By – Amar Yumnam
Imphal, Mar 3:
I write this piece with my heart crying and tears flowing spontaneously since the early morning of 2 March 2025; my lifelong friend since childhood, Dr. Tokpam Rajendra Singh (former Professor at the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal) left this world for the heavenly abode on Sunday. But we did share our love for our motherland since childhood, and this is the strength which enabled me to apply mind for this piece. God Bless Your Soul, My Dear Friend.
However, the day of his departure is very significant for the recent history of Manipur. I do give the credit for this significant message to a good friend on the latest information from the Ministry of Home Affairs with no time gap: the India Today reporting on the North East was pretty fast. The major points reported were the definitive instructions of the Honourable Minister of India: A. Ensure free movement of public on all roads in Manipur from March 8, 2025; B. Take strict actions against all cases of extortion; C. Speed up fencing work at designated entry points along international border adjacent to Manipur; and D. Dismantle entire network involved in drug trade to make Manipur drug-free. Without getting into the merits of each proposal, there are two points to be particularly appreciated. First, the nearly two years old charge of the Indian general public, particularly of Manipur, against the Government of India as well as the provincial government of the same political party in Manipur of ignoring the sufferings of the people of Manipur has been addressed though late. Now the major burden of the blame of indecisiveness lies with the provincial government which has just been put under suspension; what could be the inner dynamics of tussle within the government is not a matter of concern at this point. Second, Manipur, being a province closest to the South East Asia (herself being a kingdom in the South East Asia Region before merger with India in 1949) with fast moving international dynamics, calls for continual attention for peace, transformation and development. Hope this is also included as an unavoidable component of this objective.
As regards the first imperative mentioned on ensuring free movement of people, there can be no two arguments on the significance this. Mobility is the prime medium for facilitating involvement in the engagements for livelihoods, sustaining relationships across families, indulgence in exchanges and trading and transition of knowledge and ideas. Further, the importance of this input for development has no orientation for any specific community whatsoever; it is a compulsive neutral requirement for development irrespective of time, place and community.
Further, we had learnt and have been emphasising public opinion as a neutral formation of expression of public preferences. This expression of preferences has till recently been based on freedom of expression (a major component of any constitutional principle in any democracy) around the globe and rightly so. But a recent very unfortunate development has been the emergence of expenditure-involving mobilisations – particularly by the powers that be – for construction of favourable public opinion; the resort to violence and other extortionary measures have been unhesitant applications in this new design of public opinion formation. The second directive has the potential to take public opinion formation towards the normal and appropriate democratic civil direction.
Movement of population and inter-exchange trading of products across international borders are significant not only for people but for both knowledge and goods as well; knowledge and goods (impossible without involvement of knowledgeable people)by the way are essential for any socio-economic transformation. This is also the means for value-based loving of neighbouring countries each other. This fact has been known for centuries, and with particularly robust theoretical academic formulations since the eighteenth century. But this fact does not by any means imply that movement of people and goods should be allowed at any point freely and absolutely without any monitoring through the entire stretch of hundreds and thousands of miles between two neighbouring countries. While the movement of people and goods should definitely be encouraged, but it needs to be emphasized in certain terms that unmonitored allowance across miles can only lead to expansion of harmful transactions in dominance over the socially necessary and healthy ones. Thus, while the free movement remains over limited crossings, the unlimited opening becomes controlled. This is a rationale step for adopting defined entry points. While this may cause a kind of restriction in the traditional complete opening, it does lay the foundation for a defined nation-building process; this nation-building process would more than address the free cross-border traditional conveniences in development transformation.
Now coming to the next point, drugs are regarded as the enemy to be addressed anywhere there is government in the real sense of the term. The unrestricted nature of border movements and the absence of a trade policy regime in an otherwise development-retarding area are issues to be addressed without any delay anywhere in the world. The significance of this in a place with a rich globally relevant contextual history, like Manipur, does arise even without endeavouring to overemphasise.
In one of my recent columns I had written: “The present regime has the two-pronged objective whatever the case may be: “In the first, the goal is to control the top of the pyramid; in the second, the goal is to control the centre of power.” Who cares for the base? In this scheme of things, the historically founded contextual reality of Manipur cannot and should not be made a basis for firm decision-making process for Manipur. Well, it is a long tragic drama for Manipur.” But very fortunately and rightly so at that, the objectives to be endeavoured for achievement in Manipur within a time-frame have been well-defined. Now my little examination of global study of development with both the geographic (New Economic Geography) and the institutional dimensions (New Institutional Economics) incorporated tell me the urgency of the announced interventions. While one party has shown a positive response, another party asserts that there will be no response to the proposals of the government in the absence of some kind of acceptance to their proposals. I feel this non-response by one party would not be a wisdom-based response historically and politico-economically – rethinking and revised response would be rewarding in the long term. What are the contextual development interventions expected from the government can be put up and the government can form expert committee for identifying the relevant development interventions with wider-based participation implications. Participation is an option but Avoidance is not.
