Putting More Fire Fuel: Comment On Sanjoy Hazarika

Khangembam Romesh *

The article of Sanjoy Hazarika 'Muivah and Manipur: A time for Healing' in the Imphal Free Press opens a new line of more probable confusion and argument instigating people between the plains and hills to fight each other in the wake of the proposed visit of NSCN (IM) rebel leader Muivah. I wonder what message he tried to send. If Sanjay was talking about peace, I would like to assert here that the fundamental assumption that makes about the sources of peace is to be considered within the framework of moral sphere that would be in relation with one's action.

It gives a far greater preeminence to its code of morality corresponding to the action perform/performed by an individual or a group. One should understand that peace can't be possible if there is violence of any form (may be in action, word or thought). If Muivah's visit were of totally for peace, there should be harmony between his actions and words.

All sorts of untruth should be avoided in order to establish the true nature of peace. There is also need of giving up of using harsh words and frivolous talks. Thought, speech and action should be parallel with the internal motive, the motive should not be behind the curtain, be open. Mr Sanjay should have recalled what Muivah had talk about when he left Dimapur and at public gatherings and meetings addressed at Nagaland some months back, when he came for the peace talk with Delhi.

Why did he use to say he doesn't need to take permission of Manipur Government? He could have approached in a noble way, (if the motive was just for peace and to visit his home) instead of saying such harsh words. What is the need of Muivah's visit to Manipur at this time and how Sanjay Hazarika terms it as home visit? I strongly verify here that the proposed visit is not to pay respect to his parents who died a long back.

We, as Manipuri (not only as Meities) feel very sorry for his parent could not see their son at the time of their last breath. Muivah revolted against India for Nagaland to be a separate country from India. Now the ultimate aim of the outfit has been changed into to form Greater Nagaland (here, I do not use the word Nagalim, because I don't know its meaning). It clearly indicates that he left Manipur for good (probably in 1966 as Sanjoy mentioned). He didn't consider Manipur as his home/home state. He does not consider himself as a son of Manipur or Manipuri. This means to say that he has no home in Manipur. How the question of home visit comes here?

He also claimed that he is not an Indian citizen. If there is precision of peace process in the proposed tour, why did Muivah and Central Government not arrange the trip from Delhi via Imphal to Somdal instead of Delhi via Kolkata and Nagaland? Analysing the past activities performed by NSCN (IM) and the present motive, Muivah has no "moral right" to visit Manipur. Mr Sanjoy Hazarika also tried to hide the motive and agenda; I assume according to what he writes. It seems that Sanjoy made his perception, perhaps artificially, knowingly (claiming it as in term of his view) especially for a one sided look. The NSCN (IM) rebel leader has to cultivate the habit of telling truth before visiting Manipur.

Muivah and Sanjay Hazarika should learn to understand (as I think) that speaking the truth has tremendous significance for the movement for peace. Peace can't be possible with falsehood. Mr Hazarika has to look seriously at the present situation and how it had been needled. As Sanjoy mentioned that Muivah is not claiming anything that is not theirs, if so, then what he is claiming about. The very beginning of the Naga problem was historically related with the issue of Naga Hills, which was a district of Assam, but Naga Hills/Nagaland was not a part of Manipur at all. It is to be recorded while concerning about Nagas rights and the statement of Sanjoy that 'he (Muivah) is not claiming anything that is not rightly ours'.

In the line no. 22 of the article, Sanjoy used the word 'trust'. He should be aware of that in connection to the prevailing tense situation in the state, for instance, the term "trust" is in relation to fear. If I trust someone, this may mean that I am not frightened of him; also, in his presence I am perhaps less frightened of things that might otherwise scare me. The child does not fear the dark when his mother is in the room. The knife in my friend's hand is not frightening to me; I know he will not attack me. Perhaps I know too that he will protect me from the attacks of others, and that knife will help him.

The inclination of the planned tour program can't make shadow for the scheme of care and trust that one can have towards his friends and parents. In these cases, we can see that trusting somebody else can be understood in relation to a person's needs and desires. What are the needs and desires of Muivah are to be located on the ongoing agitation, if Sanjoy wants to give his comment?

Trust, here, though it may involve no beliefs, is like the confident belief that I shall be carried safely past the danger; it enters into my relation to the object of fear. The point I wish to make is trusting of somebody has to involved in a 'trustful attitude'. What I would like to contend here is that at the current situation in Manipur, what Sanjoy talked about Muivah and Manipur presents in dramatic form for benefit of a particular group. I would say, there is a relation between believing someone and believing what he or she says at present and what had said in the past. Therefore, trust enters into human relations in ways that have little to do with accepting the truth of statements or actions.

Regarding a statement made by somebody to be as true can only possible on a comparatively advanced level of understanding the person based on his or her past and present positions. That understanding could also be brought by only what he or she had done in the past as human being. Considering the earlier decision of Central Government and speeches of Muivah delivered at various parts of Nagaland, various news conferences and the act of killing thousands of Kukis lives in the 1990s and others, how can one trust the proposed visit as a tour of peace and harmony? Believing what others say is a refinement of other, more basic form of trust.

Only in a context constituted by trust, we might say, do truth and the making of statements have a place. The action of Central Government and words of Muivah carry no object of trust, but the object of fear. Why the Central Government did not consult Manipur Government about the proposed plan to allow Muivah to visit Manipur before taking the final decision? The proposed trip of Muivah arranged by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India has generated fear for destabilizing or degrading an existing social order. The current affairs have become a very seditious issue with fears of disintegrating the tiny state.

I question why Sanjoy used the language 'Meities of Manipur' very often in the entire article. The widespread issue is not for Meities only, but for the whole Manipur. I want to point out one of his statements - "We understand deeply the concerns of the Meities of Manipur that their land should not and cannot be divided". As a common people (unfortunately belongs to Meities), I would like to explore that we are trying to save the land of Manipur for all communities, not for Meities only. This is for Manipur, not for a specific community. No Meitei has ever asked any communities to leave Manipur till now, because Manipur is the land of all communities from the inception.

Of course, Mr Okram Ibobi Singh is not just Chief Minister of a part of Manipur; he is the constitutional head of the entire state. Therefore, he took the decision to prevent entry of the criminal Muivah into the state, because the people of Manipur are above Muivah or an individual. Know it, if not known before. Within the parameter of state's legal code, it is the duty of the State Government to ready to face foreign attacks that would harm the state. The Manipur Government took the resolution not to do anything that affects the state, because first things first are people who live in Manipur.

Mr Hazarika should try to understand the 'people of Manipur' does not mean only 'Meities', but somebody who can't look the different communities equally used to define it as only for Meities. I think Mr. Sanjoy also belongs to one of them. I feel that Sanjoy should withdraw (if he is a man of dignity) his statement "By trying to stop him, the Manipur Government is adding to the sharpness of the ethnic divide between the hills and the plains". Just look at what NSCN (IM) cadres and their supporters are doing at this crucial juncture; they have blocked vehicles coming from Manipur towards Assam, economic blockade called by ANSAM (supported by NSCN (IM).

At the same time, Nagaland Government is also not ready to provide security. Nothing heard as yet from their side for cooperation and needful help in regard of the prevailing stipulation. How can you say that NSCN (IM) is heading towards a peaceful settlement? Their ways of conduct still show that they are involving in terrorist like activities (outlawed elements). The most important manifestation that calls for our close attention for peace forms the understanding of preventing the destructive approach that may cause civil unrest.

If there is no sincerity and transparency in making decision for peace policy, the hope of good life for all, peaceful coexistence will be receding in oblivion like a desert mirage. The approval of allowing the separatist leader Muivah to visit Manipur is to be reviewed, if the Central Government really wants to solve in a peaceful way, because it is an immature decision. If there is ego, no peace can be attained. Muivah should give up his ego.

What is necessary is the purification of mind. What may tempt us to overlook at this state of condition is the fact that the partisan interests often resort towards violence, hatred, suspicion and intolerance and in turn it would doubtfully promise to attain peace, prosperity and unity, for it narrowly mobilizes collective interests in the form of groupism avoiding the line of an integral harmonious life.

This is all that I wish to convey to Sanjoy Hazarika, a person known by his name to the public lower his stature for making these kind of juvenile statements. Stop act of wrong interpretation and commenting if you can't look parallel, it may bring down the situation in a more drastic structure.