Fear Violence Democracy The case of Manipur

You are here: Home » news section » opinions » Opinion on Killing of Manorama

E-Pao! Opinion - Fear, violence & democracy: The case of Manipur

Fear, violence & democracy: The case of Manipur

By: Amar Yumnam *

Despite occasional hiccups, the desire to live together in an atmosphere of lasting peace has been the undeterred longing of human beings. Forced agreements were the foundation for such an atmosphere in the distant past, but this could not be sustainable as any new force could challenge old order and binding force.

So this has long been replaced by the human endeavour to evolve a mechanism for unforced agreements. It is in this process that human beings have evolved democracy as the best means to establish an atmosphere of lasting peace based on unforced agreements. In the process the need for violence has been greatly reduced though not completely eliminated.

The Place of Fear: In this entire process of endeavouring for a lasting peace, fear has played a key role. Before I proceed far, I must hasten to add that the nature of fear has however undergone a major transformation. First, it was the fear of the unseen, who could cause thunderstorms, floods, earthquakes and what not, that made human beings to behave.

Second, it was the fear of the despot or some authority, who could protect or organise protection from dangers, that evoked fear and established a semblance of order and hierarchy. But the problem with this system was that the fear and compliance was forced.

The natural resistance and reaction of human beings to force and suppression made this system unsustainable. The search of human beings for a more friendly compliance to order and hierarchy continued. It is in this process that mankind have discovered democracy and its inherent framework for unforced compliance and structured hierarchy. This framework is what is called the rule of law.

But does this imply that democracy has ruled out any place for fear in a society? The answer is a definitive no. There is a deep-rooted and sustained fear even in democracy, but the only difference is that this is an unforced fear.

Democracy is sustained by this fear. In a democracy the people feel the sustained fear that any wrong-doing would be dealt with a due process of rule of law and there would be very little scope, if any, for the wrong-doer to get away.

Whereas the forced fear of punishment instilled by a despot would be avoidable even with a wrong action, and with appropriate cajoling of the despot, fear of ultimate punishment for crime by a due process of law is real and much more enforceable than the punishment caused by the former.

Fear in Manipur: It is in this context that we now need to examine the contemporary scenario in Manipur. There prevails widespread fear in Manipur, but all of the wrong kind. We can now examine the character of the fear prevailing in the State with real examples.

First, we have the fear caused by the Naobi incident. The way the State security forces have reacted to an earlier ambush incident and downloaded their anger on the poor girl, Naobi, is absolutely a representative case of the way the state mechanism functions in the State.

That the whole incident smacks of immaturity and lack of training on the part of the State security forces despite the so-called repeated attempts at modernisation is beside the point. What matters is that the Naobi incident caused widespread fear among the people in the State. But this fear was founded on insecurity, suspicion and hatred consequent upon the violent violation of the rule of law by the State security forces.

In a democracy, the fear is based on respect and widespread feeling of security by the masses under the rule of law. The fear caused by the Naobi incident was definitely not of this kind.

But we may ask as to what is the kind of fear we like to feel in so far as our relationship with the State security forces is concerned. Here again we have a vivid and recent example. The efficiency with which the same State security forces have recently resolved the phimu setpa (black dressed) mystery is but laudable.

The people of the State were suspicious that the security forces themselves were involved in the crimes committed by this group. But now the State security forces have uncovered the truth with a great efficiency and without any hassle. What is significant is that this solution too has generated a fear as well.

The fear and assurance generated by this is that no criminal would go scot-free if the State security forces are determined to bring the criminal to book. This is exactly the kind of fear we would love to feel about them. This is indeed a landmark positive departure relating to a force long known for corruption and incompetent flamboyancy.

Secondly we have the fear caused by the recent incident relating to the print media in the State. The incident of forcing the fourth estate to toe a particular line lock stock and barrel has the implication of the culture of violent enforcement of agreements having come a full circle affecting every segment and agency of the society. But this is not democracy nor is it an ingredient for any intended democracy.

The third example of fear I have in mind is the one created by the more than frequent general strikes. I understand that the historical tendency of the state administration to respond only to bandhs is itself a violent behaviour; violence encompasses much more than physical assault.

But to respond to state violence of inaction by a public violence of forced stoppage of every activity cannot and should not be a weapon frequently resorted to. General strikes violently violate the schedules and livelihoods of people. The society should now be able to evolve a less violent means for achieving the coveted objectives other than the general strikes.

Still another example of violence and forced agreement is the ongoing surrender drama involving the Manorama-famous Assam Rifles. The implications of this are getting unfolded increasingly. But, amongst others, the violence it has inflicted upon the credibility of the national security forces and, ipso facto, the Indian nationalism is unpardonable.

The Bottom-line: The bottom-line of my argument is that violence and forced fear based on hatred have increasingly become inherent characteristics of functioning of both state and non-state agencies in Manipur.

This is not only an unsustainable situation but harmful for democracy as well. The genius of Manipur should now be called upon to evolve a non-violent atmosphere for establishing unforced agreements.

Amar Yumnam wrote this article for The Sangai Express
This article was webcasted on June 03rd, 2006

* Comments posted by users in this discussion thread and other parts of this site are opinions of the individuals posting them (whose user ID is displayed alongside) and not the views of e-pao.net. We strongly recommend that users exercise responsibility, sensitivity and caution over language while writing your opinions which will be seen and read by other users. Please read a complete Guideline on using comments on this website.