We can live happily in peace

Maisnam Bomcha *

'Cultural Integrity Pillars' at Palace Compound on 28 January 2013 :: Pix - Deepak Oinam

If we believe enough and give peace a chance; the present disputes, howsoever complex and sentimental, can be settled amicably. After all, no side wants violence. Humans can't bring back the death, but it's entirely in the hands of us mortals to avert unnecessary loss of human lives.

The Assembly Elections in the three NE states of Nagaland, Meghalaya and Tripura has been announced and electioneering in full swing is on. Presently there is a NPF government in Nagaland. The Congress Party is desperate to wrest back its stronghold in Nagaland, more so in the face of the deteriorating credibility of the UPA government at the Centre. The LS Elections next year is another factor for the Congress to win back a semblance of confidence. The two LS seats of each of these three states may not count much; but a spring in the tottering walk of the party is a need of the hour.

A declaration, at least interim one, of the NSCN (IM)-Centre talks, is on the cards. Adequate indications that an outcome is likely any day is all written on the wall; the Assembly Elections, logically, are sure to precipitate matters. Rightly so; the talks can't go on forever.

The time of reckoning is bound to come; a time to face reality. And the reality, in all probability, can't be equally palatable to all the stake holders. In Manipur, in particular, either the Nagas or the Meiteis will naturally feel aggrieved. Both parties feeling let down, wronged against; is another possibility. There will be protests against injustice perceived differently, from different angles. Let us face it; there will be serious disputes. Meanwhile, things are not honky dory both in Nagaland and Manipur as far as amicability goes.

What I set out to appeal is nothing new. I beg to remind the following:

First, the original dispute of the Nagas and Meiteis: what the insurgent organisations belonging to both communities had was not against each other. Their demands were not against the collective interest of each other. Time and events have seemingly metamorphosed the demands into something which is pitting one against the other. At least the immediate disagreements between the groups apparently seem to be so.

Nagas and Meiteis are not threats to each other. There is no gainsaying that; both as well as other communities have co-existed peacefully since ages. The lack of trust is very recent; a perceived notion. Yes, there is acrimony and violent incidents borne out of that. But we have not given each other adequate opportunities to understand each other by direct meetings and dialogue. Other than the frequent charges and counter charges, how many times we have met directly and discussed things?

Both sides have the right to demand things as they think are right. By the same measure both have the right to protest the other's demands, if it goes against their collective interest. Why get angry that someone has demanded something? And why should we be angry that someone has disagreed with the demands and say it is wrong? Disagreement and contradictions are often signs of social progress, but violently getting angry at the other's disagreement is a sure sign of regress.

Not many Meiteis were happy at the plight of the hill brethren during the last Christmas when they were unable to do those much needed marketing due to Bandhs called by the plainsmen. I am equally confident that people living in the hills were not happy seeing the prolonged plight the Meiteis had to suffer during times including the festive occasion of Ningol Chakkouba. I don't intend any self-righteousness or lofty philosophy here: a very unfortunate and misplaced triumphal feeling of getting back on each other can't be ruled out. But once the dust is settled, people genuinely rue such avoidable hardships to anyone.

It's not possible to decide who's right or wrong in matters such as both sides are claiming. What will be certainly right at the moment, will be for both sides to understand each other and abjure violence. Concessions have to be made by both; walk that extra mile. Arguments based on sentiments will be unending; so will be the violence, if that unthinkably unfortunate turn of events takes place. Solutions amicable to both are possible, but will take time and it demands constraints. Time, a great healer; also brings panaceas. If the no-win situation is allowed to herald violence; the biggest losers will be the common man. There are bound to be people who spew hatred. Emotions are swayed easiest when it comes to group sentiments for there are only a handful who prefer reason and they also get sucked in the collective fervour of emotional vortex. Settlements; of races, nations, communities or groups are seldom peaceful in history; not an easy proposition.

Winners do not come easy either. If we believe enough and give peace a chance; the present disputes, howsoever complex and sentimental, can be settled amicably. After all, no side wants violence. Humans can't bring back the death, but it's entirely in the hands of us mortals to avert unnecessary loss of human lives.

We stand on the doorsteps of history. Whatever be the outcome of the talks, a defining moment which affects both the Chingmees and Tammees is on the cards. It is natural for the aggrieved party to contest any injustice and should be protested (I am a Meitei and I too will join every peaceful protest if our collective interest is harmed). There may be small losses but those may not ruin the collective future of either side. Whatever the outcome, on this epoch making moment of history, if we give peace a chance and abjure violence of all kinds: posterity will remember us, all of us, as winners.