Mysterious Richard: Inculcating Racist Lingo and Protest

Dr. Malem Ningthouja *

Justice for Loitam Richard : Demonstration at Delhi on 29 April 2012 :: Pix - Moi Gangte / Bonet Adhikarimayum

There is articulation of 'anti-racial' lingo towards mobilising a desperate flank subsequently encapsulating the Northeast vis-à-vis daily experience of social profiling and discrimination in other parts of India.

The lingo is raised amidst the clout of protest, with epicentre in Manipur and Meghalaya, ignited by the 'mysterious' death of two students; Mr. Richard Loitam (19) from Manipur, a student of B. Arch (1st year) at Acharya's NAV School of Architecture on 17 April allegedly murdered by hostel mates in his hostel in Bangalore, and Miss Dana Silva M Sangma (21) from Meghalaya who committed suicide on 24 April 2012 due to the reported humiliation by exam invigilators at Amity University in Gurgaon.

In an interaction on 10 May 2012, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh expressed his concern over the protest but denied racial profiling and institutionalised discrimination on Northeast people in other parts of India. According to him the Northeast has been more advantageous than others in terms of grants and economic packages to develop. Large scale migration of students and workers from the Northeast to the Indian metropolitan cities is interpreted as positive sign of integration. He assured to consult the MHA to look into the cases of Richard and Dana.

The same day the MHA informed us about official expectations of speedy reports on the issues. Since the matter is a state subject, the MHA can only make recommendation to the concerned state governments to expedite speedy investigation so that there would be impartial justice. The ministry could not promise a time bound justice but sought for our suggestions to deal with interrelated issues that might be considered in policy framing. The MHA on 18 May sent an advisory to all the states and UTs to adopt a policy against "racial profiling and discrimination faced by Indian citizens of Northeastern states''.

In the meanwhile the delay in justice and perplexing media statements had disappointed the protest flank. The two deaths that have occurred in different cities on different dates are being interwoven in framing racial charges against the concerned authorities for misreporting on the causes of the deaths, official apathy towards the victims and attempts to cover up crimes, lack of immediate response and fair investigation into the case by the police, and lack of political will by the government to deliver justice. In Manipur, a controversial post mortem report had added fuel in making the protest culminated into militancy. Student organisations ransacked INC and BJP offices and imposed a ban on Karnataka based manufactured goods and institutional agents.

Reading against the grains of the protest has revealed pent up fury against several frequent instances of social profiling, assaults, and denial of justice affecting the security of the people hailing from Northeast in the neighbourhoods, streets, service sector, etc in the Indian metropolitan cities. Ipso facto the protest is racially conceived and politically coloured.

Its significance however, despite the valour it adds to anti-India political campaign by the insurgents, is the potential pressure in forming public opinion to demand fast track procedure towards impartial and speedy justice. The pressure tactics is based on the perception that effective functioning of justice in India is rested on the ability to exert alarming social and political pressures for justice, i.e., State, police, judiciary and powerful lobby worked in tandem.

Although justice is yet to be delivered, or even if justice would be denied in the end, the protest for months keeps the quest for justice temporarily alive, thereby, making it a point of reference in future course of struggle for justice.

In the light of racially coloured discontents the official explanation and position of the PM and MHA on 10 May needs to be reviewed:

1. Firstly, the official denial of racism cannot cover up multi-racial composition and inter-racial status quo in India. The denial is merely an excuse from taking an official position to positively address the racial question that exists in the myriads of social compartmentalisation in India, e.g., in social relation racial attitude promotes racism reciprocally. The denial cannot refute the institutional lacklustre that was raised in my previous article 'Is India Serious about the Northeast?' in Governance Now, December 16-31, Vol. 02 Issue 22, 2011, pp 26-27.
2. Secondly, economic grants and projects in the Northeast (sic for defending the boundary of India) are misappropriated without restraint by the agents of the ruling party, i.e., unholy nexus among political barons, bureaucrats, contractors, and project dealers who invested money in electoral politics. Such cosmetic packages using the cloak of development cannot be a substitute for economic growth and justice at the grassroots. It is a structural crisis that has to be addressed by a democratic government. The people need not be confused by evasive jargons and false promises to divert away attention from misrule and deprivation.
3. Thirdly, the presence of migrant students, labours (employees), and job seekers from Northeast in other parts of India are not to be holistically perceived as the sign of integrity but seen as the syndrome of insecurity, displacement, and economic hardships in their home states. The temporary rented rooms, quarters, hostels, and hotchpotch flats in the midst of dominant others cannot be the substitutes for home that provided social and psychological security. Migrant workers (employees) are more vulnerable when exposed to the struggle for opportunity particularly in the contract job and unorganised sectors. Will the policing alone be able to provide with economic and social security to these immigrants so that they become emotionally integrated?