By – Amar Yumnam
Imphal, October 13:
Look for lovely, lovable and respectable news on Manipur today. I am confident that any lover of the land and her people would experience more of tears of sadness and disappointment than that on happiness and pride-enhancement. Now this contemporary scenario has been coupled by happenings relating to history and historical evidences. History is not a simple thing. This is true for anything and any event. The significance of history has nothing to do with the size of population, land and social groups; the significance is irrespective of size. Further, history is not something which gets over with the past; it is equally important for the present and much more for the future. While the present gets over fast, the period of the recorded time of events and people keeps getting longer and the future too is something which never ends. But the reality is that history is significant for the society and for a kingdom in a way much more significantly than in the case of individuals. An individual cannot determine the transitory path in a permanent way even when dictatorships may come up in a society, but social history is a strong determinant of individuals in the relevant society. The significance of history for a society is increasingly on the rise with the character and speed of technological changes happening today – we remember radio (which looks like only yesterday) and now it is Artificial Intelligence. With this, the importance of remembering, recording and preserving evidences of evolution of the society is on the rise as well.
While thinking of records of history, we must also be educated and conscientious enough that these would take many formats – these can come in physical, written or sustained social memories and habits. It is exactly in this context that the significance of the recent demolition of the building in Shillong where the King of Manipur signed the Agreement on Merger with India in 1949. The social belief is that the Manipur King was forced to sign the Merger Agreement. Here there is still a substantial need for further social research on both the destroyed building and the atmosphere of the signing of the agreement. But now the building does not exist any more as it has just been completely destroyed.
Before we come to a discussion on who and how can the decision for demolition be taken, let us be fully aware of certain social principles to be observed while application of mind for destroying the building comes up. First, there is the unavoidable need for clarity on the social perception of preference on the building by the people of Manipur as to whether to be destroyed or retained. Second, the understanding and social examination of the building from the scientific angle by the social scientists and the need for demolition or otherwise opined by them should be a widespread public knowledge; final justification for demolition, absolutely unlikely, can be done only by them when the general public follow their opinion. Third, there is a strong issue of morality involved while destroying such buildings. This is because the building relates to regional social history and the larger nation-building exercises of India which comes later. Fourth, there is an issue of ethnicity involved as well while deciding on demolition of the building. The ethnic diversity involved in signing the Merger Agreement between Manipur and India in 1949 is an established and pre-merger reality.
In the light of these questions, we can now come as to who and how can the decision for demolition be taken. It is known to the world, not only us, that India follows democracy. As we all know, Democracy follows the principle of Government of the People, by the People and for the People. Now we can immediately ask as to whether Manipur is being administered at present by such a government. Definitely not: Manipur is under the President’s Rule in which the government of the people, for the people and by the people is non-existent. Manipur is under a bureaucratic-based government right now. We have no reservation on taking routine decisions by a bureaucratic government, but our question is: Is a bureaucratic government competent enough to take decisions on societal-related history while the democratic government of the people, by the people and for the people is on a temporary absence? Are the bureaucrats competent and qualified enough to take decisions robustly connected with the moral responsibility and sentiments of the people in a democracy? Are decisions related to the altering of history related realities something which can be easily decided upon by a bureaucratic government without being debated in the Legislature and the general public? Was the act of demolition a display of something where the bureaucracy decided to replace the inherited history and shred the people-understanding of foundation of social evolution for further advancement? The questions being put here have the context of administrative non-application of mind for solution of social crisis prevailing for the last three years. Now what next for Manipur in a context of “majority in numbers, minority in unity” characteristic of the elected representatives (as explained by R K Bobby very recently) and they do not feel it imperative to raise the issues of the place and society to the Federal Authorities?