Selective selection
- The Sangai Express Editorial :: May 14, 2011 -

Selective amnesia. Selective silence. Selective outbursts. Selective condemnations.

These are all human attributes and there is no mistaking the presence of a bigger and more sinister hand behind any of these 'selective stands' which add to the spice and drama of one's life.

Imagine how dull life would be if everything go according to script, with no element of surprise or the unexpected. Primarily these 'selective stands' are adopted to suit one's convenience and serve one's purpose and this is one of the more prominent reasons why there is a growing tribe of sceptics, who take everything with a pinch of salt and why not ?

Such a trend is largely visible or comes to the fore at times of conflict or stalemate and when the opposing sides are out to earn the support or sympathy of the comity of Nations.

One such example that comes to mind is the question of human rights, the rule of law and respecting the sanctity of human lives and their dignity, right to express one's point of view as well as the liberty to disagree with what the authority or the powers that be has decreed.

This is where the difference between a free and democratic society and a closed and suppressive society comes out prominently. Anyone who has an opinion feel free to say or express or condemn the policies pursued by the United States, especially in the aftermath of its misadventure in Iraq as well as in Vietnam many years back.

Even today questions and criticisms over the decision of the United States to send in its troops to Afghanistan continues to draw flaks for the fact stands that bin Laden, the proclaimed enemy number I of the US was nothing less than a creation of Washington, moulded and given shape during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

It is noteworthy that some of the most telling reservations against the policies of the USA has come from its own citizens and the beautiful part is the demonstration by the US Government that it is open to criticisms and questionings.

The elimination of Osama bin Laden in the clinically executed operation at Abbotabad, Pakistan on May 2,2011 has raised a number of questions, ranging from the ethics of killing an unarmed man (bin Laden) to sneaking in its commandos into a sovereign Nation-Pakistan.

The adult sons of Osama have been reported as questioning the elimination of their father, who was unarmed during the raid by the American commandos and yes the questions are valid and need an explanation.

At the same time, it would do mankind a whole lot of good to realise the fact that these questions have been raised and carried in the Western media, because the persons who pulled the trigger on an unarmed bin Laden were Americans.

Can anyone imagine a similar question being raised if the killer had happened to be the Taliban or one of the radical elements, much less carry such a report in the Arab or Afghanistan press ?

Did anyone from the Middle East or the Arab world raise a voice when the Taliban ruthlessly desecrated the Buddha Bamiyans in Afghanistan ?

Did any of the Taliban leaders or any of the radical elements raise their voice when bin Laden engineered the suicide attack at the Twin Tower that claimed 3000 civilian lives in 2001 ?

Did the Al Qaeda or Osama's sons come out with any questions when terrorists went on a killing spree at Mumbai in 2008 or when the Indian Parliament was attacked ?

Or when an Indian Airlines flight was hijacked from Kathmandu and taken to Kandahar and terrorists like Azar Masood were freed in exchange for the release of the innocent passengers ? Did any of these elements shed a tear when an air hostess was killed by the hijackers then ?

These questions are important and in many ways, it exposes the bully mentality of such groups of people, who think nothing about blowing up someone or killing some innocent civilians, without a care of human rights or the rule of law, but cry foul when they find themselves at the receiving end.

Yes, Washington needs to answer how it gathered the moral compunction to kill an unarmed man (Osama) but this question too need to be directed at the victim himself and his followers too.

The world cannot afford to have different yardsticks while dealing with a global menace like terrorism and there is the growing need to appreciate the liberty mankind enjoys when it comes to dealing with Nations which believe in the principle of a free world and freedom of expression.

People who have been exposed to a conflict like situation for ages will understand the situation we are addressing and this is where we find so many tragic ironies.

The Naga inhabited areas in Manipur are presently supposed to be living in an atmosphere of peace and tranquillity, but does this mean that the Naga people feel free to question the decrees and diktats imposed by the armed men, who are otherwise known by the lofty name of National Workers ?

Why is it that some civil society organisations, which have the backing of these armed men, throw their weight around and do not hesitate to proclaim that what they decree is the stand of the 'Naga Nation'.

Perhaps one may just recall the elections to the State Assembly as well as Lok Sabha to really understand what we are trying to say.

How about the election to the District Councils held last year? True, the Naga frontal organisations may have genuine reasons for boycotting the election, but on what basis did it become the wish of the Naga people per se ?

Why did the candidates feel constrained to take shelter at Imphal ?

This situation is not unique to the Nagas alone, for other communities too have been beaten into quiet submission by the different power players, who all come under the garb of fighting for a cause for the people and the land.

Can anyone say truthfully that there is no threat perception, if and when they want to raise any uncomfortable questions in the face of these armed boys and men ?

Is there anyone who has not met with the standard, 'Talk to our elder', whenever there is a stand off or a point of disconnect arises ?

At least we can afford to go hammer and tongs against Mr Ibobi, the top brass of the security forces but not against these armed men, who are supposed to be fighting for a cause dear to the heart of the people. How about the civil society organisations, which are deemed to be their front ?

Has anyone dared to question them or violate their decrees and diktats ?

A frank appraisal is highly needed now or else, Manipur will continue to look into an endless pit of darkness with no future worth looking forward to.

True liberty and peace does not only mean the absence of gun fire, but a state of mind, which knows no fear or apprehension of anything being imposed by some other power player.