By – Amar Yumnam
What a social crisis Manipur has been facing during the last three years? I am putting this question at the cost of multiple repetition for various reasons. I. Manipur has historically not faced this kind of crisis. Though she may not be a very powerful kingdom, the strength and the cordiality of relationships in the diverse population groups have been cordial enough to sustain the peace in the land. The diversity basically in religion, mainly after the British occupation, does not overrule the shared belongingness to the common group. II. In a very unexpected way, and a violent one at that, conflicts emerged between two main groups. This violence costed lives and absolute divergence in places of residence of the people belonging across the different groups. III. Divergence in places of residence naturally implied a significant proportion of the population in the conflicting groups suffering losses of original home and residence. IV. Loss of home naturally led to the emergence of temporary (I repeat temporary) places of residence. V. The temporary places of residence should be necessarily of very short periods as it is significant for the participation, particularly of the children and youths, in the private and the state interventions for enhancing the capabilities of the population; these policies determine the progress of a state and the fate in the relative competitiveness. VI. A longer-term disturbance can alter the social route towards a negative adoption of unhealthy social emotions. VII. There are important gender issues which we have to invariably take care of as more disorders cannot be allowed to continue.
In the light of these issues, we need to ponder on what and how they are to be addressed. There are the underlying dynamics of the differential levels of development across the composite groups of population and now coupled by the sudden unexpected articulations. Let us be very clear on certain things of modernisation and development. One very important social reality needed is the clarity on the property rights system. A group has a problem here. Second, this has been coupled for long, in most cases, by the absence of attachment to clear locations and thereby hampering evolution of modern property rights regime. Third, these two factors have definitely hindered definitive participation in modern tools of social strengthening by this group.
Given these realities, it would not be socially right to go for violence for asserting land and development. I put this point mainly on three arguments. The first one is economic. The potentiality for economic and social advancement would be very limited. Instead, it would be more sensible for loud assertion for interventions along contemporary social sector policies such that the speed of development becomes faster. Second, use of violent means for development in the light of prevailing social reality may not sustain the weight and the strength to achieve it. Third, what the group says cannot be the only truth.
In the light of the points put forward, I feel it is in the goodness on the parties involved to avoid resorting to un-parliamentarian languages; these would only make the bitterness linger without yielding anything in return. This is where the importance of politics arises. Let us recall what Aristotle had said long back that “a human being is more of a political animal than a bee or any other gregarious animal. Nature makes nothing pointlessly, as we say, and no animal has speech except a human being. A voice is a signifier of what is pleasant or painful, which is why it is also possessed by the other animals (for their nature goes this far: they not only perceive what is pleasant or painful but signify it to each other). But speech is for making clear what is beneficial or harmful, and hence also what is just or unjust. For it is peculiar to human beings, in comparison to the other animals, that they alone have perception of what is good or bad, just or unjust, and the rest. And it is community in these that makes a household and a city-state.” Thus, politics should replace the violence and the languages of hatred by any group whatsoever; harsh words would make the ill-feelings last longer rather than making return to peace easier.
This is where we feel the qualitative character of the federal authorities and their representatives in the province very suspicious. What we observe are basically only two things. A. There is no signal of intentions to resolve the key issues of social crisis. B. Politics for politicking is what continues as the Representatives of the ruling party put labour only for forming government instead of anything else.
Please go for politics for social evolution and development instead of the present politicking.