By M C Arun
If not Nagalim, an alternative demand may be Southern Nagaland, an autonomous territorial council or a Supra-State Body? In the political chess board, new move of NSCN (IM) is to define Naga inhabited areas within Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. And it likes Government of India to recognize the area as ‘Naga’s ancestral land’ or ‘Naga inhabited areas’ in these States. For the Government of India, recognizing the same is a dangerous as many ethnic groups on the ground of their unique history may demand such status in various States where there are sizeable tribal populations. Presently, to India, this demand sounds relatively harmless than the Nagalim. For the Nagas in Manipur, it looks good because they get something out of the struggle since 1980 and lay the foundation stone for the next political moves. On the other hand, the move gives an opportunity to the Kukis to assert their stand: if the Nagas, under the influence of NSCN (IM) (meaning a militant group), can demand for their special status in the State, why they cannot. They also have militant groups who are under SOO with Government of India. These questions are simple and easily understandable to anyone. Nothing is so novelty in these demands. When the Kuki demand for Kukiland, no tribe in the ‘land,’ shown in recently circulated map, say anything against such creation although many of them deny their Kuki-affiliations. When the NSCN (IM)’s agenda is considered by the Government of India for ‘Naga Solution’ or ‘Noble exit’ before the Nagaland Election of 2013 or Parliamentary Election 2014, Kukis raise their voices to plead for their case – creation of the Kukiland. Why is it so? The question is a little bit more complex, but the politics behind these moves can be understood by any students or observer of Manipur politics. The most complex question is why the people of Manipur cannot think of Manipur and its new political alignment holistically. Is creation of new States always bring solution to tribal grievances or unequal development or regional imbalance? In recent past, the State have tribal politicians who thought of entire State and its weakness, of the Government and people’s wrong perception in order to find out political solutions. Rishang Keishing, Yangmaso Saiza can be remembered in this context. Why cannot the State produce today such politicians – elected or otherwise –even among the Meitei leaders? Such questions are the vital questions in understanding the changing cognitive mapping of the State politics as well as the changing identity of ‘Manipur’. In history books, the geographical boundary of Manipur is ‘stable’ in the sense that there are many historical records and written documents to show the history of Manipur’s boundary. But the boundary of Manipur in the political cognition is fractured. There are many factors – endogenous and exogenous – threatening the very existence of the State. To take an example, 1949-Manipur is differently perceived today among different groups in the State. King’s signature on the Merger Agreement is non-existent in the mind of a section of Nagas, represented by UNC. The event is least importance to them. United Naga Council (UNC) declares that it would not stand against the Meitei’s demand of pre-Merger Status of the valley. Manipur is the valley only in their mind. Likewise, Kuki does not recognize the State in every day State administration. If Kuki-land belonged to Kuki Chiefs, if the developmental works are controlled and handled by these Chiefs in their respective territories, where is the State in the real functioning of the governance? It is neither good nor bad governance; it is simply non-existence of Manipur as an entity. So, the problem lies in the political cognizance of the State. You may call it as result of Meitei chauvinism, Christian conversion of the tribes, Church political propaganda against the religion of dominant Meiteis or any other, you can think of. But the reality is that there is a fractured map inside your mind.
The UNC propaganda is that the State is as an instrument for Meitei interests. Whether such propaganda is right or wrong is immaterial because the propaganda is consumed by a section of population. UNC is known for the same. The reality may speak against the propaganda. Meiteis are also suffering in the State; they are facing the problem of devolution – a reverse evolution from a ruling group to Other Backward Class – in social and economic spheres. They cannot challenge the time; they are so dull that they engaged themselves in dreaming of enjoying a few facilities enjoyed by Indian tribes under the Schedule V. The highest tax payers are the Meiteis in Manipur; they pay land tax, income tax, and many more taxes. In this situation, they may say that their interests are not judiciously addressed in terms of transport, water supply, even the educational institutions in their villages, localities, even in their town areas. In their mind, the State is oppressive, corrupt and is full of inefficient planners. The State, in their eyes, is run by non-commitment officials to the extent that they do not know how many government employees are there in Manipur. Any Meitei will wonder why State use so many bullets in dispersing any protest of lower intensity in the valley but it do not even arrest any single protester during quarter of a yearlong economic blockade. How many tons of rubber bullets had been used in Manipur valley over last four decades? How many of them had been used in hill districts of Manipur? In the mind of an ordinary Meitei, the Chief Minister of Manipur is seen as working under tribal threat or pressure. Luckily, there is no right-wing Meitei organization in the State.
When the Naga MLAs in Nagaland can threat the Government of India by showing their readiness for resignation for any permanent political solution, any Kuki MLA or Naga MLA does not come forward to tender his service for a permanent solution in Manipur except those who are having a Ministerial berth. Likewise, the regional parties of Manipur cannot understand the demands of regional politics; they cannot lead the people of Manipur towards any solution. They simply protest any move towards ‘disintegration’ of the territory. Their political map in the mind is not expanded or blocked by historical documents, records and political rhetoric. The mind is narrowly shaped by the existing system built on the fractured current history and sentiments. Even the State fails to build new sentiments with which the people would be ready to move ahead. Whereas NSCN (IM) could generate new sentiments among its followers at least temporarily; the sentiments are the driving force of their political movement. They move ahead till it was hit back by a larger force, no doubt. Can we build up a sentiment rather than using past sentiments based on kinship or religious affinity in pre-Hindu/Christian societies or fables/fairy tells? Beyond these chaotic situations, there must be a solution. For the solution, the history demands new sentiments and shared culture. These things are not available for the State as well as among the Kukis or the Nagas in Manipur. The solution does not lie in the dream of making new States or States in the State. Imitation of Bodoland Territorial Council or Saami Council of another historical condition is not the way of solving the problem in the State. Think of Manipur, whatsoever worse condition it may be. Think of the people of Manipur being Manipur’s politicians. Solution is there because the problem is associated with “not thinking of the WHOLE State.” The problem is not the mistrust among the ethnic groups; it is in the curtaining reality from the poor masses of the State. Nagaland is not better than Manipur in many fields; Chin State of Myanmar is not heaven in comparison with the State. The problem is the inability to perceive causes of common economic hardship and failure of understanding the misrule in the State. The problem is not within the domain of the Public. It is somewhere else. Is it just another example of hasty transformation of a monarchy to a democratic State as seen many countries in South East Asia? Or is it local impact of linguistic based Indian polity? In any arrangement, the Maring will be minority so also the Anal. Even the Tangkhul will not be able to play sole role in shaping future course of administration in ‘any political alternatives’. Likewise, the Paite or the Vaiphei may not get any extra-benefit out of any Kuki (Thadou) dominated administrative arrangement. In the New States in Mind, the real life will not be better than the Old State which evolved out of constant interactions of these players. If the two thousand year’s labor in history fails in Manipur, what is the guarantee of any betterment in any political set up to any group after living together with those in Nagaland in spite of the recently discovered ‘unique’ history? Was there any historical event in which the Anal was having interaction (even fighting) with Wancho of Arunachal Pradesh? If similar dress or food habit is the basis of tribal unification, how far a group is different from the Nagas or the Kukis or the Meiteis? Searching for a common State out of the Old State is the historical duty of each tribe in Manipur. No doubt, the Old State has a role to play certain pro-active role in searching the solution. The persons in Government should come with clean hand; their corruption-stained bodies and fame should be washed first.
Now we need to ask ourselves: what is more important question in solving our common sufferings? Is creation of new states a solution to our problems? Or are these demands just traditional trick of trade unions? Demand big to get a larger portion. Aim high. Manipur is not Assam, both in historical and geographical senses. Craving out any portion of land is politically as well as economically not viable. The solution must be seen in terms of solution; not in posing a problem. It should be an alternative political arrangement of the State, not at district levels or merger with some other States. The happiest land on the earth will be Manipur in a new political arrangement.