Blunting of democratic culture and rise of authoritarianism
- Manipur's slide -

Amar Yumnam *

Let me start with my initial premise. I assume that the central government does not exist. The other side of this is that the province does not exist for the central government.

I shall assume that for the time being the fact of the central government being democratically formed by representatives elected through ballots from all across the country bears no significance. This implies absolute federalism wherein the centre would care a hood for what happens in the peripheral provinces except when it comes to secession.

In such circumstances the behaviour and orientation of the centre towards the periphery would be one guided more by repression than anything else. There does not arise the need for appreciating the cultural roots of the provincial people, and no need either for putting in labour for appreciating the dynamic demands of the provincial population.

Scenario at the Periphery: It would be rewarding to theoretically visualise the characteristic manifestation of the state at the level of the periphery in such a context. The character of the state would be reflected by what the government at the periphery does.

The character and administrative orientation of the government at the centre being what is, the provincial government has very little option but to adopt and follow the nature of the centre. In all this, there would be a bureaucracy, least committed to efficiency and nation building but fully conscientious of their group interests, available to act on the half cooked policies and implement the irrelevant programmes.

The long run impact of the coupling of the central perspective with the peripheral confusion would be a case where all the socio-political agents become reactionary and authoritarian. The state in all its manifest behaviour has been very conservative in the sense of having interest in conserving the power of the contemporary power holders that be.

A prolonged continuation of this approach through repressions or through political extortions by the government in the name of the state cannot go without impacting upon the culture of the people and their organisations. The state would increasingly distance itself from the people but identify regre-progressively with the contemporary power managers in the government.

Manipur Scenario: I cannot help feeling that Manipur has become a province like the one in the theoretical scenario given above. For the government in the Centre, elected and formed of course after elections spread throughout the country, the primary concern is the insurgency in the land. They cannot see that beyond this there are people; what they see is the land and not the people.

In the context of the same political party holding the power both at the Centre and the State, the former confuses party with the state. It is as if the party is state and state is party. Nothing else comes in between. In such circumstances, authoritarianism of the provincial government is assured, secured and insured. This is exactly what has happened in Manipur.

Any authoritarian regime anywhere would be least interested in the growth and welfare of the people. The regime's primary interest is in retention and concentration of power by all means, more of foul than of fair. If the regime starts thinking of people's welfare, it would be only in cases where its continuation in power is being threatened. But such a situation is least likely to emerge as the regime at the province belongs to the same group as that at the helm of affairs at the centre.

Dangerous Portent: The most dangerously unfortunate situation is one where the long run impact of the regime starts being felt in the sense of the same character and method being replicated at the level of peoples' organisations.

First, there was the local or village level scenario wherein groups formed mainly on political affiliations indulging in imposing their wishes on individuals by using the logic of group supremacy and normative thinking. This was the beginning of universalisation of violence in this land. The state, instead of reigning in such dangerous portends, made company with these organisations for short term political gains.

Naturally and increasingly the organisations representing groups of people started acquiring the character of repressive regimes. They started visualising imposition of will as the only method to achieve the goal.

While the state could and would use every available repressive legal weapon to bang on any dissident voice, the people's organisations would as well resort to threats wherein even life may be lost as a collateral cost in the process of suppressing any dissident voice. Such has become the nature of society and state in Manipur.

The Tragedy: The fallout of this is that democracy has been really stunted in this beloved land of ours. All have become reactionary and authoritarian. The state has been repressive no doubt for periods longer than necessary, but the community too is now becoming increasingly normative rather than protective.

In the process the limit to transgression to individual free will has been broken. Whereas the political parties and the governments one after another have never bothered to draw a clear line, even the dim line is now being violated by the increasingly normative community. But the foundation of any democracy is the preservation of individual political space without ceding it to either the state or the community.