The debate on
plebiscite initiated by the outlawed United
National Liberation Front, Manipur is gaining
momentum day by day with write-ups on it
appearing almost everyday in one or the other
newspaper. This kind of debate, whether it may
bring fruit or not, appears to be a positive
development towards finding a way out to
settle the long outstanding problems of
Manipur. Apropos the debate, I wish to share
some of my little knowledge which, I think,
will not be a dangerous thing as it is not
intended to jeopardize the positive
developments seen in the wake of the
plebiscite debate.
A lesson from Kashmir:
Historically Manipur and Kashmir share a lot
of similarities in the pre and
post-independent India. Both were parts of the
then colonial British India and later merged
with the independent Indian Union. Immediately
after India got independence Maharaja Hari
Singh, the Godra king of Kashmir decided to
remain independent despite various pressures
from India and Pakistan to be part of them.
Pakistan held the view that the decision of
Hari Singh, the then King of Kashmir is a
complete violation of the rights of the
majority Muslim community of the State. Later
Pakistan invaded Kashmir during which Maharaja
Hari Singh sought Indian intervention by
signing an accession agreement which later
gave way to the birth of the Indian State of
Jammu and Kashmir. But a large portion of the
State had been captured by Pakistan when a
ceasefire came into effect in 1948 and the
areas thus occupied later came to be known as
Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) and the line
of ceasefire as Line of Control (LoC).
Manipur merger:
Manipur merged with the Indian Union in 1949.
Before that merger, Manipur had a written
Constitution and a State Assembly elected by
the people on the basis of adult franchise in
1948. Logic suggests that Manipur (or the
people of Manipur) opted for independence
instead of becoming an Indian State. Thus,
like Maharaja Hari Singh, the then King of
Manipur violated the democratic rights of the
people of Manipur. Again, Kabow Valley was
gifted to Myanmar by India and it became a
Myanmar occupied Manipur like Pakistan
Occupied Kashmir (POK).
Plebiscite proposal:
The question of
Kashmir reached UN table in 1948 with heated
arguments between India supported by the then
USSR and Pakistan by USA and Britain. Later a
resolution was adopted which allows the people
of Kashmir to have a plebiscite under the
Indian intervention and subject to the
withdrawal of Pakistan forces. Pakistan
rejected it and called for a plebiscite only
under UN intervention. Since then the
plebiscite debate is on.
Article 370:
Along with all this that took place in history
came Article 370 of the Constitution of India
which allows the State of Jammu and Kashmir to
have a Constitution of its own to deal with
its state affairs, a flag, an anthem etc. This
article is not amendable by the Parliament
though it can be kept inoperative by the
President only with the prior consent of the
Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. Not
only this, a huge amount of money is being
drained to this State to please the people and
give adieu to violence. Thus the State of
Jammu and Kashmir gains a lot while Manipur
finds a heavy loss.
Greater autonomy:
Now that time has come again for a stronger
demand for a greater autonomy for the State of
Manipur citing Kashmir as an example.
Politicians, public leaders, social workers
and the elite group should not be silent in
the wake of a plebiscite demand by an outlawed
organization. I do not here mean that we
should support the demand of plebiscite
without proper thought but rather I wish to
give more depth to the question of the future
of the State in the first half of this
century. It may take time to break the
plebiscite ice but a demand for a greater
autonomy of Manipur bears merit historically
and politically and such a demand may be met
in an early stage.
Unfortunately no political leader has ever
shown any enthusiasm in such developments.
States like Naga-land, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim
have already got certain powers under Article
371 of the Constitution. As such demand for
greater autonomy of Manipur in view of the
uniqueness of the history of the State and the
present situation may result in positive
outcomes.
A
preventive call:
In the event of
an early plebiscite (or say sovereignty in a
rather far-fetched way), it may definitely
shake the territorial integrity of Manipur. A
large section of the people of Manipur
belonging to a particular community is more
loyal to New Delhi. They think that being
anti-Manipuri while living in Manipur shows
the dignity of their community. These people
are always apt to balkanize Manipur and their
loyalty to the cause of Manipur is always
questioned.
The ground work:
A plebiscite under UN intervention will not
draw after a night's dream. It calls for a UN
resolution in the first case. Now the question
- how many nations around the globe have
supported the plebiscite demand - has come up.
I do not know whether the outlawed
organization which has initiated the debate
has a meaningful and reliable answer. My
little knowledge, for the time being, say
plebiscite in the light of the present
circumstances is beyond our reach. We have
learned that India has become a global power
in terms of its military strength, economic
growth, geographical area and its role in
maintaining international peace. It will not
be easy to defeat India in a UN forum. We have
seen it in 1948 in the wake of a resolution on
Kashmir and similar cases that has followed.
But this does not mean that plebiscite is an
empty day dream. It is something that has to
be studied further with respect to the
geo-political conditions of Manipur and the
world. You can not talk of plebiscite in
Imphal only; you need to go to Paris, London,
Moscow, New York and so on to gain their
support.
What now:
Recent development shows that many armed
groups have set the ball of peace to roll.
They have taken their seat across the table
and have placed their charter of demands.
People have supported the move. The same will
be in case of Manipur too. Be it plebiscite or
anything else, I think, a dialogue at first
may bring desired goals.
*** The writer is a lecturer of English,
Sangai Higher Secondary School, Mantripukhri |
