The state observed the completion of the 68th year after the first epoch-making session of the democratically elected Manipur Legislative Assembly was held before the state was merged into the Indian Union. Almost seven decades down the line, it would seem an obvious conclusion that the system of administration and governance would have been rectified of the major glitches and oversights that almost always crops up with any new venture. Sadly, we could not have been more wrong in our optimistic assumptions. While there is indeed many a truth in the argument that the state have progressed and is not lagging behind other states in terms of various parameters of development, scratch the surface and the all too palpable feelings of unrest, uncertainty, suspicion and disquiet cannot be ignored or wished away. The acerbic and often communal-based claims and counter-claims of ‘unique history’, ‘collective aspirations’, ‘territorial integrity’ and ‘legacy of dominance’ by various interest groups in the small state which are but preponderance to their limited, narrow and communal-tinged views have today put paid to every efforts to integrate the feeling of oneness amongst the numerous communities. The matter has come to such a pass, owing in no small measure to the ineffective, unassertive and self-aggrandizing administration of the state government who have evidently failed to register the reality despite years and repeated terms of tenure, that there is now an invincible yet acknowledged line of divide amongst the different communities and tribes living in the state. And as much as it might draw the adverse reactions of many, it must be made known that that the claims and counter-claims on which the present state is being threatened to be imploded are but myths and fantasies whipped up by fanatics and self-serving individuals in the garb of social activists and leaders. For who is any sane person to claim the history of a particular tribe or community as ‘unique’ when every community, tribe or group has their own distinct, different, and therefore ‘unique’ history? Or how should the ‘collective aspiration’ of a handful of individuals, infuriatingly garrulous as they might be, be considered the voice of the real collective? Why should we consider our territory or boundary as mere real estate to be distributed or shared according to convenience instead of making efforts to develop and improve on it for the welfare of everyone in the state? Boundaries can shift and change, but when it is forced to be so on the forceful insistence of a single interest group as against an amicable agreement among every stakeholders, the result will invariably be one fraught with disappointment, violence and failure. As for many who are clinging on to the distant past and all its tainted glories, it is anytime a better practice to be pragmatic rather than nostalgic, and to be concerned about the future rather than be reminiscent of the past. We should learn from the past and improve the future. And the present is the best time to make efforts in that regard. What can be simpler than this? Or what can be more incomprehensible than the fact that those espousing their love of the state should fail to realize it?
