The latest issue of the Journal Alternative Perspective is in circulation. “For those who came late” it is a quarterly of the Centre for Alternative Discourse, Manipur and edited by Thingnam Kishan Singh.

It deals with economy, polity, history and culture of Manipur in particular. The latest issue is the last of the collections of writings on “Look East India Policy” (LEP) of the Indian Government. The issue is for the July-Sept quarter of 2006 (a slight delay here).

Alternative Perspectives was formerly Alternate Frames. The name change has been due to problems in registration of the journal: it was found that the name Alternate Frames had already been registered by another Journal. “What’s in a name…” as the bard of old would say; the content is what matters and whether one accepts the conclusion or not it cannot be denied that what the Journal seeks to debate is relevant.

The first in the collection Understanding Underdevelopment: A Contextual Reading of India’s Look East Policy and Manipur by Thingnam Kishan Singh, seeks a historical explanation of the economic backwardness and dependency of Manipur.

According to him, the British’s imperialistic, exploitative attitude towards its colonies are responsible for it. And perhaps one could find the hint that LEP is nothing but the extension of the British’s development of its colonies in terms of roads and other allied infrastructures as the means for more organised and bigger exploitation of the region towards India’s ends.

Ajiulimai’s essay Development and Discontentment in the North East: Perspectives on India’s Look East Policy is the most balanced of the collection and the least polemical. It acknowledges that if proper planning and implementation is made the policy could very well lift us from the sorry economic situation of Manipur and the entire North East.

But there is doubt whether it would be properly monitored and implemented. The doubt is well placed because the cosmetic policies of the past regarding the region due to its false promises had done more harm than good. They have proved to be a cause of the palpable discontent in the region.

Indo-Myanmar relations in the greater perspectives of India’s Look East Policy: Its implications in Manipur by Langpoklakpam Suraj Singh studies LEP in the context of India’s security concerns. Indo-Myanmar relationship is an important factor in India’s policy perhaps more than the economic betterment of the people of North East.

The policy is more of a strategy for security; namely the containment of China and the many insurgent groups of North East India based in Myanmar, it would suggest.

Indrakumar Kon- thoujam in his Manipur and India’s LEP: Roots and Beyond points the enthusiasm of LEP to Manipuri’s to the belief of Nongpok Thong Hangba entrenched in Meitei psyche. He very much concludes that it is to an ill wind that the door is going to be opened which would sweep us away from our roots.

This is echoed by Hanjabam Isworchandra Sharma in India’s Look East Policy and Manipur’s Economy. It is likely that Manipur would be the sacrificial lamb. This conclusion he backs up with data that strongly infers the scenario.

Drug traffic of larger volume and kinds, HIV/AIDS, obliteration of what is left of cottage industries, influx of people from other regions of India as well as other Nationalities, are just some of the problems that concerns the thinkers in this issue of the journal.

The spectre of free trade rings alarm for the writers and reveals their leaning towards anti-free trade. The unanimous verdict is plain. LEP as it stands is bad for the region and in the present situation of North East’s economic, political or otherwise conditions spells disaster. This issue entitled ‘Manipur & India’s Look East Policy’ has the subtitle ‘Polemics & Perspectives’. There certainly is Polemics in fair amount but one could not help the feeling that Perspectives as found in the collection is limited.

In all these writings there is agreement in the views, more to my chagrin. This, I think is because the discussion on the theme is long drawn out in four volumes. There is attempt to approach the issue from different perspectives to deliver comprehensiveness of debate, but one could not help feeling tired over the overlaps in content and conclusion. I just wish there was a single conclusion that says, Yes to LEP!

We have the right to be suspicious of the policy makers in the centre. Having said this, it would be better to move out of that attitude once in a while and realise that things are not black and white, but rather shades of grey.

It would be prudent to be cautious while judging such policies with enormous consequence for the region. But that conviction, overriding proper judgement and arguments found in certain sections of the writing is also an enormous folly.

Academic circles, intellectuals and students would certainly find this Journal worthy of its commitments. Policy makers too would equally find it worthwhile. It is important that they do so. It would be equally enlightening for us laymen also.

“The Journal aims to provide critical and constructive evaluation of the existing conditions and circumstances surrounding the North East. It also offers informed debates on the issues crucial to the material realities in the region. Alternative Perspectives represents the recognition of the historical necessity of accepting the twin challenges to critique and to explore various alternatives for ushering in a new order.”

This aim of the Journal is a refreshing idea that promises a respite from the slow intellectual death of our collective mind. The idea is definitely an alternative to the violence that also believes in bringing about a new order; but at what expense?

Ushering a new order minus gunpowder, minus our right to think, sans repression of our expressions is possible only when we are part of the debate that the Journal stands for.