Government As The Problem: Manipur's predicament and way out

Amar Yumnam *

Former Governor V. Shanmuganathan and CM O Ibobi at Patriot's Day observation on 13 August 2016 at Kangla :: Pix - Romes Pukhrihongbam

Manipur witnessed two recent unfortunate qualitative revelations. The first one emanated from the Head of The State in Manipur. The just previous governor had thrown a very unwarranted, ignorant and arrogant challenge to the thinking elite on culture in Manipur. This naturally led to an outburst of anger to the larger population in general and this thinking elite in particular. Culture is the most powerful intangible thread binding the people and giving strength to the ethos of the society of Manipur.

The outburst of anger of the people cost the ignorant and arrogant Head of the State of Manipur his position and rightly so. In the process, the State has got a highly learned, experienced and committed to linking with the general population individual as her Governor; the democratic tenet of this step is significant. The message is clear here of the committed responsiveness of the government at the Centre to the issues of the State, and a core appreciation of the historical role of women in every aspect of social life here.

The second qualitative revelation is the recent statement of the Head of the People of Manipur about the social character of the people here. The Chief Minister of Manipur has asserted that “Bandhs/blockades are usual here” implying that these disturbances to the polity and economy are normal. Now this statement is much more significant and disturbing than the one by the Head of the State on culture.

Now, if the Head of the People in the province and a democratically elected Head of the People in a democratic polity at that says that bandhs are normal, then certain things are drastically wrong somewhere. Now this malaise is not at the preliminary level and has to be at the systemic level. We have a scenario here the Head of the People has ridiculed the people as routine engagers in disturbances and the Head not bothering about it.

Further has not even concerned to ponder on applying his mind on whether it has anything to do with the performance or otherwise of the government of which he has at the helms for one and a half decades. Still more, the people of the State have not reacted to it at all while the ignorant culture statement of the Head of the State drew immediate flaks.

Now the differential reactions to the two statements of two most important persons– one from the Head of the State and another from the Head of the People – imply certain things about Manipur. We are really in need to collectively explore on this as the arrogant statement on culture has mostly to do with our collective ego while the statement on bandhs as social norm has significant implications on the role of government, performance of governance and the relationship between welfare of the people and the functioning of the government.

Why is it that the matter on rule of law, governance performance and responsiveness to peoples' issues, well-being of the people, opportunities for social advancement, and related issues of the State have not evoked any response to this statement? Are the heightening issues of ethnicised bandhs not of significance to the polity of Manipur and just to be swept under the carpet of bandhs as social norms?

These and many other related issues need our collective attention to ponder, debate and move towards a socialized understanding of the role of people and role of government in taking our society forward. If the head of the democratic government can ridicule the people and their society as disturbance-mongers and as marked by bandhs as norm in that society, we need to answer inter alia two questions in right earnest.

First, are we in a society where the prevailing government is a problem in herself? Second, is it a case that over the decades the political elite has been given a long rope to free ride with the people with false promises and bluffing statements? Coming to the first question, we cannot help feeling that the provincial government has become a constraint to social advance of the people and society here.

This is happening at a time when the nation has a government fully alive to addressing the developmental challenges of the State and the region. The recent formation of eight high-powered committees, consequent upon the advice of the Prime Minister, led by the Heads of the People in the region to look into the various developmental issues of the region has many positive implications. This is also an opportunity for evolving a kind of Inter-State relationship model within the North East.

Now coming to the second question, we need to introspect as to what have been our individual and social behaviour in democratic functioning and interaction with our own government. One single predominant characteristic of our society in the post-1972 period has been more of opportunism and rent-seeking rather than one based on learning and knowledge. Karl Polanyi wrote in his The Great Transformation: “Interests,., like intents, necessarily remain platonic unless they are translated into politics by the means of some social instrumentality”.

A time has come for us to collectively teach a lesson to our government and identify the areas where she should concentrate. Our collective social functioning should be based on learning and knowledge. Let me quote Joseph Stiglitz and Bruce Greenwald from their 2014 book on Creating a Learning Society: “From Roman times, when the first data on per capita output are available, until 1800, average human standards of living increased only imperceptibly if at all.

Consumption for the great majority of human beings consisted predominantly of food, and food was largely limited to staples – rice, wheat, and other grains. Housing entailed barn-like living conditions with no privacy, and climate control consisted only of necessary heat in winter. Clothing was utilitarian and rarely involved more than single outfits with the seasonal addition of over-clothes. Medical care was almost non-existent. Travel was rare, largely local, difficult, and uncomfortable.

Recreation was self-generated and primitive. Only a small aristocratic minority enjoyed what we would consider today an appropriate standard of living – varieties of fresh food, including meat; private, well-warmed accommodations,; multiple sets of clothing for varied occasions; rudimentary personal and medical care; and opportunities for travel and sophisticated entertainment.

“Beginning in 1800 and accelerating markedly after the mid-to-late nineteenth century, that privileged standard of living began to diffuse throughout Europe, North America, and Australia. The impact of this change is apparent even in critical contemporary commentaries. ….. “In the twentieth century, elite standards of living became pervasive in Europe, North America, Australia, and many parts of Asia; a trend which continues in much of Asia today”.

As Kaushik Basu writes in his latest book: “Changes in economic policy are not gestalt matters and can be corrected as the nation trundles along, as long as the political foundation is sound; and that seems to be the case for India”. Now this country-level strength needs to be coupled by a provincial level one in order to reap the benefits of wholesome harvesting.

To perform the Pikettian task of “Social development with equity is how hatred will be defeated” we need to recall the two core tenets of the Enlightenment and make these as foundation for our social performance and governance functioning: “the first was the belief that change was possible, and the second was the belief that through rational and scientific enquiry we can learn, and what we learn can be used to improve wellbeing”.