Security Changeover
- Possible substitution effects -

Amar Yumnam *

There has recently been news of a policy of the government of India for substituting the army by the Assam Rifles in Manipur. Well this has implications for security-public relationships in particular and social relationships in general. So we should be deliberating on this substitution.

Before We Proceed: Before we proceed into examining the implications, we need to appreciate the contextual realities of Manipur's polity and economy. There have always been voices in the State against militarization of state intervention.

This is right because most of the problems cannot just be addressed in a sustainable way through security interventions alone. But it is as if this security forces oriented approach has come to stay. If this is so the public should now have the right to exercise choice as to which security forces are to their liking. This is particularly so for various reasons.

First, since the State has had the security forces present for a pretty long time and in an atmosphere of constant interaction with the public, the masses by now have an accumulated knowledge of the behaviour manifestations of the varied security forces.

Secondly, since ours is a democracy, naturally the preference of the public should be listened to. Thirdly, since we have already had so many mass uprisings on issues involving the security forces, we need to traverse with care. For in an otherwise adverse scenario the social and economic costs would be rather heavy.

In Particular: In particular, since the reported move involves a huge in-movement of forces having a long and chequered relationship with the masses of the land, we need to relive the historical experiences. The Assam Rifles are a force with a long and pride history, and the nation is justifiably proud of this force.

But when it comes to their relationship with the people of Manipur, there is very little to be psychologically emboldened. First, the occupation of Kangla by this force until very recently has been a sore element in the relationship with the people of the land.

Such an ancient, historical and emotional place was wilfully occupied by this force despite the demands, protests and what not of the local population is still fresh in the minds of the public.

In fact, any history and story of Kangla would always be associated with this force, but, quite unfortunately, this association is not a healthy and people-friendly one.

Secondly, we have the Manorama case still very fresh in our minds. We remember the vivid scenes; we remember the mass protests which ran for months together; we still bear the socio-economic costs caused by that case; the society still articulates on the fall-outs of that incident.

These two cases are huge ones involving the psyche, emotions, patriotism, commitment and ethos of the entire population. The consequence of such cases involving the particular force has transmitted a certain kind of image of this force to the general public as unruly and undisciplined.

Among the more educated and articulate sections of the population, this force is seen as one where officers from other cadres spend some time exercising liberty without accountability.

There seems to be certain inherent feature in this force which makes the relationship with the people of Manipur somehow unsteady and unstable. Or it could be that the people of the land possess certain characteristics which do not tally with the motto of the force.

Very Recent Past: In the very recent past, we have not witnessed any of the socially chaotic scenarios of the Manorama kind or the emotive ones of the Kangla variety.

This is not because there have been reductions in the total strength of security forces in the land, but quite the contrary. What has been the scenario in the very recent past is the reduction of interaction of the force in question with the general public through reduced deployment.

The consequence is that we are seeing less social chaos resulting from the excesses of security forces. We understand that there are very active non-state forces present in our land and fighting for their avowed goals. We do understand that the state security forces are wont to fight against these agents.

This by no means implies that the general public should bear unwarranted costs inflicted by the security forces. This principle is paramount and every effort should be made to see to it that the past wounds of the public are refreshed.

We have already witnessed enough social chaos resulting from unruly security personnel and we do not want to experience more.