Manipur, a Tired World

Amar Yumnam *

In 1954 Louis Bromfield wrote a book entitled "A New Pattern for a Tired World". This was a powerful commentary on the American socio-political scenario then. This book is an interesting read for it not only expounds the author's own views but it also has a chapter in the beginning which gives quotes from other authors read by Bromfield while preparing for his book. I would like to re-quote two from Bromfield.

One is what Malcolm Muggeridge wrote in the Time magazine: "It is not entirely fanciful to regard sex as being to the individual what power is to the collectivity. We are all familiar with the miseries and abnormalities of those who try to escape from the harsh realities of the flesh into fantasies of idealized love.

Similar miseries and abnormalities are liable to result from a like attempt to escape from the harsh realities of power into fantasies of political idealism." Second is from Plutarch's Apothegms of Kings and Great Commanders: "To one who advised him to set up a democracy in Sparta, "Pray," said Lycurgus, "do you first set up a democracy in your own house".

Home Reality: The book and the quotes adopted by Bromfield are so apt and illuminating while thinking about the home realities, the ones defining Manipur today. The recent by-election has been a very telling event in so far as the disease inflicting our body-politic is concerned.

Whatever the outcome, the worse fall-out of the result speaks volumes about the uneasy disconnect between the issues facing the land and people and the electoral process of the land. Even worse, the result has not ensured either bridled or unbridled satisfaction to the winner. In a true democracy, it would be just natural that the winning side feels happy and satisfied, while at the same time encompassing the opponents into the fold of representation in real time. But this has not happened.

In a true democracy again, the losing party, and particularly the society at large, should feel readily compromised to the outcome and accept the sense of fairness implied in the electoral process. This has not happened either. In fact, majority of the people of the land, outside of the particular constituency which underwent the electoral process, feel angered by the electorates of the presumably elite constituency of the State. The election result, in short, has not served the purpose of the winner or loser or the society in the true sense of the term expected in a democracy.

The recent by-election was supposed to have delivered a verdict, a clear verdict, which could serve the purpose of resolving the immediate or at least leading towards a solution of the immediately pressing issues of the land. But this unfortunately has not happened and the standoff continues. Is not it absolutely worthy of pondering why the result of an election in a supposedly democratic land does not raise the legitimacy of the winner necessarily nor does it reduce the value of the loser automatically?

Democracy Exogenous: This social outcome requires of all of us to articulate on why it is happening what is happening. For me I strongly feel that the time has come for us to rediscover the institutional character and the endogeneity or otherwise of the democratic process we have put in place.

The successful political institutions all over the globe have been those endogenously evolved. This however has not been so in our case. Simultaneously, as Bromfield wrote in the third chapter of his book, "the .... people themselves have become slowly and inevitably aware through newspapers, radio and other mediums of what is being done with their money, of the muddled futility of our policies and of the fact that in the vast expenditure of money, material and lives, we have no consistent policy and are making little progress toward our asserted goal of peace and world prosperity."

Now what is the most critical element in a democracy, and in fact the power of democracy, it its ability to take care of lies in social dealings. The opposite has just been the case in the case of Manipur so far. The winning party emerges as a symbol of successful lying.

Or otherwise how do we interpret a situation wherein a responsible minister can speak persuasively or threateningly whatever during the campaigning process to vote for their candidate to ensure good roads, regular power supply and what not in the constituency under electoral process?

While we can say so for the winner, can we be practically dogmatic about the loser being free from lies. No, very unfortunately no. The body-polity today in Manipur is so full of lies in every sphere that any outcome of any process as well turns out to be a lie. This is a lie for it does not serve any democratic purpose as we should expect in any true democracy.

Well, lies can never be a foundation for a long term transformation and development of a society. Bromfield quotes a British Labour MP, Tom Driberg, as having written in the Time magazine: " Blaming the other fellow is sterile diplomacy; it is much more important to make a new start." It is now time for every actor in Manipur to be clear of the colour she wears. We should now give the people a chance to free themselves from the clutches of the lies.