Valson Thampu

Our hearts bleed for the people of Manipur. No one should have to live as they do: condemned to live tormented in a veritable hell upon the earth. And, worse, as regards their unending misery, no end is in sight. Those who should have been concerned, seem to be in no hurry to bring this nightmare to a close. Many, on the contrary, are busy reckoning profit and loss out of this entirely avoidable agony of a people.
Did this curse strike the people of Manipur like a bolt from the blue? Or, has it been coming for a while? Was it, perish the thought, self-invited and self-inflicted to an extent? Also, is there something that we may learn from the tragedy of Manipur?
Let’s begin with the obvious. The roots of this national scandal run towards Delhi and beyond. Even though tribal conflicts have not been absent from the North East, conflicts of the present kind and implications are entirely new to this region. So, it has to be understood, primarily, in relation to the new entrant into the scene. That, clearly, is the BJP and its ideological Parivar cohorts. Tribal conflicts of the past were aimed mainly at violence-mediated adjustments. The idea that one tribe cannot, and should not, coexist with the other –reminiscent of the pre-Partition two nation theory- is wholly new to this region. Who has imported this into the North East?
A related question to ask is: Why is this nightmare refusing to die down? Is it because the genie of violence, let out of the bottle naively and accidentally as in old myths, has now leaped quite out of governmental control? Or, is it that political strategies and economic calculations require its prolongation? Put differently, is Manipur allowed to burn because the intended goals are not yet attained? This question is real because it is hard to believe that India, which has morphed into a Hard State – ready to launch surgical strikes at will and stage Balakot-like punitive forays as and when- does not have the hydrant power to douse the Manipur fire. As a rule, no riot happens, unless the administration favours it. Ignorance is also not a convincing albi, because now you cannot even into the deep waters of the Arabian Sea at midnight and piss without the agencies of the State smelling it out. Furthermore, no riot prolongs unless such prolongation is condoned by the State.
The tragedy of Manipur is a wakeup call to the Republic of India. According to the Supreme Court, the law and order situation there has broken down completely. Did it happen, or was it allowed to happen? The question is all the more valid because of the (in)famous anti-federal ‘double-engine sarkcar’ concept. As per the averments made in the Parliament by the Home Minister, the state government is in perfect sync with the Centre. So, there is no local or regional bottleneck. Then?
Democracy implies a sacred contract between rulers and citizens. In a Constitutional democracy like India, the terms of that contract are enshrined in the Constitution. As regards the victim-citizens of Manipur, the Constitutional provisions have vanished. On available evidence, this doesn’t seem to merit urgent or adequate consideration as far as the Centre is concerned. Otherwise, the Opposition parties would not have had to resort to the queer means of a doomed no-confidence motion, to ‘force’ the Prime Minister to make a statement on Manipur. Silence of this kind is apt –given the dynamics of public perception- to be understood as smacking of complicity.
But it is a hard reality, and it needs to be reckoned; for these are significant signals that we ignore only at our peril. Being no political philosopher, and hence unable to read the heart of this mystery, the best I can possibly do is to quote a few sentences from Rousseau-
‘It is from the midst of this disorder and these revolutions, that despotism, gradually raising up its hideous head and devouring everything that remained sound and untainted in any part of the State, would at length trample on both the laws and the people, and establish itself on the ruins of the republic. The times which immediately preceded this last change would be times of trouble and calamity; but at length the monster would swallow up everything, and the people would no longer have either chiefs or laws, but only tyrants.’ -Discourse on the Origin of Inequality
It will be an exaggeration to state, or even imply, that we are already in this state of Rousseau-esque disarray. But the signs are alarming, and it will be foolish and irresponsible to stay blind to them.
It is as incomprehensible as it is worrisome that church leaders in Kerala try to curry favours with the very same forces that lurk in the matrix of the Manipur tragedy. They cannot plead ignorance regarding who they are trading and trafficking with. The track-record of the Sangh does not make benign reading regarding Christians. I am reminded of the story of a hunter who was about to shoot a bear in the forest. ‘Wait,’ said the bear, ‘let us have a dialogue and come to a compromise. We can take care of the needs of both. I need a meal. You need a fur coat, right? It can be arranged’.
They sat down.
After a while, the bear walked away, with a bulging stomach; the fur coat now spread warmly around the hunter.