Sadar Hills Movement and Its Impact
- Part 2 -

Tonghen Kipgen *

A map showing Sadar Hills :: Pix - TSE

D. Attention of Central Government

Unlike any other issues in Manipur, the concerned and the intervention of the high level officials of Government of India is encouraging though not satisfactory. As reported by the local dailies, the Chief Minister of Manipur called on the Union Home Minister Shri P. Chidambaram at New Delhi on the 20 and 21 August 2011 and held two separate detailed discussions on the political situation prevailing in Manipur following the movement for Sadar Hills and prolonged imposition of economic blockades on National Highways.

The Chief Minister also held talks with the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, Dr Manmohan Singh on 22nd August 2011 at around 1930 hrs (TSE 22/8/11). While meeting with delegates of Sadar Hills (SHDDC) at his official residence in New Delhi, as invited, the Union Home Minister Shri P. Chidambaram stated that....I am very much concerned of your problem, your demand is genuine, matter of Sadar Hills is unique and cannot be compared with other issue....so I met your Chief Minister yesterday and advised him to amicably solve your problem. The Chief Minister of Manipur was again summoned by New Delhi on Ist September 2011 to table a detailed action plan of the State Government on Sadar Hills before the Prime Minister and Home Minister (IFP 3/9/11).

On the other hand, the Union Home Minister, in his Press conference at New Delhi on 29th September 2011 appealed to withdraw economic blockades on National Highways passing through Manipur and also stated that the matter of the agitation for Sadar Hills Districthood is looked into by the Government.

Meanwhile, in his briefing to the media persons after the Cabinet meeting on the evening of 11th October 2011, Shri N. Biren Singh, Spokesperson and Minister of SPF Government in Manipur stated that the Chief Minister of Manipur is leaving Imphal for New Delhi tomorrow to meet the President, Prime Minister, Home Minister and other central officials. Subsequently, as summoned, the Chief Minister had met UPA Chairperson and Congress President Smt Sonia Gandhi on 14th October 2011 and discussed the issue of economic blockades in Manipur. While meeting with central leaders, the Union Home Minister had expressed dissatisfaction with the measures taken up by the State Government on matters of Sadar Hills (TSE,17/10/11). Though what really transpired in their meetings was not known, it is worth to note the momentum of Sadar Hills movement that drew the attention of high level officials in the central Government.

Mention may also be made that, the BJP delegation comprising Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Smt Sushma Swaraj, leader of the opposition in Rajya Sabha Shri Arun Jaitley and National President Nitin Gadkari, BJP Manipur State leaders Mr. Shanti Kumar Singh, Mr. Janglet Haokip and others met the Prime Minister of India on 20th October 2011 and sought his intervention over the agitation in Manipur. In her Press briefing after meeting the Prime Minister, Smt Sushma Swaraj said that, "While apprising the Prime Minister about the situation in Manipur, which is not only sensitive but also dangerous, we made some demands. Prices of essential commodities have sky-rocketed, petrol and diesel being sold at arbitrary prices, potato and vegetable prices are so high that even the rich cannot afford them. So we have demanded......President's Rule in the State".

E. Emotional Impact

Some people felt that the 2011 Sadar Hills Movement was a failure as it failed to attain the goal of districthood. This view is true in the sense that inauguration of Sadar Hills district as demanded is not materialized for the time being. Besides, the State Government too has been requesting the SHDDC to have faith once more in the sincerity of the Government to solve and address the issue for which the agitation had to be suspended.

After signing the MoU, the SHDDC leaders met some prominent social leaders to admit that the desired goal of districthood could not be attained this time too and that the present phase of agitation has to be suspended once more. Yet certain socio-political leaders reacted with words of encouragement. Pu Paokam Kipgen, a social leader, said that "there is nothing to be disheartened for not having attained a fullfledged districthood as a movement of such magnitude this time would keep the issue alive for ultimate realisation of the goal one day". Pu C. Doungel (Rtd.IRS), and former Cabinet Minister of Manipur strongly believed that "....though the ultimate desire of districthood could not be achieved in this phase of movement the people of Sadar Hills have made known to the world their aspiration, existence and sense of unity which is a more precious achievement".

Certainly this phase of movement is unique in terms of mass response and participation and also the fact that the issue has gone up to the level of the Union Government, the Prime Minister of India and even Her Excellency the President of India. While talking to The Chinland Guardian on 8th September 2011, a Democratic Activist of Burma, Pu Nehginpao Kipgen asserted that...The ongoing situation in Sadar Hills District, Manipur, India has attracted attention of not only the ethnic peoples in North East India but also the Chins from Burma.

The signed MOU was not a matter of stones in lieu of bread. The agitation was suspended but the movement for Sadar Hills is not eliminated. Therefore, the sacrifices and sufferings of the people of Sadar Hills in pursuit of their goal for attainment of justice; more political autonomy, administrative power and economic development so far would not go in vain.

Till around the 1930s India was a united nation with emotional integrity in spite of the fact that there were some ill feelings for the political autonomy of the Muslims, however, they were leaderless and divided and fearful. However, exclusive policy and the domineering attitude of the Congress leaders after the election of 1937 in which the Congress commanded majorities in most of the provinces avoided and betrayed the Muslim leaders that was led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah who initially was against two nation theory.

Later on, congress unsolicited approach caused the unexpected diversion of the spirit of oneness in the minds of the Muslims. This was a bitter blow to Jinnah....It also formed a Rubicon in his life, to which, once crossed, he never looked back....He never trusted Congress leaders again and determined that the only way to deal with them was to throw their tactics of obstruction back to themselves....the success he had achieved in so short a time (Percival Spear, A History of India, p.229).

Conclusion

Sadar Hills issue cannot remain stagnant in spite of the State Government's reluctance and the Kacha Nagas' (Nagas of Manipur) opposition to it. The State Government has been depriving the people of their right for 40 years but it will not be able to suppress the people for long. Here, some pertinent questions arise: Why was MoU signed? Why the agitation was suspended? These questions must be lurking in the minds of all who are concerned with Sadar Hills and who have gone through this article.

Particulars of those who played negative roles, from where different types of threats came, reasons for criticisms/allegations levelled against the leaders that have not been clarified, etc. cannot be divulged at the moment as fullfledged political autonomy has yet to be achieved. The people's support and trust on the leaders is stronger than those reckless criticisms. Everything would be laid bare in the course of time after attainment of the ultimate goal of justice, economic aggrandizement and more administrative autonomy.

Before and since independence several tribes launched movements demanding 'Autonomous' states or districts in which they could manage their own affairs (G.Shah, Social Movements in India, p.94). Movement for autonomy to Sadar Hills was neither the first nor would be the last movement in Manipur. It is an outcome of denial of justice and deprivation to the denizens of Sadar Hills. Valley-centric policy and monopolising of every promising projects, concentration of development infrastructures in the congested valley areas, the lust of the fertile lands and parts of Hills areas, and domineering attitude of the dominant community are the main causes of disunity, underdevelopment and people's discontentment in Manipur.

Sadar Hills is in the process of being full-grown district which is inevitable like a chicken nearing its hatching. The public are just impatient as it has stretched out for too long. To undermine the people's aspiration and rightful claim would mean prolonging a chronic ailment for Manipur State. Colonel Swaran Singh of 43/AR during an interaction on 3rd May 2012 had also admitted that "Public is power; public movement is the most powerful movement". Hence no one in the world can crush a popular movement.

More autonomy to Sadar Hills will consolidate the integrity of Manipur. If justice is not done to Sadar Hills at the earliest as per laws of the land and the aspiration of its inhabitants, the sense of fury and desperation would compel the people to take an all indifferent political stand including declining districthood itself which will alter the geo-ethno-politics of Manipur. Prolong delay in solving Sadar Hills issue will only create radical political change in Manipur.

This will be a political blunder for the authority concerned, the state government. A thing is worth if acceded to when demanded; worthless as useless junk when no more needed or asked. In view of the genuineness and legitimacy, amicable solution would have been better than repressive measures and indifference dealing. The Chinese revolution, with the communists finally triumph in 1949 was partly a consequence of the State's inability to cope with the various issues of the 1930s and 1940s.

Ironically, a system may response too vigorously to challenges and the effective response may set in motion a chain of events that the Government was seeking to avoid. An armed insurrection in Dublin in 1916 offered little direct threat to British rule in Ireland; it was poorly supported and easily crushed. However, such was the ferocity of the British Government's response; especially the execution of some of the captured rebels that opposition to British rule increased enormously and helped pave the way for the creation of an independent Irish State later in 1922 (Allan R.Ball, Modern Politics and Government).

Concluded...