By – Amar Yumnam
Imphal, June 16:
When we suffer from fever and some internal infections, we take anti-biotics. When we suffer from some indigestion, we take digestive tablets or liquids. We adopt these steps for we trust that these would restore our health and end our restlessness; these have proven to be trustworthy based on our shared experiences. When we suffer from scabies consequent upon skin infections, we apply anti-biotics ointments or other medicines as prescribed by the medical experts. When we wish to maintain the freshness of our looks, we apply the cosmetic creams as per our desire. Here also the steps we are undertaking are based on the trust we collectively share on the positive outcome of our steps.
Thus, TRUST is a core foundation of our actions. Our interpersonal relationships are sustained by the prevalence of this. Our group and social coexistence can remain healthy based on the generalized prevalence of this. One truth needs unequivocal emphasis here. The prevailing Trust should be a ROBUST one and never a fluctuating one as per convenience. If it turns out to be a fluctuating one, the relationships would collapse or at best the societal advancement would be stunted.
The same qualitative features characterize the relationship between the state and the population. There are countries where the population group is a singular one. In such cases, it is easier for the state to digest the generalized qualities of the society and administer on singular principles. But there are many countries where the population is characterized by plurality. The plurality of the population groups is marked by differentiations in numbers, cultures, geography, stage of development, property rights regimes, educational levels, locational facilities, and the like.
This is where the state comes in. I cannot help recalling a very insightful article I read in The Hindu (15 February 2024) daily and written by Raghav Gaiha, Vidhya Unnikrishnan and Vani Kulkarni: “Globally, there are many countries where low levels of trust coexist with stable democracies and several others where distrust is so pervasive that democracy barely survives or simply dies. India as the world’s largest democracy faces a trust deficit but opinion is divided on the survival of democracy…..Under NDA rule, persistent questioning of the survival of democracy has dominated the political discourse in recent years. Specifically, with the aggressive pursuit of Hindutva, unprovoked brutality against minorities, …and heavy-handed suppression of the freedom of speech and press have undermined the trustworthiness of democracy. A related question is whether the loss of trust has reduced well-being. A third is whether these inferences are valid and whether India’s democracy is at risk.”
I have referred to this article for we need to understand for sure that the relationship between the state and the people should necessarily be a robust one. This is more so in a state like Manipur. The Indian state has yet to manifest any understanding of the differentiations in numbers, cultures, geography, stage of development, property rights regimes, educational levels, locational facilities, and the like characterizing the province merged to India in 1949.
Even more surprisingly, the present political and administrative authorities of India do not even display any application of mind to digest these differentiations; it is as if like the geographic and the population sizes are small to be easily repressed and superimpose the non-local preferences of the non-knowledgeable larger population. This atmosphere only enhances the risk to life of the regional population without any scope for a vision to acquire bright future.
Here arises the imperative to understand what a state is. There is a large debate and expanding one on this. Let me just quote from Peter Steinberger’s book on The Idea Of The State (2004): “The state is best understood as a structure of intelligibility. By this I mean that it is reducible, at one level, to a series of propositions. The propositions of which the state is composed are those that collectively embody the various judgments that the citizens of the state have made about how things really are. As such, they reflect a complex and comprehensive intellectual world – an immense world of concepts and beliefs. The state is the orderly and authoritative arrangement of this intellectual world, formulated so as to reflect and promote the social good.”
During the last nearly two decades the idea of promoting social good is being enriched by the discourses for being incorporating the qualities of morality and justice. While the state has the singular authority to sustain and govern over the state through the agency of government, the traditional qualities need to possess these contemporary elements. This general understanding is enriched by the emphases being pushed by the Economists for contextuality and timeliness in the actions of the government. These two qualities establish the relevance of the policies and actions being evolved and practised by the government for the state.
All the points above establish beyond doubt that a diversified and big country should never be attempted to perceive from a single perspective of the majority population and groups from larger territorial areas. This is exactly where the issues of Manipur arise. Let me put only a few points of reality here. A. Large proportions of forests have been destroyed in Manipur and replaced by poppy cultivation. This is a very unhealthy act by any definition. B. Manipur lost 52,000 acres of forest in four years till 2024; this is a loss no society can think of bearing. C. In May 2025, Manipur suffered a huge and unprecedented flood and that too in a pre-monsoon time. D. The inter-ethnic killings have been going on for two years with the state invisible. This has certainly caused many ill-effects for the population.
The losses and sufferings of the people should have been the priorities for policy action for ensuring social good. This would prove the conscientiousness, sensibility and prevalence of robust people-state relationships. But what has happened is that the sufferings and the floods have been forgotten sooner than later and the sharing of the worries of the population has been put aside. Let me end my piece with a few questions. First, is it that India should be looked at from a SINGULAR perspective? Second, should it be that a singular action is what a government is supposed to engage in and that too at a time to sacrifice attendance to the sufferings of the general population? Third, are not all the acts the government claim as acquiring achievements recently something which can be done simultaneously with attending to the general sufferings of the people?