Framework Agreement : Time for reality check
- The Sangai Express Editorial :: August 21 2015 -

Notwithstanding all the assurances of the Government of India to keep the territorial integrity of Manipur sacrosanct, our leaders, intelligentsia, scholars, students, journalists and civil society organisations need a thorough soul-searching without keeping any room for self-illusion.

It’s been quite a long time since Manipur has been tagged as a troubled land and all the people living within the political boundary of Manipur, irrespective of ethnicity and topography, have suffered long enough.

Yes, territory is important and territorial integrity is crucial for the survival and progress of a nation.

But territory can never supersede people, the people living within a particular territory.

As history taught us repeatedly, territory becomes bone of contention when people living within its boundary are driven by ethno-centric politics and always in confrontation mode against each other.

Truth be told. Manipur today is in the midst of divisive forces.

In fact, Manipur is at the cross road of many crises and problems which call for extraordinary leadership, courage, honest efforts, political wit and vision.

The organic character, plural ethos and legitimacy and validity of the State have been put under intense internal challenges.

The internal political process in Manipur is certainly moving towards diverse trajectories.

The geo-political entity called Manipur is now being pulled apart in different directions.

While communalism is alien to our culture and in the strict sense of the term communalism – political use of religion- is still at safe distance from us, what we witness in the state is politics of ethnic-exclusivism based on the ‘hate’ and ‘anti’ feeling of other groups.

In our case, object of hate and animosity is not the religion of the subject but his or her ethnic membership or affiliation.

The unfolding political dynamics arising out of fragmented political imagination have severely affected the social relations among the communities of Manipur making it characterised by ‘temporary aberrations’ in many instances.

The demand for Naga integration as well as lack of cohesion between the hills and the valley in any public issue, say for instance, Armed Forced Special Powers Act or the burning issue about providing a constitutional safeguard to indigenous people of the State calls for a thorough analysis from this perspective.

The State is being literally torn apart by the ethno-centric demands for ethno-exclusive political domains.

In fact, these ethno-centric demands pervade all the common survival and development issues.

Rhetoric says that these divisive politics are founded on the phenomena of dominant majority and subjugated minority.

This rhetoric may or may not have its own logic but we would rather suggest negotiation and reconciliation rather than drawing lines or ethnic boundaries.

Manipur is a very tiny State and division into two or three States is simply implausible.

At the same time, visionary planning and honest efforts are crucial to remove ‘insecurity complexes’ of minority communities whether speculative or real.

In this regard, search for and laying the foundation for an alternative politics which goes beyond rhetoric and ethnic politics will surely prove fruitful in the future.

It is time to decide the foundational values and normative character of our society based on the existing issues and realities of Manipur.

While opposing any move to balkanise Manipur, it is equally necessary and important to offer political concession in order to accommodate the genuine concerns and fear of all communities of the State.

In short, a clear cut strategy and framework is necessary for developing a peaceful, pluralistic Manipur.