Vulnerable Manipur's Cultural Warming
- Manipur's Cultural Heritage -
- Part 4 -

By Dr DS Sharma *

Manipur's Cultural Heritage:

To introduce the time factor in the analysis from an empirical angle, one may begin by asking questions relating to the past. Different questions may crop up requiring answers each giving rise to different sets of history.

By no means one set could be deemed better than the other, for all such sets are based on similar fundamentals, methods and pri-nciples. Attempting acade-mic answers would follow the natural process of evolving a body of knowledge – such knowledge that has to serve some purpose.

For Manipur's woes during the colonial (1891-1947) and pre-Statehood (1947-1972) period, the blame can thus be levelled only upon those responsible for those actions – colonial power earlier and afterwards Centre.

British exploitation of Manipur valley's natural bounties or fertility for cheap but quality rice export led to differentiating growth between the hills and valley.

If worldly-wise Britishers drained water even out of the (Ganges so also) Imphal river to the Thames, and if thereafter the Central government were too preoccupied with post-Partition reparation and thence with mainland politics to become aware of Manipur's yawing hill-valley gap, who will bell the cat?

Of course after 1972 a long chain of Manipur's own government leaders hailing both from majority and minority groups stand morally responsible for all actions.

But then the disabling factor was political instability @ 2/3 years for an average regime (or Chief Minister) all through with few exceptions (Rishang Keishing and O Ibobi Singh). Under the circumstances on whom could its moral responsibility be fixed?

Admittedly, China has now become the fastest-growing economy in the globe with an average growth rate between three-four times that of even the US or Japan.

The fact that its population growth has already been controlled over the last two/three decades prior to this spectacular growth has become too commonplace a knowledge. The wherewithal of the miracle on the development front deserves more than a passing reference in this endeavour.

What is striking about Li was the way he provided a liberal broadside to the otherwise hierarchical regime – acceptable to the hard-boiled theoreticians of the Communist order.

What is still more striking was how he became determined to toughen the grit, steely determination and the esprit de corps of the world's most populated nation so as to convert even a half-chance into goal, by tactically playing up disadvantage into a vantage point, as say, in a game of football.

The point stressed is that, the success story did not come as easy as for anybody just to pick as in the random walk theory, but rather more like a climber up against a gradient having < 90o degree through meticulous planning and assiduous cliff-hanging.

To provide an important historical dimension for his concept, Li analyzes the historical process of the Chinese quest for modernity, which he claims underwent three important interrelated stages between the middle of the nineteenth century and the May Fourth era.

The first stage, the Westernization concentrated only on modern western technology and science. The second, the Hundred Days Reform and 1911 Revolution (Wuxu bianfa and Xinhai geming) focused on western political institutions; and the third, the May Fourth Movement, was concerned mainly with cultural tradition, intellectual thought and value systems.

But the new quest for modernity in the 1980's fused all the three previous stages into an integrated process, meaning that Chinese intellectuals were now seeking changes in all three areas.

However Li observes that there is an imbalance, with a strong emphasis on the culturo-psychological aspect and relatively slow progress in the area of politico-economic reform. He warns that more advanced conceptual ideas could cause social tensions and a social reality marked by backwardness.

According to Li Zehou, the most crucial dichotomies in the existing Chinese social order are:

a) Individual subjectivity versus historical necessity (getixing yu lishi biranxing);
b)Human alienation versus progress of modernization (yihusa yu ziandaihuade er li bei fan); and
c) Practical subject versus objective laws (shijian zhuti yu keguan guilu).

Rather than go into details of Li's contemporary Chinese intellectual discourse which helped transform the national economy through reoriented individual character-building, it is sufficient for the present endeavour to quote some highlights, to show the compatibility of his approach, philosophy, precepts, and ideology:
a) If people are completely immersed in a universal form, they will become neutral robots...... Accordingly, there will be the rule of bureaucracy;
b) Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another.
c) The motto of Enlightenment is therefore 'Sapere aude.'[Have courage to use your understanding] Li's contribution is to be appreciated in the enormity of his task to bring about a consensus in the party as a key component of the party's legitimacy, after the excesses of not merely the Cultural Revolution but also of the reforms.

To be continued...