Manipur is now in absolute chaos; there can be no second opinion on that. Her's is a clear case of neighbours' envy and owners' headache.

The recent speech of the Prime Minister of India has squarely put the onus on the people of the State for restoring peace and initiating development. I would take this as the indicator of the thinking of the larger India, and would like to look at the chaos in the State.

In this process, I would also put two things in perspective:
(a) the belief among the intelligentsia of the State about the hidden agenda of the Centre to suppress the potential of the Manipuris, and
(b) the achievement of the insurgents.

Neighbours' Envy:

It is well known that until very recently Manipur was the sure example of communal harmony in a highly pluralistic society and settled in a stunningly beautiful land. It was also a period when nobody in the larger India would know where Manipur is, and Manipuris would be increasingly exposed to the communal and casteist socio-political milieu of India.

Indeed for those very few who knew Manipur, she was their envy. Then we had gone through a period of about two decades where quite a few Indians, civil and military, started talking in personal discussions the simmering imbroglio in the State and predicted that inter-communal clashes would befall her sooner.

Prompted by this and the absence of meaningful development interventions in the State, the intelligentsia of the State, based both outside and inside, started discussing and analysing if there were a hidden design to disturb the peaceful co-existence in the State and stunt the potential of the Manipuris.

We should also remember here that this was the period when Manipur would least appear in the Indian policy arena, if at all.

The present chaos befalling the State must definitely be serving the superiority ego of quite a few outside the region, the distant neighbours. All these happened in the background of historical pride and widely established potential of the Manipuris in varied spheres.

Insurgents' Delight:

It is always in the interest of non-state agents waging a war against any state that government and governance collapse. It is also equally in their interest that the people are always at issue with the government and its governance.

In an armed conflict situation, there would always arise occasions when the state agencies commit mistakes, and it would always be easy for the supporters of the insurgents to join the bandwagon of protests. But, let me hasten to add, this by no means implies that the people are the insurgents themselves.

It is the responsibility of the state to see to it that such situations are not created and if once created brought under control sooner than later. If we look at the behaviour of the state as manifested in Manipur, the approach has been all along quite opposite to this.

It has always driven the people towards the insurgents and has never ever tried to take the people along. In a way, we can say that the insurgents have so far been quite successful in their game plan in collapsing the governance of the State and capitalising on the grudges of the common against the failures of the governance, State as well as Central.

Our Fear:

Our greatest fear is that if both the state and non-state agencies are thriving at the cost of the people of the State. The overall general intelligence of the Manipuris and the pattern of warfare by the Manipuri insurgents might be to the liking of agencies looking for real field level training. On the other hand, the insurgents themselves might be enjoying the squinted challenge by the state to their revolt.

It is now the people who have been caught in the middle. We now have a case where the leader of a democracy (the Prime Minister in this case) looks at the people of the State and their problems from a non-participant angle.

Manmohan Singh, while seemingly appreciating the achievements of the Manipuris in different areas, squarely put the onus on the Manipuris for restoring peace. This way of putting things implies three things.

First, in a democracy, the leader of the democracy now blames the people for failing to bring peace to the State, and that distancing himself from the people of the State immediately brings to the forth the general attitude of the government of India to problems plaguing the region.

Secondly, by putting the blame on the people he easily and conveniently betrays himself on the commitment he made almost two years back regarding the 1958 legislation – the king can do no wrong, howsoever inconsistent he may be.

Thirdly, the general intelligence and common sense of the people of the State can be easily discounted.

I would like to dwell a little more on the third point. The Prime Minister should have refrained himself from saying anything on the Tipaimukh Dam; he should have at best said that it would be acted depending upon the outcome of the environmental clearance.

His commitment to the dam even before the clearance immediately established the partisan (non-neutral) approach of the government of India to the issues of Manipur and hurt the general intelligence of the discerning common man.

It was an absolutely wrong announcement, pressed besides himself perhaps by the impending elections and unexpected of such a master of rational science (Economics).

Further, the accompanying of the minister from the neighbouring State was an absolutely wrong move on the part of both Manmohan and the State leadership – a case of failure by the intelligence to serve the causes of state. This particular minister has a particular "reputation" known to the larger common man of the State and unfortunately turns out to be not to their liking.

The Bottom-line:

The point I am trying to drive at is that the Central as well the State leaders should learn how to take the people along and identify sincerely with them.

The scenario as it exists today, it is as if the state agents are enjoying the challenges being thrown by the insurgents, and the insurgents are also thriving on the gradual collapse of the government and governance.

Now who would care for the people – the state or the non state agents?