The State and Political Apology : An Apology by the Indian State to Manipur

Oja Sukhdev *

On Wednesday, the 13th February, 2008, the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd formally apologized to the indigenous peoples of Australia "for the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind". He further stated that that, up to 50,000 children were forcibly taken away from their families between 1910 and 1970 through a process of deliberate and calculated policies of the state.

This policy was taken to such extremes by some in the administrative authority that the forced extractions of children of so-called 'mixed lineage' were seen as part of a broader policy of dealing with "the problem of the Aboriginal population". In yet another development, the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper formally rendered apology on February, 2008, for what happened at the church-run schools, which mainly operated between 1870s and 1970s.

The programme forced 150,000 aboriginal children into grim residential schools, where many say they were sexually and physically abused. Similarly, President of the United States Barak Obama signed the 'Native American Apology Resolution' into law on Saturday, the 19th December, 2009. The Apology Resolution states that the United States, "apologizes on behalf of the people of the United States to all Native Peoples for the many instances of violence, maltreatment, and neglect inflicted on Native Peoples by citizens of the United States."

These are few select examples of apologies rendered by the State to the indigenous peoples in recent times. The culture of political apology can be traced back to 1077 when the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV, apologized to Pope Gregory VII for church-state conflicts by standing barefoot in the snow for three days. There are numerous instances of state apology rendered for human suffering during the times of conflict situation, war or any state programme to wipe out some selected people.

Take for instance, Japan, Germany and many countries apologized for their role in the wars and crime against humanity. Some countries do it voluntarily while others are forced by the International Court of Justice. Graham G. Dodds of University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia has prepared a list of political apologies which gives a glimpse of how and on what condition, a political apology is given. The list is much longer than that of the indigenous people.

India owes an apology to Manipur?

Former Union Home Secretary GK Pillai stated (sic. in the context of Manipur), "We have to rebuild trust by dealing with the core issues. An apology, say by the Prime Minister or the Home Minister, for the mistakes made in the past could be a start." Further, he observed, "The ancient kingdom, which had a constitution even before India wrote her own, had its own proud history and was overnight turned into a C-category state in 1948."

The statement needs to be considered seriously as it is barely four months that Mr. Pillai retired (June 30, 2011) from service. Moreover, he is considered to be one of the few people who deeply understand the situation of Manipur and have visited Manipur more than any other home secretary. His statement can be seen from different perspectives. One interpretation can be that it is a preemptive bid to conduct the coming Assembly election smoothly by emotionally paralyzing the denizens of Manipur.

Another way of looking at the statement can, perhaps, be that it is an initiative for peace-talks given the fact that major armed opposition groups in Manipur remains elusive to negotiations. Or it can be a combination of both, something which the Assam government has recently mastered. This write up makes an attempt analyze the condition of Manipur that compelled the former Union Home Secretary to make that statement.

The need for the political apology itself is reflected in the statement of Mr. Pillai when he observed that the ancient kingdom, which had a constitution even before India wrote her own, had its own proud history and was overnight turned into a C-category state in 1948. Interestingly, the reasons cited for the decision to 'take over' Manipur are revealing.

Manipur is a 'border state' and 'backward' and therefore a 'strategic necessity'! Curiously, the phrase used by V.P. Menon, the 'arch manoeuvrer' of the integration policy, is not to 'integrate' or for 'integration' but to 'take over' Manipur. This has severely disturbed the people of Manipur which compelled to take up various forms of agitations (democratic as well as armed).

Prof Neera Chondhoke observed that the circumstances under which Manipur merged with India by completely bypassing its elected representatives still remains contentious. Similarly in the process of nation-building also, the history of Northeast India is neglected by mainland historians. Tehelka in 2006 observed, "For most Indians, the Northeast India is on the map but Manipuroff the mind." This clearly indicates the ignorance of the Indians about this region.

The second reason that compelled Mr. Pillai to demand for a political apology from the Indian State can be on account of the deployment of army to Manipur. The government never acknowledged that army, who are trained to fight external enemies, are not an apt tool to contain the kind of conflict situation that have emerged in Manipur, or for that matter to contain what they officially call the "law and order" problem.

But the Prime Minister Committee while reviewing the infamous Armed Force Special Power Act 1958 (AFSPA), Justice Jeevan Reddy observed that the duty and power of the 'Union' under Article 355 to act on its own to protect the state from internal disturbances without their consent comes into play only in case of "internal disturbance that is, 'domestic chaos' or 'internal commotion'.

Considering these facts, the Reddy Committee stated that the problem in Manipur "is not merely that of a 'law and order' but an 'internal disturbance' which required invoking Article 355 of the Constitution of India." The Act has been recommended to repeal by various government committees as well as the United Nations and its organs. It is agreed by many that the AFSPA threatens the 'right to life' which cannot be threatened even during the times of emergency. In the case of Manipur, the State has been withdrawing the people's 'right to life' for many decades. These are strong instances that merit a political apology.

The third reason is a derivative of the second reason cited above, i.e. converting Manipur into a conflict zone. In the name of conflict, huge central security forces are deployed continuously for the last many decades. Deployment of these forces could be on account of India's unstable neighbours particularly the influence of China for which they want keep their forces out of barracks. The China factor has created more issues and the region is getting more and more militarized.

The government claims that the violence in North east India is reducing except in Manipur, but they are continuously building military infrastructures. For instance, Deccan Herald reported, "With an eye on China's growing military strength in Tibet, India has fully raised two new mountain divisions with 30,000 troops in the Northeast as a counter-measure and to shore up its mountain warfare capabilities."

The report further adds, "The other China-specific plans include the raising of the 'Arunachal Scouts' and 'Sikkim Scouts' that was given the nod last year. Besides these ground force, IAF is moving Sukhoi base to northeast to thwart Chinese threat". There issues may or may not relate to the counter-insurgency operations, but they are definitely affecting the people of these regions particularly Manipur.

The continuous imposition of Central security forces with AFSPA not only created a reign of terror but also eliminated many people in the name of national security. Now the culture of elimination is inherited by the state forces particularly the state commandoes. The fake encounters could have been continued if the Tahelka did not expose the incident of July 23, 2009.

The fourth reason can be for extracting natural resources without the consent of the people. The issue of Loktak Hydroelectric Project under the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation, a Government of India undertaking can be analyzed as the issue is not yet resolved even after it was commissioned in 1983. Not only the promise given to the people of Manipur is realized, providing of compensation to the affected land owners are not yet completed. A total of 27,404.94 acres of agricultural land have been lost as a result of this project.

Even with the existence of this project, Manipur remains constant blackout state. For instance, most areas of Manipur including the Imphal city is getting hardly four to six hour of electricity in a day. Similarly, the Government of India is proposing another mega hydro electric project at Tipaimukh over the Barak River. The construction has started with security cover to thwart resistance from the affected people. In addition to water resources, it is reported that Manipur Government has signed MoU to extract petroleum products from the hill districts of Manipur, particularly, Tamenglong.

The fifth reason can be in the developmental front, where Manipur is behind other states. Though right to development is an inherent right of an individual but in North East India it has always been a choice between development and insurgency. Insurgency has always been cited for the prevailing economic stagnation and underdevelopment. But on the contrary, Manipur, which was a net exporter of rice surplus during the colonial days have turned into a net importer after its contentious merger with India in 1949.

Even the budget of Manipur, up to the Fifth Five Year Plan, did not reach Rupees 300 crores. Unfortunately, the representatives of the central authorities (till statehood) did not fully utilize the budget allocations. The budget has been increasing since the early 1990s but it is not much for development intervention but mainly because of the expenses of counter-insurgency activities. Thus the people of Manipur have been denied the genuine right to development for more than half a century.

Over and above the above stated reasons, the occupation of Kangla for strategic reasons by the central security forces for more than 50 years deem fit for a political apology. But what remains to be seen is will the Indian State render an apology. Mr. G.K. Pillai should pursue the matter further if at all India remains tight lipped.

(Guest writer of the week: Oja Sukhdev)