|
|
|
|
Beyond the
Territorial Integrity of Manipur
By B Thohii Hiimai
The June 12 historic resolution adopted by the State Assembly session asking the Government of India to suitably amend Article 3 of the Constitution or to insert appropriate provisions for constitutional protection to the territorial integrity of Manipur has once again evoked the almost evanescent social crisis of the recent past and is bound to cause socio-political implications between the Nagas and Meiteis in the days to come. For this is a sensitive issue which involves wide political dimension and emotive element. The social earthquake, out of this issue, that shook the social equilibrium in the State in the recent past eventuating in a large displacement of people and leading to the loss of precious lives, is a manifestation of high sensitivity invaded in the issue.
This issue, perhaps, henceforth will continue to smolder in the State because of its apparel implication with the Naga problem and the virtual threat to the viability of the territorial integrity of Manipur in the future. Owing to these complexities involved in the issue, a right perception and dealing it with a logical approach will matter so much to avert animosity among the people.
Manipur is a full-fledged State with all the essential elements fulfilled constitutionally under the Indian Union. In term of political correctness Manipur, like all other States has every constitutional right to protest and defend its territorial integrity. Manipur has witnessed the worst socio-political crisis over this issue in the recent past. The June 14 Bangkok Agreement signed between the Government of India and the NSCN (IM) which agreed to extend the ceasefire, the long demand of NSCN (IM), to all Naga inhabited areas including Manipur State where a large sizable population of Nagas live, resulted in a political upheaval which led those human emotions into a frenzied protest in the streets. The domino-effect protest spilt beyond Manipur to other states like Assam and Arunachal Pradesh though the intensity was lesser in scale. The result, of course was efficacious in which Delhi had to yield to civil protest and rolled back unilaterally the June 14 Bangkok agreement much to the euphoria of the people at Imphal. State politicians and organizations like UCM and AMUCO spearheaded the protest to pressure the Center to revoke the agreement to original status-quo of confining the ceasefire within Nagaland only.
No doubt the popular uprising was politically constitutional and it produced efficacy in obtaining its ends, but nevertheless it also erroneously shows two grave shortcomings by the leaders and common protesters, one consciously or unconsciously it refused to accept the historical fact of the Naga political problem; two, it over sensitized the issue which resulted in undesirable consequences. Unfortunately there was a great deal of nonsensical reaction over the issue which, at any rate, unnecessarily turned it into undesirable nature. Hyperbolical propaganda of the issue by certain sections of opportunities with narrow motives apparently led to create undue apprehension in the minds of the common Meiteis, which resulted in a thoughtless depreciation of Naga political problem unfortunately.
Acceptance of the nitty-gritty of Naga political problem and understanding the Naga aspiration (in Manipur) on the part of all those concerned is most important in order to develop a right approach to present sensitive issue. More important in the issue is the fact of the Nagas in the four districts where the intensity is felt most. The historical fact of Naga political problem, which is half a century old now, cannot be written off or suppressed and there are many technical complexities that may be involved in the ongoing Indo-Naga peace talks. The watershed of the Naga nationalism goes back to as early as 1918 with the formation of Naga clubs, and the collective will of the Nagas desiring to be left free as before and not to include them within the Indian Union was first expressed through the submission of a memorandum to the Simon Commission visiting Nagaland in 1929.
Since then the Nagas have witnessed subsequent historical twist and turn in political struggle particularly in the post-independent India, from political blunder, assassination, fratricidal killing and splitting into factional groups but nevertheless the spirit and struggle for self-determination carried on against all odds undaunted. In this journey of struggle, the Nagas have also experienced grave miseries as the result of violence unleashed by the security forces of India. Apart from use of force and violence, the Government of India has also adopted the policy of pumping money (to Nagaland State) to do away with insurgency problem but a political one, and this led to the ceasefire agreement to create conducive atmosphere for dialogue to resolve the problem.
Since 1995, three Prime Ministers P.V. Narashimha Rao, H.D. Deve Gowda and Atal Bihari Vajpayee - have met NSCN (IM) leaders abroad to resolve the long-standing issue. And the process is still on. Like it or not the Naga political issue was, is and never will be confined to Nagaland only but to all Naga inhabited areas viz. Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and small pockets in Burma. This geographical complexity, of course, has posed a great technical hurdle in the process of the Indo-Naga talk for a large population of Nagas is found in these States. The question of territorial integrity of Manipur was not an issue in the past when the ceasefire was confined to Nagaland only, but the June 14 Bangkok agreement which extended the ceasefire beyond Nagaland to all Naga inhabited areas became a turning point and brought about a new dimension to the Naga political issue.
The peace talk between Delhi and NSCN (IM) leaders is still on, therefore, what would be the outcome of the talk, which would be historic, is too hard to state prematurely in the strict sense because a great deal of technical problem will have to considered before any viable solution is reached. And Delhi would not be that insensitive enough to ignore the technical complexity involved in the talk. Yes, one fact about the Naga problem is that whatever solution that might be reached arising out the talks in the future, it has to be in the interest of the Nagas, and that historic event has to be accepted by all those concerned no matter what the consequences may be. History will have its own course and the tryst with destiny is yet to be seen in the course of time only. But Naga problem is a long historical fact and it should be viewed in the light of truth.
Here it would be worth pointing out that a politician like Dr Nimaichand Luwang's perception of the Naga problem made in the Assembly session on June 12 with a statement like "Naga integration is not a demand from the people of Nagaland and Manipur, but a demand from an outlawed group, and some vested interests" is too tendentious and shorn of historical knowledge. This sort of wishy-washy language does not compromise with the ground reality of the Naga problem because truth, though one may try, cannot be suppressed and distorted. True the Nagas and Meiteis have lived in co-existence since time immemorial in the present abode, and may belong to a common stock, nevertheless culturally they are very much different and filial attachment between them is marked by evident absence. But among the Nagas there is a lot of affinity in culture, tradition etc. and there is a strong fraternal bond of commonness. Of course apart from general commonness there also exist minute differences from tribe to tribe owing to 'sub' factor.
The problem between the Nagas and the Meiteis over the issue of territorial integrity of Manipur must also be viewed from other factorial aspects. It goes beyond mere political and cultural aspects. There is no doubt that the Nagas in Manipur have been relatively deprived socially, politically and economically. This relative deprivation between the hill and valley consequently increased the sense of insecurity and thus ultimately made the Nagas become more politically conscious in the State. Wide disproportion of representative in politics, jobs in various departments, lack of distributive justice, differential accessibility to resources and privileges, and cultural differences coupled with indifferences towards infrastructure development in the hill areas by the State Government is the crux of the problem that is prevailing.
It will be seen, therefore, that due mindfulness or practical aspect rather than over politicizing of the issue will help us appreciate the complexity of the current problem. The element of mistrust, hostility, violence now and then generated by this complexity is multifaceted and requires a great deal of understanding and goodwill on the part of all those concerned to be able to understand the nitty-gritty of the problem and accept the reality to be able to reduce the tension and over sensitizing of the problem. We cannot cover the truth and live in a make-believe-world. Let the future hold its own as the Rhyme goes 'Que Sera, Sera, whatever will be, Que Sera, Sera'.
(Courtesy: The Sangai Express)
|
| |
|
|
Welcome! 
International
Features
