It is axiomatic that the revolutionary movements which we have witnessed for more than five decades in Manipur, are moving south. The leadership of the movement may find it a bit uncomfortable to accept what is pointed out here. Nevertheless, it is the fact, and no one can deny it. Therefore the question ‘why people stopped believing in them and the movements they lead’ is worth pondering on.
Now the plain truth is, the movement does not have grassroots supporters. At the same time it cannot also be denied that the movement had strong people’s support at one time. If you were matured in the 1990s, you would remember how much the people supported the movement.
People lovingly called them ‘Naharol’ in the local language. When a ‘naharol’ came to a village and took shelter, he or she would always be warmly received. They would be served with the best food sprinkled with motherly love. To let them peacefully sleep, our courageous mothers — the Meira Paibi — would guard them all night sitting up. Everything I have told here is not a fairy tale, but the truth, we experienced in the early 1990s.
Around the same time, the emergence of ‘Naharol’ also meant the birth of an idea representing a new revolutionary class capable of bringing about a progressive society. If truth be told, they were the symbol of freedom, change, justice and truth. They were so taken not merely because of their overt political ideology, but because of their real praxis where they took the side of the poor and oppressed to protect them from the brutality done against them by the ruling classes and their allies.
So, it will not be as difficult as rocket science to figure out the trigger that is pushing back the movement as it has been witnessed now. By thinking linearly, one cannot take the dilution as a mere consequence of state’s repressive measures. However, it is one of the many causes of the movement’s inertness, but not the leading one.
As noted at the outset, they had emerged as a new force against corruption, injustice and state brutality. In some ways, they were the savior of the weak and the helpless in society, and the people felt the same about them too.
These ‘naharol’ came out with a vow to restore the lost sovereignty of Kaleipak. They also promised the people a new society characterized by freedom, justice, equality, and development that, as they argued, does not exist in Kangleipak till today.
People’s love for them was so strong that the whole state would mourn the death when the state or the centre killed a ‘naharol’. The more revolutionary youths they killed the more support the people would offer to the youths.
Almost every citizen of the state, particularly the rural poor, acknowledged their sacrifices and considered their bloods shed for the nation as the only way to bring a ‘manaba khunai’ into society. Certainly, the spirit of change and revolution was felt everywhere in the air at that time.
Nevertheless, over time, the outlook of these progressive young people seems to have shifted. They started to work with the wealthy figures in society instead of going with the people — the laboring masses. It is more than evident that most insurgent leaders have preferred to take refuge in the mansions of the MLA / Minister than the poor villager ‘s hut.
Now the politicians who continuously rob the people have become mates of theirs. They eat with contractors from the same plate, who, the poor people think, suck their blood, and the society began to see this painful fact. As a result, the masses started to lose their faith in the so-called revolutionary class. Citizens have, to some degree taken them as government’s ally, rather than recognizing them as revolutionary forces.
As a result, people are starting to come to the revolutionary people asking to give them government jobs or contract works, rather than contacting them to address social problems or draw up strategies for a better society.
Now they cannot be differentiated from the powerful people, because they maintain a cordial relationship with the ruling class and the wealthy and influential people. In more one way, in people’s minds, they are of the same hue. So, instead of discussing change and a new world with them, people speak to them about job quota, business, and contract jobs, as mentioned above.
What is worse is that the revolutionary cadres are now beginning to be pushed by regressive petty-bourgeois mentality, which causes them to slip off the revolutionary track. Consequently, certain progressive ideas are tainted by elitist values.
The loss of people’s trust in the revolutionary class has become so massive that people are starting to doubt the wealth and properties of a few revolutionary leaders. They even question each other in a cynical way, ‘is it to accumulate private property that they launched a revolutionary armed struggle?
Now people ‘s relationship with the ‘Naharol’ has undergone a dramatic change. The relation is no more revolutionary. They are no longer regarded as a group of people who strive to bring about change in society. Rather, people tend to see them as a group of people who enjoy their share of power, wealth and privileges under the existing political and economic system.
Today, at this juncture, if the movement is to recover, there is a significant need to look back on and rectify the missteps they had taken. This must also be noted that it cannot be separated from the people to bring in a fruitful democratic movement. If the leaders think about launching the revolution arm in arm with the bloodsucking class of society, they have to make it clear to themselves that people will never come to join in the fight. Moreover, this bloodsucker or society’s upper class will never go for a war to free the masses because it challenges their wealth, status, and privileges they now enjoy.
Two choices now lie before us: the first, to take the side of the people, the second to take the side of native capitalists and their allies who never want to go for class suicide or who never want to be de-classed. It is not, however, some multiple-choice question where one gets one more point if the option is right, or get one less point if wrong. Rather, it will decide our trajectory in history and the nation’s destiny. In other words, the decision will tell us whether the movement is going to go forward or backwards, or whether it will die out.
Writer-Kh.Ibomcha
