Manipur is now under the grip of problems arising out of development failures. It is a classic case of governance not able to effect any change in the society, and a case where any group tries to get an upper hand for none is sure of what is in store for the diverse groups.

The governance is not only incapable of affecting any change, but it cannot even instil trust and confidence to any group. Whereas in the past movements generally have led and have been basically for the establishment of more equal and democratic society, the case of Manipur is just the opposite.

Further the turbulence and movements elsewhere in global history have been for democracy and equality fundamentally. This is what is being established increasingly by recent attacks of economists into the matters of history.

Historians, like many other social scientists before them, have really to run for their money for economists are on the active prowl of conventionally their issues!

At This Point:

I, for one, have been repeatedly emphasising during the last few years that we are so busy with ethnic based articulations so much so that we have forgotten the core issues at this juncture of the society.

We need to decide at this point of time, across ethnicities and within ethnicities, as to what Manipur needs today.

Let us start from any point, either from the interior village to the State capital or from the State capital to the remotest village.

Let us ask people and ponder if
(a) political mobilisation for political purposes is what they need; and
(b) if ethnicity and inter-ethnic issues are really what bog them down.

Let us be honest to ourselves and among ourselves and respond to these questions.

As someone who has extensively, intensively and repeatedly moved around and seen the quality of life of the people of the State in both the valley and the hill areas, I can say very confidently that ethnic based political articulations for political purposes are not the core issues of the people.

Let me hasten to add, what the people of the State need today is development and the benefits which only development can bring about. Integration of land on ethnic issues or inter-ethnic blame games are not the concerns of people struggling for a meaningful livelihood.

So what the people of the State, in both valley and hills, need today is development. But, unfortunately, development does not find a place in any of the articulations. The real concern of the people has been absolutely sidelined and at a heavy cost to all.

If Agreed:

One may say that it is just a truism to emphasise development. Yes it is exactly this truism whose appreciation time has come calling in this society.

If is agreed that development should be the concern, goal and endeavour we should be adopting, then we need to appreciate another reality. I call this the reality of geography.

Well, I would not go to the extent of insisting geography as destiny, for any society can, with technological innovations, tide over the initial limitations of geography. Nevertheless, the territorial positions and topography are nearly permanent features.

Any successful development history, even the successful imperialistic efforts like that of the Ottomans, would tell us that any governance and development interventions should be alive to the geographical realities of the land.

This is one area where we have terribly gone wrong. All along the development interventions adopted in the State have been alien and imposed ones. This naturally has led to jeopardy in the State. I include this even the democracy as it is practised in India.

Democracy:

Many studies by economists are coming forth in the very recent period on conditions leading to democracy in a country, absence of it in some countries and now on and now off in still some other countries.

What these studies establish is that all the democracy and non-democracy in any country have been the result of interplay of interests in the land concerned. It is in this perspective that democracy as it is practised in India has been the culprit in Manipur. This democracy has not been alive to the geographical realities of the State.

In the hills where, due to lack of communication facilities, it would take hours to reach a home easily visible to the naked eye and in fact near in a linear distance.

Now it is in such a place that the centralised voting system was introduced. While the king was still there, people could look up at least hypothetically to an authority who would deliver justice when approached.

Now in the centralised voting system, given the transport and communication bottlenecks, how could one expect people to come for voting when they have not been assured of anything. In fact, one person coming and casting vote on behalf of many is a very common story regarding elections in the hills.

Now there is no link between governance and the people. The entire relationship is not only impersonal, but also non-existent. Well such a democracy is a sure road to governance failures for governance was never there into contact with the people. This took the people back to primordial identity and not to the democratic identity.

In fine:

What I am basically arguing is that the administration of democracy is wrong vis-a-vis the geographic realities of the State. This has led to the problems of the State today.

Improve the delivery of democracy by altering its system in tune with the geographic realities of the State, then only would a link come up between governance and the governed.