Co-existence or peaceful co-existence

Dr Benjamin Gangmei *

Handing over gift between communities at Mera Houchongba , ties between hill and valley people on 18 October 2013 :: Pix - Armando Bond

The idea of 'co-existence' becomes all the more significant in our context. Physiographical reality (hills & valley) compels us to co-exist. Ethnic situation, that is distribution of regions coinciding with ethnic concentration of respective ethnic groups, also favors the same. The reality and the situation shall remain dictating to the need of co-existence in the generations to come.

Co-existence is the basis of peaceful co-existence. But the latter is conditional. For it has to give its effect through the maintenance of mutual toleration between two groups or so. When the toleration is gone it is reduced to mere co-existence minus peaceful co-existence. Present ethnic relations picture a scenario of co-existence. Practically speaking, there are three levels of co-existence of different groups of people which provide basis of peaceful co-existence. They are briefly stated below.

1. Physical Co-existence

As compelled by the physiographical reality (as most applicable in Manipur), different ethnic groups live together with loose form of social relations. They have no close contact except occasional contact. Question of mutual toleration between them is not important. Comparative isolation from one another does not always give rise to importance of mutual toleration for every practical purpose.

Such co-existence was there in the past generations in Manipur. Even at this level if any situation demanded mutual toleration and if put it into effect the state of co-existence would have become basis of peaceful co-existence. The physical co-existence is fundamental and indispensable to peaceful co-existence.

2. Administrable Co-existence as Single Unit

At this level of co-existence system/structure plays an important role. For it is made channel for the sustenance of ethnic relations. In other words, anything rightly done for the interest/benefits of all groups of people giving them mutual enjoyment of those benefits and fulfillment of their respective socio-economic interests under the political/administrative system determine the degree of their emotional integration. In fact, the question of emotional integration is central for peaceful co-existence among them. But the harsh reality is that the most needed emotional integration is inept to give its effect for peaceful co-existence. No single ethnic group is exclusively responsible for the absence of emotional integration.

In spite of the virtual absence of emotional integration the physiographical reality (hills & valley) plays its role as a hinge between the two effecting on several grounds:

a) Sense of attachment to the valley is in hill men on account of the presence of kiths and kins in the valley. The attachment sustains hills-valley relations.

b) Restraint by the valley for hills and vice versa is given effect by the state of being lived together as different ethnic groups in the valley. The restraint is security for one group or for other group(s). The security naturally sustains hill-valley relations.

c) Living together in the valley gives a compulsion which is effective for negotiating hard issue if arisen between hills and valley. Considering valley's or hills' interests, the issue is more cautiously dealt and settled preventing from the damage to co-existence.

d) Mutual dependence between hills and valley also sustains hills-valley relations.

e) Sharp ideological differences held by valley or hills are normally hard for fruition and thereby sustain co-existence.

f) Any attempt made by hills or valley harming the interests of other is resulted into collateral damage forcing the concerned to give up the attempt or think better of that. And, that also prevents from the commission of extensive damage to hills-valley relations.

So, hills and valley are gift of nature. The gift dictates to co-existence of hills and valley people. That is, the indigenous populace in the valley inhibits total physical isolation/distance between hill and valley people. The inhibition gives many practical advantages ensuring coexistence of the people of hills and valley.

Yet the virtual absence of emotional integration overrides the reality stated above. That gives rise to an urgency for devising another form of co-existence for peaceful co-existence. While the form is opposed by other sections of people and the sections desire peaceful coexistence to be realized under the administrable co-existence by ensuring emotional integration. Other sections, of course, based on their experience of co-existence have set for the experiment of unitized co-existence for peaceful co-existence.

Unitized Co-existence

The physiographical compulsion is still in force for unitized co-existence as is under physical and administrable co-existence. Of course, there are certain processes which are expected to be capable of giving new experience of co-existence and peaceful co-existence. Firstly, the importance of mutual dependence between different units is expected to be higher in quantum.

What is expected from the mutual dependence is greater and closer contact as units. Secondly, the relations between the units will be set by different systems under which the relations are expected to strengthen by the fact of mutual benefits enjoyed by the people living within the separate administrative units. The unitized co-existence is considered capable of translating the co-existence into peaceful co-existence.

In other words, the co-existence which is the basis of peaceful co-existence can be made a reality when people belonging to each unit are taken care of by the respective authority. Now, the peaceful co-existence has to come for the units as they co-exist as separate units. This form of peaceful co-existence is attempted to experiment by certain sections of people.

The concerned sections argue that this process of unitization of some regions or group of people is universally accepted. There is no Constitutional hurdle in it. They point out that countries, provinces/States within a country, etc. have applied this principle/process. In the application of this principle what is crucial is the concerned ethnic groups should decide their future together.

In other words, it is the likely-affected group(s) which is to think about the merits or demerits of unitized co-existence or administrable co-existence focusing on the question which one shall give them co-existence with peaceful co-existence. The pertinent questions for concerned ethnic groups are: l.What factors make them co-exist? 2. Will the factors ever remain dictating to the co-existence? 3. What factors are responsible for the absence of peaceful co-existence? 4. Are they ethno- historical or socio-economic & cultural and can they be remedied? These questions bother all concerned.

In this concern what is worth to remember is that any shape of future can't do away the life of co-existence of all. They are bound to co-exist with greater magnitude of mutual dependence. In our case the existence of hills and valley is gift of nature for co-existence. Nature assigns us duty for producing peaceful co-existence using human ingenuity for our mutual advantages.

Peaceful co-existence means living together through mutual tolerance. It naturally ends conflict. And, if conflict is attempted any solution which proves efficacious of solving the conflict is true of the principles of peaceful co-existence. The nature of such solution is most desirable in ethnically heterogeneous ambience. Peaceful co-existence is the leitmotif of conflict transformation. Therefore, by context and exigency, the principles of peaceful coexistence applicable.

a) Mutual tolerance is considered to be an immutable principle conducive for commensal life in ethnically heterogeneous context. No human situation is usually free from conflict. Conflict implies absence or lack of tolerance. But it is mutual tolerance that can bring an end to conflict. It is exercised through mutual understanding which induces patience, readiness for give and take, etc.

The mutual understanding is possible through the recognition of the primacy of socio-political compulsions of the times which any pursuits can hardly escape. Interdependence is one of the examples of the compulsions of the present times. Interdependence in inclusive rather than exclusive context is considered relevant to commensal life. The best ism that comes to stay is of interdependence, not of isolation. The means and ends abiding by this principle can be appreciated mutually.

b) Peaceful co-existence is rooted in the conviction that enmity created by the conflict is not an ephemeral reality. It lives long. It is provocable under sinister circumstances. The conflict often becomes historical message of humiliation and misdeed. Therefore, the revisit of the past episode is often seen in society. The idea of peaceful co-existence is to preclude such historical blunder.

c) Where there is conflict, consensus is absent. The onus for building does not lie in one party alone. Joint effort is unavoidable for accomplishing consensus. The effort directed by the reality of socio-political compulsions of the times helps the parties concerned to come to consensus compelling them to say " live and let live".

The consensus is not for thwarting one's plan by the rest but to let other party find solution which is good to other party and is agreeable, as far as possible,to other parties concerned. The principle stands for peaceful solution by deterring possible direct conflict through dialogue.

d) The problem arising from exclusive nature of aspiration is considered sinister yet eradicable. It is eradicable if the offending party is persuaded into the acceptance of socio-political compulsions which negate the growth divisive and exclusive tendency. The institutional mechanism needed for this object may to provide some measure for exclusive life within a collective and inclusive institutional arrangement.

e) A group exists with others having common bond through the existence and operation of certain conditions. The conditions have to be accepted by parties concerned. So, the existing status quo is considered the best measure for commensal life. But it is true that the conditions are not unchangeable and change of existing conditions is not always without effort.

In view of conflict, the maintenance of atatus quo is insisted upon. While violent and abrupt disruption of status quo is not advisable, peaceful and acceptable change made to status quo is not anti to peaceful co-existence. The change itself is a process of formation of new status quo for commensal existence. This principle is not thus opposed to peaceful evolution of status quo and maintenance of the status quo is considered best measure for commensal life.

Therefore, peaceful co-existence is not just a wish. But it is an attempt which is to be made to realize it by making operate its principles in the interest of and advantage to the concerned groups.