By – Amar Yumnam
Imphal, Feb 3:
My last piece dwelt on comparing the performance orientation and capability and actual performance of the Telengana CM with those of the counterpart in Manipur. I concluded my piece thus: “The prolonged social crisis has certainly affected in an adverse way in three key areas – (a) the production and production process; (b) deepening and widening the already complex socio-economic inequality; (c) knowledge spread and acquisition process. In a non-industrialised region like Manipur, the weakening happening in these areas would certainly involve a long-term generalised social cost. In a more fearful way, the interplay of these negative dynamics can have the effect of causing social instability. In any case, the political leadership should set the agenda and spell out the policies and pursue them to attain the objectives contained therein. Sporadic bursts and incoherent statements do not by any means constitute the adorable qualities of a performing political leader.”
What Manipur has faced and is facing today is a disaster; it is a social disaster and not the usual natural disasters like earthquakes or landslides. In the natural disasters, there can be a prior knowledge or it could be pure unanticipated disaster. In the case of the natural disasters, the attempts for justification or rationalisation can be made. Before I proceed further and in order to be clear in our understanding, let me recall the usual justification and rationalisation attempts an individual faces in the social context. A child may be very truant in attending school and classes. In this case, the teacher may ask him to stand outside the classroom when he comes late to attend classes. The previous misbehaviour of the student justifies this punishment; this is justification. In the other case, a student may go to sleep late and still get up early. He does want to do well in the annual examinations and prepare hard for the future competitions in life. The irregular rest is rationalised in terms of the future expectations of a successful life.
Relief camps are a common response around the globe to natural disasters. But the framework and response supply mechanisms are well established and the governance does try to live up to the needs of the response mechanism including the supply-chain. In the response of the governance mechanism and the political leader having the power to order executive functions and performances around the world, there would be no attempt to rationalise and justify the disaster. While the government would evolve policies to address the needs for non-recurrence, the focus would be to address the needs of the adversely affected people sooner than later. In third world countries, there often arises the issues of politics coming up while responding to the disaster, but still this is not appreciated.
As mentioned above, what Manipur has been facing is a social disaster. It is a disaster for it was not anticipated. It is a disaster because the scale of damages is complete and uprooting. Thus, as a disaster, it affects every aspect of the life and livelihood of the people adversely affected by the disaster; the negative effects are neutral to age. Unavoidably, the relief camps arose or rather instantly created or any place converted into one as a first response to the crises of disaster.
Recently some voices have started coming up in connection with the larger social needs and specific needs of the relief camps. In a very surprising way and in a negative one at that, the governance response to the crisis and at least relating to the relief camps has been without any framework and line of action to be performed under a time frame. The unwanted happenings and various complaints arising from the relief camps can be traced back to the absence of the required governance interventions. It is almost like the government has yet to understand what its role should be and what should it do. The complaints of the people can be justified, while the poverty of governance response mechanism cannot be satisfactorily rationalised.
Recently the political leader of the government with all the power to execute and order actions have started making attempts to justify and rationalise the displacement and staying longer in the relief camps; remember relief camps would only have temporary and imperfect facilities for human existence. In the case of the natural disasters, the events causing the disasters do not possess “acts of will” unlike the case in Manipur. This is exactly where the governance should rise to the occasion and evolve the response mechanisms for at least the adversely affected population – naturally the population in the relief camps immediately come to the mind.
Any attempt today by the government for justification and rationalisation of the sufferings of the people in the reliefs camps would be morally wrong and political-economically silly. Parents sacrificing present consumption for the future of their children, and a youth sacrificing today’s pleasures for the future can be rationalised; in this what is going to get harvested in the future relate to the persons themselves. But this is not the case in the present social crisis of Manipur. Attempting to justify and rationalise the present sufferings for higher yields of the future generations – which future generations and whose – would be the epistemic relapse of the highest order. Evolving a clear policy framework with time-bound components for identified areas of intervention is the minimum the government should come forth immediately.
