Of international politics

Heigrujam Nabashyam *

One technology which has made the world truly global is the information technology – IT. It enables maximum number of people – rich and poor, around the globe to rich out to the world. Sitting in a room anywhere in the world, one can get connected to the entire globe – the global village, in matters of politics, science, arts, culture, entertainment, books, business and etc. through its core sector, the internet – which was first invented and used for intelligence network in the US defense establishment. However, the technology happened to be such that no government or organization could no longer have a monopoly. Today IT belongs to the global community. In fact, internet functions as the artery of the global village.

One need not move around the globe or a millionaire to be a globalist. It is the mindset or the perspective of one’s ideas which makes one a globalist. It is the ability of one’s mind and one’s idea to connect to what is happening around beyond his or her locality, and the society. It is as simple as having information that India buys petroleum from Iran or from an Arab country or countries, because India does not produce sufficient petroleum for consumption of its billion plus people. Or, it is like knowing why India helps the war torn Afghanistan in building its road communication, and other infrastructure and still nearer, in our next door neighbour Burma, ruled by its military junta. Or to speak of our daily life, to understand how fish from Bangladesh is brought to Manipur for preparation of Ngaari – the fermented fish, the basic need of most households in Manipur. And how a hike of price of fish at the source at Bangladesh and the increase of transportation charge by the trucks due to increase of the price of diesel etc. increases the price of Ngaari from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 350/- a kilogram in two years.

Knowing such simple facts and acting accordingly makes one a globalist. But there is one particular unfailing undertone of a globalist – a good or a bad globalist, it does not matter – and that is, a globalist remains truly and truly self-centred and selfish, ever. Now, this seeming contradiction or paradox – selfish-ism vis-à-vis globalism is only natural because man is by nature selfish which requires no qualification.

The world’s most powerful global players – the US, Russia, China, etc. behave in the same fashion; their own country’s interests being the guiding principle in their policy, which is true for any country, including India. And this policy of self first is the virtue of international politics, which is not going to go away in the foreseeable future, no matter the global village becomes a tiny village, because there is no way nationalism would give way to globalism or internationalism.

When a Christian and a bilingual – a local and an European language, a legacy of the past European colony – people of a small part of a small island, Timor of Indonesia revolted against the government, it was the global interest of the big powers, especially the United States’ interests in the Asia-Pacific region, which had realized East Timor, a country two-third of the size of Manipur. Similar is the case of Kosovo which broke away from Serbia without a shot fired. This is plain politics or call it international politics if you would, which has nothing to do with international law, as one righteously may like to believe.

For almost three decades Sri Lanka was a divided country between the majority Sinhalese and the ethnic Tamils. And for most of the period, the north eastern parts of Sri Lanka were virtually ruled by the LTTE – the force of the ethnic Tamils. But it could never have become an independent country like East Timor or Kosovo, lacking recognition and also because there never was a United States of America for the ethnic Tamils. And India, the responsible regional power, never saw any gain in a divided Sri Lanka, too apart from its moral posture in Kashmir and Northeast. And India had to watch the ruthless elimination of the LTTE to its last element by the Sri Lankan forces despite the huge Tamil presence in Indian politics, which the government may find unpleasant to admit.

Now, the two trouble spots in India – Nagaland is already on a political talk and Assam being in a process – Manipur and Kashmir, remain to be the testing grounds of the strength and wisdom of India’s democratic institutions especially, the Parliament, the political parties and more particularly of the political leadership, more than the effectiveness of the military and the intelligence network, which presently is the thrust of the government.

The case of the Maoist, which the government of India identifies as "the most serious internal security threat since independence" may be considered on a different perspective, which is the resultant effect of the exploitation of the Aadivashis – tribals, who are outside the four varna-caste and other backward sections by the upper caste, in the caste ridden Indian society, where one’s birth is considered more important than one’s merit from the days of the Mahabharata and probably till now. But the remarkable fact is, the Indian society do absorbs the fall-out of the conflicts and frictions among the caste, sub-caste, Aadivashis since the epic days, except maybe for the recent hindu-muslim dichotomy. The only thing the governments and the ruling elite have to do is to stop treating them as Aadivashi yani Aadimanoos, and allow them to come up in political and economic sphere – no tokenism, and stop playing hand in hand with the global economic players against their interests.

Now, in contrast to the Maoist the problem of Manipur and also of Kashmir is not the caste based exploitation, and whereas the issue of Kashmir is of hindu-muslim dichotomy, the question of Manipur is the spirit of nationalism – a paradox perhaps as mentioned above. It is indeed a two millennia old spirit of nationalism – certainly not the case of Kashmir or of the Maoist – which is studded by numerous historical incidence, including defeating the ruler of a south Chinese principality in the 16th century which gave the king the title – conqueror of the Chinese – when the boundary of Manipur was extended upto the Ningthi Turel- the Chindwin river in present Burma, in the east and the north, comprising much of the Chindwin basin. After the British, Manipur elected members of its first legislature on the basis of universal adult franchise under the newly framed Manipur Constitution in 1948. The first popular ministry were formed with a chief minister as the head of the government and the hereditary king as the titular head of state. But the most amusing irony was after the merger Manipur, then an independent country, became a district ruled by a chief commissioner who was responsible only to the central government, in a democratic Indian Union. The Legislature was disbanded and no elected body allowed till 1957 when a territorial council was setup to give some political rights to the disgruntled people. This was the background of the present Manipur which is in the news for all the wrong reasons. It is a different thing, if the political leaders of Manipur project and present the issue of Manipur in a different manner to suit their interest. But the point is there may not be any breakthrough without the issue being addressed politically. And in the process, Manipur is hurt, bleeding and blighted, promising not a good future for our children. Now plain talk, no confusion, who is or are responsible – political leaders of Manipur, leaders in Delhi, social workers of Manipur, the Manipur intelligentsia or the insurgent leaders ?

# The writer would be available for discussion for students and researchers. For confirmation – © 09862284860