Loose Memoirs of a Drunkard
- Part 2 -
Drunken Discussion

By Homen Thangjam *

Drunken Discussion around the Culvert

The previous night, on the same culvert and around it, after few rounds of drinks, we delved into 'politics' and discussed on the issue of territorial integrity of Manipur.

It was not a debate in the sense that no inferences were drawn out from the 'discussion' or no conclusions were made. We delved into the 'discussion' because, I believe, everybody was talking about it and it was fashionable. Or perhaps?

As the argument started, the 'jobless' were on guards not to offend the sponsors for the evening 'parties'. I did not contribute much to the discussion, either. Two reasons supposedly restrained me. First, I was suffering from acute income deficiency syndrome. Secondly, I presumed my utterances could be viewed as anti-Manipur on account of my matrimonial ties.

Few extracts of the 'discussion', I place before you:

Part time lecturer: First, the Kabaw Valley, now the hill areas. Indian government is bent upon breaking up Manipur. Moreover, the Land Reform Act of 1970s is responsible for the present chaos. We ceded to the demands of the hill people. Hill people can buy land and stay in the valley but we cannot do so. Now look, where we are!

Rickshaw puller: Meeteis have never treated the Haos (hill people) properly, that's why we're in this mess.

Cattle keeper: Haos have become cleverer on account of education they 'get' through reservation policy. Next, they'll demand every raised mound in the valley as their land.

Blacksmith: You guys are not making sense. Look at the issue from a different perspective. First of all, why, of all the people in Manipur, we the Meeteis should be hell bent upon protecting the boundary of Manipur?

Is it because Meeteis were the sole rulers of Manipur, and drew a map even if it did not strike at the conscience of the 'people' the Meeteis have ruled over? If we did not receive habitual obedience from the ruled, do we have the legitimacy to claim over their 'land' just because they paid tributes?

One fine day, our King goes to a hinterland, have supper with the locals, command them a monthly or yearly tribute, erect a boulder, return to the palace, be happy as long as you receive the bounty if not send a troop and set ablaze to the village because he is the sovereign. This is a very absurd meaning or 'ruling' and claim over a piece of land.

He was a blacksmith by profession but post-graduate in political science, so we excused his radical opinion. But then, we asked his 'personal opinion' on the issue. He continued:

Blacksmith: I accept, more than the hill people, the valley people have suffered more. For example, remember Chandan Shenkhai, taxes over cultural and religious practices. I was only lamenting on a piece of grievances and nature of feudal monarchy.

Cannot you look at this like this: 70 percent of the population of Manipur is in the Imphal and Jiri valley. On the other hand, 70 percent of the total land area is in the hills. Day by day our population is increasing, on account of population pressure, cultivatable land area is shrinking.

Look at what is happening in our village. There are houses all over the paddy fields, and we cannot buy any land in the hills. At least by preserving the present territorial boundary, Government, can later on devise a way to bring about land reforms.

Hill people have to understand that in spite of past grievances, we need each other for our survival; at least in the economic sense. Manipur Government could amend the land act in Churchandpur, why not in other places? Thus, land as a capital is very important; currently the Nagas are using it as a very powerful political capital. And I uphold the territorial integrity of Manipur in this perspective.

It was the turn of the carpenter. Sometimes we are surprised by his logic, to the extent of amazement. He is not very educated, but he says he enjoys reading.

Carpenter: It's absurd! Land where we never lived, neither can we live nor commercially exploit, but then guarding over it zealously. Are we angry because, for a change, traditional power structure has been challenged by the minority?

Our national ego has been challenged so we have every right to strike back, is it what we are harping at? If we insist upon political rights, then why not respect the political aspiration of other people? They claim to know what is best for their future, let them decide.

If we prevent, we are emulating and acting like the Indian state. I know, if we go for a plebiscite on the issue of territorial integrity, we will emerge winners solely by virtue of number. We outnumber the hill population. Yet, my ego says that Manipur cannot disintegrate.

Blacksmith: Friend, there are more nuances involved. I do not know how to enlighten you peasants.

to be continued ...