Where Is Manipur Today: Comparatively Speaking

Amar Yumnam *

With the elections for the State Assembly round the corner, time is now and curiosity also arises as to what has been the performance of the economy of Manipur from around the beginning of the present century till today. Performance comparisons are always more informative when done in way comparing with compatriots than doing it in a stand-alone way.

Naturally, the most informative as well as appealing way would be to attempt comparing the economic performance of Manipur with that of the other States in the North East.

Let us look at it from the angle of the most popular indicator of development performance, Per Papita Net State Domestic Product. In the beginning of the twenty-first century, now dubbed as the Asian Century, the comparative standing of Manipur was in the Seventh position among the Eight States of the region on this indicator. The first State had about 1.64 times as compared to Manipur.

The State just above Manipur, in the Sixth position, had an income about 1.24 times that of Manipur. But today, Manipur has climbed down (definitely not climbed-up) in the relative position. Manipur is now in the Eighth position among the Eight States of the region. While the First had per capita State Domestic Product of about 1.64 times that of Manipur in the beginning, it is now about 4.25 times.

The State of Meghalaya, which at the beginning stood just above Manipur and had 1.24 times the per capita of Manipur, today has about 1.5 times that of Manipur. This is definitely not a rosy picture. When the relative position as compared to the immediate neighbours gets worsened, the situation demands deep introspection for social and political implications. When the distance to the First was only about 1.64 times in the beginning, it has now risen to 4.25 times.

It is not a sustainable and stable scenario. In the language of the common man, one can say that the size of the cake has not been expanding in a way to satisfy the needs of the expanding population in both absolute and relative terms. This is where we need to examine the character of the transformation which had taken place in Manipur during the last decade and a half. This is exactly here the most disturbing characters emerge. We can examine this from the perspective of some globally accepted norms of governance.

First, development performance is not something which happens in a vacuum; there has to be a structure within which it happens. One of the most valued emphasis today is the ease of participation in both the sharing of responsibility and reaping of the fruits of development interventions. What has happened to this in Manipur during the last fifteen years? It has been as bad as it can be.

The biggest social tussles in Manipur today are rooted in the absolutely rising skewness in both participation and enjoying the fruits of participation in outcomes of governance. The deepening as well as widening ethnic-based articulations on everything are results of this. The intra-ethnic tensions in social relationships are also rooted in this. In other words, the fast deterioration in levels of social trust is the consequence of the character of governance during the last few years.

Second, if the governance has not been based on enhancing the participation of the common population in development activities and sharing of outcomes, what has been the orientation? It is in this that a very unfortunate agent for social deterioration emerged in a yet-to-develop economy of Manipur.

During the last few years, something generally called as crony capitalism has started emerging with a gusto in Manipur without ever acquiring the possible strengths of capitalism. The community has not disappeared and the market has not yet emerged to serve as foundations for social interactions, but cronies have nearly captured the state.

As true in the case of others, cronies (a) do not respect rules; (b) capacity to indulge in violation of rule of law is a strength for them; and (c) they are impatient. When cronies rule the roost, the resultant outcome would never be participatory and equalising. This is exactly what has happened in Manipur too. But inequality does induce social dissatisfaction, even if covert.

Third, when the above two conditions are prevalent, the governance anywhere would be very corrupt to the core. In fact, one of the biggest issues about employment and participation in sharing the benefits of development interventions during the last few years has centred around corruption. It has shown no signs of declining in such an unfortunate way that even the benefits under the Food Security Act have become issues of public outcry. Unfortunately the governance does not display any sign of revising the orientation.

Fourth, the term public outcry immediately takes me to the issue of rising prevalence of group mobilisation on any problem. Here it has reached such a level that this group-based mobilisation has even become profitable some individuals; there is no section untouched by corruption. This opportunity for reaping personal benefits out of group mobilisation has been created by the atmosphere of crony capitalism.

Since the cronies have monopolised on both the scope for participation in governance and reaping the benefits of governance interventions, the common people have been virtually incapacitated to articulate anything at the individual level. This being so the group articulations had to emerge. But very unfortunately for the people and society, the governance has not tried to capitalise on the strengths of the groups for rediscovering the lost social capital of Manipur.

Instead, they have applied the same crony method by creating minor-cronies among the protagonists of the group mobilisations. This has only served to deepen the governance-induced social disease. So during the beginning of the Asian Century, Manipur has surely started digging the grave for economic decline and deepening social divide.

The biggest tragedy of governance during the last few years has been the compromise with the cultural foundations of social ethos and sowing the seeds of turbulence of social inequality. This is where the people need a shared and collective application of mind for reversal of the scenario. Time is critical and the future is at stake.