Transformation of government into governance in Manipur
(Changing complexion of civil society: an assessment)
- Part 1 -

Dhanabir Laishram *

Basically, the state itself is a society. Which can be divided in to two - one is the political society and another is civil society. So, civil society means society minus government. But in democratic institution people's partnership with government in order to make policy and implementation for the welfare of the greatest number is imperative today.

The voice of the people should be channalised through mass media, political parties and civil society organizations from political environment. If the state is fragile, no one could get the positive response. So the role of CS in these critical days of the state is really significant.

In connection with this, to examine the response of the government towards democratic politics is really worthy because the root cause of all the political violence in NE in general particularly in Manipur is related with this.

The growing importance of civil society has also brought with it a variety of constraints and pressures. In reiteration of some of the maladies that have inflicted civil society, it can be pointed out that the civil society has not been conceptualized tightly, that is why varied perspectives on its meaning, nature and composition have come to camouflage its very essence.

It has been observed by Neera Chandhoke that just as the attention paid to the state has failed to account for civil society, the focus on civil society fails to comprehend its complex relationship with the State.

For instance, in Manipur like other Indian states, civil society is seen by most intellectuals as a hot-blooded association of social groupings, which are based on ethnic interest or on religious mobilization by conceiving the idea that they are assimilated coercively.

The genesis of this problem is mainly colonial legacy of British and capitalist economy of India. In this economic system, privileged groups whether he may be from hill or valley got maximum values. So people always claimed that they are periphery from centre.

But because of identity politics, instead of reacting against the structural injustice they also give their aspiration as periphery within periphery. Civil society of the majority community tried to minimize such trust deficits. On the other hand government tries to make more and more voluminous of internal contradiction within them.

Ethnic identities have always been fluid in Manipur. This fluidity gives considerable scope for political entrepreneurs to reshape the boundary and the concerns of the identity of a community.

In recent years, the process of modernization and participatory politics and access to media, and other technological devices have actually increased the mobilization potential and sharpened the self-image of splinter ethnic groups and sub-national identities, quite contrary to homogenizing efforts of modernizing elite.

For instance, civil society groups like United Naga Council (UNC) in Manipur always asserted only the interest of Manipuri Nagas and Kuki Inpi for only Kukis while All Manipur United Clubs Organisation tried to bring unity among all the ethnic groups in the process of unity-criticism-unity.

AMUCO hade already launched campaign for unity, development and peace. According to AMUCO, it could be brought by fighting together against the State if the state can't give economic justice evenly in order to have living together and growing together.

But assertion of ethnic interest and reaction of each other make conflict situation in spiral. Even they have their ethnic army and fighting each other. That is the product of Globalisation, which associates with three fundamentalists, religious fundamentalists, ethnic fundamentalists and market fundamentalists. In that case robotically the complexity of civil society will be more and more in bottomless.

When civil society is seen as tradition, the internal contradictions between communities and within communities is completely overlooked. Andre Beteilli argues that the well –being of modern institutions can be guaranteed only if civil societies are understood as comprising truly autonomous bodies. In the view of Dipankar Gupta, there is a need to be wary of giving in to traditional solidarities and associations, as they are unfavourable to the modern institutions.

Civil society by itself, Observes Neera Chandhoke, has no technological virtue, unless it is accompanied both by an interrogation of the sphere of civil society itself and a project for democratizing civil society. And a call for rolling back the state has no particular virtue, unless it is accompanied by a determination that the oppressions of civil society will be dismantled.

The ability of civil society to prevent the state from exercising absolute control is an essential but not a sufficient condition for democracy. The existence of civil society as a sphere of participation, deliberation, dialogue and contestation is no indication of the capacities of individuals to participate in all these activities.

Critics have even pointed out the various limitations of the idea of 'social capital' in explaining State-society interactions in the context of developing countries. It has been felt that there are a few potential problems associated with the development of civil society institutions that would nurture social capital.

Looking at the State-civil society institutions develop in an authoritarian environment and what the State can do in enabling the growth and expansion of those institutions, the emphasis is one the 'recursive cycles' of the interaction between the State and civil society actors.

(To be contd..)