One thing that proved true, and must be accepted with guarded enthusiasm is the fact that the people of the state, whether be those residing in the hills or in the valley, have experienced and utilized the power of information, or more precisely, the advantages and empowering features of Information Technology. The flip side however is the inability of a vast number of these informed individuals to utilize this information for progress and positive development. As with any powerful medium, Information Technology or IT can be abused. More terrifyingly, reacting on the information on personal impulse rather than trying to process the same is the bane of our reactive society. A lot of the present imbroglio and social turmoil being experienced today can be directly or indirectly attributed to the failure to process this information and convert them into verifiable knowledge. The news of the visit of RN Ravi, chairman of Joint Intelligence Committee, Government of India and interlocutor to NSCN-IM peace talks, to the State, for instance, have been circulated throughout the state for the last couple of days, thanks to an increasingly speedier IT infrastructure. Most of us in the state assumed to have known the intricate details of his plans the very moment when the news was received. And now, various organizations and individuals have started voicing their resentments on the very mention that RN Ravi, having conceived his intentions to be anti-Manipur, is to visit the state. This is not a one-off instance. We have been experiencing bandhs and blockades almost every time a head of government or bureaucrat visits the state as a symbolism of the collective feelings of the public towards them. Such symbolisms, while conveying the general feelings of the public would not further the cause of the people or their objections and disapprovals as clearly and succinctly as a dialogue and discussion across the table. We need to take advantage of such visits to the state and build a rapport which is conducive to an atmosphere of understanding. We should also drop the notion that a dialogue means a compromise. We can be firm and true to our cause. And we should be. At the same time, we need to communicate on the rationale behind our anxieties and concerns, and also offer an acceptable solution which will repose confidence on the people of the state. In today’s age of heightened communication, we should be able to make use of the information we are bombarded with every moment to make things easier and better, and not to create confusion or incite hatred. We need to make sure those who are representing our interests and aspirations can deliver and not resort to rhetoric or hold back. We need to express ourselves to the fullest, to voice our concerns and demand our rights. But there is a certain way of doing it. That certainly does not include drowning out the voice of reason, or abusing information without understanding the repercussions.
