No surprise package :: Master of the game
- The Sangai Express Editorial :: July 02 2011 -

The rejection of the alternative arrangement model by the Centre and the State Government was not something unexpected and no one, least of all the United Naga Council, would have been surprised by the response of Delhi and Imphal.

The interest generated by the June 30 Senapati talk had nothing much to do with whether Delhi and Imphal would capitulate and give in to the demand raised by the UNC or not, but had more to do with how they approach the issue at hand. It also did not come as a surprise that the UNC sees a silver lining in the talk, though their ultimate demand was rejected.

A finer understanding of the issue would leave no one in doubt that it was not a question of whether the alternative arrangement model mooted by the Naga People's Convention of Senapati on July 1, 2010, was feasible or not, but was more of a mind game, a game of testing the water of how wobbly or how firm the Centre and the State Government are.

The question therefore is who the master of the game was. A tough question to answer, no doubt, but there are many an untold tale over the uncertainty of the role of Delhi in the whole talk exercise.

For one Delhi did try to portray itself as just a facilitator of the talk between the State Government and the UNC while on the other hand, the subtle message was that it fully backs the State Government in dismissing the demand of the UNC.

Till May this year, Delhi stuck to its posture that the demand of the UNC was not clear while the State Government took refuge under the alibi that they have not been informed by the UNC about the core issue of the talk.

In fact of the three entities involved in the whole exercise, it was only the UNC which had a clear stand and irrespective of whether their demand was outlandish or not, at least their open stand needs to be acknowledged. This is what we call conviction of one's beliefs.

While Delhi still maintains that it was just a facilitator of the talk and hence does not exactly know what the alternative arrangement is all about, the UNC had stated more than once that their demand has been made clear to the Centre. We leave it to the wisdom of the readers and public to decide which story to digest.

Moreover it is surprising that a mere observer, a facilitator should have thought it fit to set the time table for the talk to be held. In other words, it was apparent that Delhi's role was something much more than just being a facilitator or an observer.

For the moment everything seems to be going on track for the Government. Delhi and Imphal have made it clear that the alternative arrangement model is something which will not be entertained at all on the premise that the territorial integrity of Manipur is non-negotiable.

This is sure to go down well with the advocates of a unified Manipur and will surely appeal to the gallery. What remains vaguely uncomfortable is however the conduct of the State Government while dealing with the issue.

This can be seen clearly in the decision to depute its political representatives to the first round of talk held at Senapati district headquarters on December 3 last year followed by the withdrawal from the talk on May 29 this year and rounded off with the June 30 talk where the stand of the Government was clearly spelt out.

In other words it was a case of saying two today and three tomorrow. The absence of a firm stand is what is worrying. However this is not the time to look back but forward and this is the opportune moment for the Government to sincerely dig in its heels and see whether the hill districts have been given the short shrift or not.

In most cases, lack of development has nothing to do with lack of funds, but to do with the utilisation of the funds earmarked for the people in the hill districts.

Who are the people who have benefited the most from diverting the funds meant for the hill districts ? Who are the people responsible for dipping their hands into the funds meant for the people in the hills ? Who are the people responsible for propagating the system of stand-in teachers in the far flung villages of the hill districts ?

These questions can be answered only after a sincere exercise in self introspection and in as much as the role of the Government is indispensable for this, the role of the hill based civil society organisations like the UNC is crucial.

Is the train of thought that the valley area has prospered at the cost of the hill districts genuine are merely canards, spread by some who stand to gain by sowing the seeds of distrust ?

Is there anyone out there who is ready to go in for some serious self introspection ?