannot be true at the same time. But the 'culture of impunity' is now enjoyed by both the Indian and state forces in this tiny state.

Following a militaristic policy since 1949, the corrupt Indian leaders continue to point their fingers at insurgency which is termed as 'law and order' problem. Without acknowledging the decades long armed conflict in the state, these leaders who wear 'democratic mask hiding their draconian faces' continue to ignore the core issue affecting the state.

Why armed conflict? This is the very question one must try to answer by now. Former Union Home Secretary GK Pillai's talk at Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis (IDSA), New Delhi is a new trend in this direction. The position of the representatives elected by the people of Manipur and their state of mind is nothing but Ah Q-ism. While the ruling class carry this state of mind, the reign of terror unleashed by the state in the name of national security through heavy militarisation and empowerment of the security forces with 'special powers' and 'immunity' have terrorised the people, and at the same time causing frustration, despair and hopelessness. The draconian laws are not actually imposed to bring an end to armed conflict but to bring Ah Q-ism to the people of Manipur so that they remain sub-human beings.

The present situation of Manipur needs a way out. For this, the present generation has to struggle and find a way to end the messy situation. This is for the present generation as well as the future generations who will enjoy the fruit of what we sow today. I trace back the origin of present situation to the middle of eighteenth century during which Manipur experienced decline in power. The religious conversion and burning of the Puyas made a blow to the spiritual life which has socio-cultural and political implications till now.

With the rise of Burmese power under the leadership of Alaungpaya, several devastating defeats suffered by Manipur in the hands of the Burmese led to massive exodus of people and massive deportation by the invaders in later half of the 18th century and the first quarter of the 19th century. Depopulation of Manipur during these years of devastations and material loss were other major factors which hit hard the national soul of Manipur. The damage afflicted to the national life of the Manipur people during these years still haunts our lives in every field.

The three major devastations caused by Burmese invasions: first devastation in 1755-1758, the second in 1769 and the third in 1819-1826 were disastrous for the people. Disunity of the princes fighting for the throne and Burmese procurement of modern firearms largely from the French were major causes of the defeat. The rise of Konbaung dynasty in Burma (now Myanmar) under Alaungpaya left the scar of Burmese invasions to the psyche of the Manipur people. Their brutal torture and dehumanising practices continue to haunt the Manipuri minds. Disunity among the princes playing the 'games of throne' weakened the resistance of Manipur against the Burmese onslaught. These old diseases continue to survive in our society thereby creating factionalism and degeneration of our social life. It seems like there is no cure as of now.

At least, Manipuri soldiers killed Moirang chief Khelleinungnang Telheiba in 1768 for his betrayal of the country as he sponsored internal insurrection and invited the Burmese to attack Manipur. Besides, Prince Herachandra and his cousin brother Yumjaotaba's guerilla army resisted the Burmese occupation of Manipur kingdom during the seven-year-devastation. Later on, Gambhir Singh and Nara Singh leading the Manipur levy equipped with modern arms provided by the British authority liberated Manipur in 1825-26. They did what they were supposed to do. However, the transfer of Kubo Valley took place on 9 January 1834 and an agreement regarding compensation for the Kubo Valley, 1834 was signed which are important historical developments.

Unfortunately, the agreement on Kubo Valley could not ensure the return of the territory to Manipur even after the state was merged to India. If the transfer of the valley in January 1834 to Burma was a result of British appeasement policy towards Burma, the boundary settlement between Jawaharlal Nehru and U Nu of Burma is another appeasement policy. This is another historical injustice to the people of Manipur as the powerful countries decide the fate of the smaller and weaker nations and peoples. This is another 'national failing' to be remembered.

Then, the Anglo-Manipur war broke out in 1891 and Manipur kingdom was defeated. A Bengali barrister named Manomohan Ghose fought the case on behalf of the Manipur princes questioning the legitimacy of the special court conducting the trial of Manipuri princes by some British officers. "Two facts were immediately apparent: firstly, that the princes could not have been tried under the Indian Penal Code or any other system of British law, and secondly, that the court had no legal authority derived either from an act of Parliament or legislative enactment of the Governor-General of India in Council.

Ghose argued that "in creating this special tribunal at Manipur the Government of India was simply exercising the right of a conquering sovereign force, for the purpose of bringing to justice persons accused of committing grave offences, but who, not being British subjects, are not triable by British courts, and are not governed by the municipal laws of British India". What will be the outcome of the ongoing trial of the UNLF Chairman Sanayaima and his team? The Chairman strongly stands against the Indian state allegation that he is 'waging war against India' and instead argues that UNLF is fighting for regaining the lost sovereignty of Manipur.

To be continued.....

Reference:

1. Lu, Hsun (1953), "The True Story of Ah Q", Peking: Foreign Languages Press.
2. Malem Ningthouja's interview with Tehelka, webcasted on 19 November 2010, Red Banner, Vol.II, Issue 1, March 2011; available here.
3. Mayengbam, Anandmohan (2005), "Shillong 1949", Imphal: Lamyanba Printers
4. Mahapatra, Dhananjay (2012), Is a war going on within India? SC asks, The Times of India, New Delhi, 24 November 2012, available here
5. Naorem, Sanajaoba (ed.)(2005), "Manipur Past and Present vol. 4", New Delhi: Mittal Publications.
6. Ningthouja, Malem (2011), "Freedom From India", Guwahati: Spectrum Publications.
7. Ningthouja, Malem (ed.) (2010), "Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958- Manipur Experience", New Delhi: Classic Offset Printer and Packagers (published for Campaign for Peace and Democracy, Manipur)
8. Parratt, John and Saroj Parratt (1992), "Queen Empress vs Tikendrajit Prince of Manipur", New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Pvt Ltd.
9. Phanjoubam, Tarapot (2003), "Bleeding Manipur", New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications Pvt Ltd.
10. Sapam Cha Jadumani (2011), "Kangleipakta inner line permit system amasung masigi ehou", Imphal: Paari Publication.
11. Wang, Shiqing (1984), "Lu Xun - A Biography", Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.
12. Yang, Xianyi & Gladys Yang (1980), "Lu Xun Selected Works Vol I", Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.
13. Zahar, Renate (2010), "Frantz Fanon- Colonialism and Alienation", New Delhi: Aakar Books.