Kukis reversing their evolution while it has been only slowed down for others: contemporary Manipur

By: Amar Yumnam
Any society is not something which is formed and becomes alive in a few years. It takes a stable shape only after centuries of undergoing the evolutionary processes of statics and dynamics. Without going back to the classics writers like Plato, let us recall a recent writer, Joseph Schumpeter, who said: “always static theory has historically preceded dynamic theory and the reasons for this seem to be as obvious as they are sound—static theory is much simpler to work out; its propositions are easier to prove; and it seems closer to (logical) essentials.” This is the history of any society and any civilisation. During the period of evolution towards the stable stage there would be many ups and downs, and many interruptions of violence. After passing through the violent stages, there would come stages of continuous discourses among individuals and groups on how to go ahead as a shared common picture. This is how cultures of societies emerged as foundations of social functioning. This is not something which can be borrowed from another society or based on instigations of members of other societies.
Looking at what have been happening during the last three years in Manipur, certain very challenging features emerge for the Kukis; I prefer the term Khongjai which reminds my childhood and the beauty of interactions of those days. First, the manner in which the Kukis have behaved established beyond doubt that they are still at the evolutionary stage of a society. The discourses among the members of the group for evolution towards a stable and dynamic society have not yet taken place. Second, the continuous claims on land historically belonging to others reveal beyond doubt that even the primary foundation of a stable society – establishment of a regular property rights regime –has not yet happened. Third, the adoption of violence as a strategy for establishment of a stable society is a strategy of the Before Christ or the beginning of the Christian era only. Fourth, indulging in violence in the contemporary global stage is very costly or rather a great loss to the children. As an instance, the sacrifices of education imposed on the children would certainly be costlier in the Kuki society. This is a qualitative cost the Kukis cannot and should not attempt to afford. While many other features could be mentioned, the final fact is that the Kukis have reversed their move towards a stable society by at least a half of a century or so during the last three years.
In comparison, the Meeteis, Meetei Pangals and the Nagas had reached the stage of a stable society for more than a thousand years back; the inevitable representation of a Naga in a Meetei Lai Haraoba is not a simple act. Further, despite the acute social crisis coupled by poverty of governance, the children have performed wonderfully well in the CBSE Class X by the students in the valley schools. During the historical experience of social discourse, the children must have absorbed the imperative need for good educational performance. This is visible in the field of sports as well.
The meaning of the differences between the two is that: (a) what has happened in the valley has just been a slowingdown of the social progress, with the cost borne more by the displaced families.Manipur has a social capability and social discourse too is already under way on how to make up for the losses; and (b) the evolutionary process towards a stable society has taken a big reversal among the Kukis; it would take at least half a century to cover up the costs incurred during the last three yearsby the society under formation. The Kukis have yet to learn the fact that a society is not just the quantitative dimensions, but there are many important qualitative aspects determining the path of progress or otherwise. The prevailing political economy support mechanisms must be giving them hope and capability to achieve what they are aiming at. Social formation is not an easy task, and killing others to achieve the targets is a strategy at least nearly three centuries old. Further the political economy ofsupport mechanism from outside is never a perpetual system.Giving up adoption of weapons and instead endeavouring to strengthen the qualitative foundations for formation of a society would be a realistic strategy.