Why Manipur is a self-alienated society ?

RK Rajeebsana *

Alienation is a state in which a person, a group, institution or a society becomes or remain alien, in the context of Manipur, to the nature in which we lives, to our fellow community as a consequences of trust deficit and to the activity of ourselves where the recognition people have in various dimension of creativity, talent and capabilities becomes a mere object of worthlessness, meaninglessness, without essence and soul.

This increasing alienation can be seen as part of the consequence of the lack of true federal spirit in centre-state relationship, where the existing superstructure serves for the purpose of 'metropolis' and the 'satellite' or state becomes a mere machine in the hands of the metropolis. In the present state of affair, the way out seems to be impossible without alteration of the union-state power relationship.

If we consider under true spirit of democracy and federal structure, the current centre-state relationship under the Indian constitution seems to be conflicting inherently as centre have the power and tendencies of bullying the state which is legitimize under Indian law which will have negative effect in the long run as India being form by the union of sovereign state but not from India itself.

Actions speaks louder than words says the proverb and it is true. The metropolis veil the mask as if they care and have an empathy for the satellite with rhetoric political statement without letting people known that they are dehumanized and their actions serves only for the purpose of the metropolis. And this is where we as a people fail repeatedly and consecutively to recognized due to lack of political consciousness.

If the Indian law could not stand and save the people of Tripuri, of their culture, language, livelihood and from themselves but give safe haven to the illegal migrant reducing the native population into minorities then, it is natural to think that, to serve the purpose of whom, does the Indian law exist? It clearly reflect the subordination of law to the purpose of dominant political culture or the metropolis.

It is under the Indian law that we being a citizen of India, said to have bound by the freedom and rights of the constitution of India, face a state of insecurity and fear before 'Citizenship amendment bill' where India has more emotional sympathy for the 'outsider alien' than the 'insider alien' and undoubtedly the alien migrants owe much rights to the Indian law than we, who are said to be a citizen of India.

De-facto, we are subject not the citizen. The citizen has a right but the subject is deprive of right as we are today. So, we are alienated to the nature in which we live since the merger. This can be put not as a mere simple alienation but extreme objectification of people as a mere 'thing' lower than the value of illegal migrants, lower than the value of inanimate resources found above and below the soil which the metropolis eye on.

We as a citizen of India are also alienated from ourselves, to the activity which we perform because the centre recognised the creative aspect of people with national honour at the same time, have an inner psyche to destroy the native with population dilution buttress by arms law. It is a kind of hegemonic tactics where people are control without letting people known that they are being control.

India or Bharat as we conceive today never had a political unity since the beginning of history. It was cultural unity which is mostly reflected in the mythology Mahabharata or the Ramayana. But cultural unity cannot be treated synonymously with political unity as culture if narrow down in India are extremely heterogeneous though they appear homogeneous at a mere glance and culture being only a sub-part of society.

There are various dimensions of social components both quantitatively and qualitatively which are extremely heterogeneous and respecting these diversity rather than imposition of homogeneity of the dominant culture is the essence and purpose of secular and democratic country. The very term Hindu or Hinduism can also be seen as a political construct, coined to buttress the Indianization the nation building process as Hindu was never a term for religion but connotes to a geographical denotation for people living beyond the 'Sindhu' or Indus river, mostly refer by foreign traveller.

Before it was emerges, as a political or cultural term, India was a land of diverse philosophical system or religion, conflicting with each other school of thought. Some believe in Nirgunaor formless god while other in Saguna or god with attributes. It was refer by various denomination and sect according to the deity they worship as Shaivism, Shaktism, Vaishnavism, Ganesha, Dvaita or advaita and so on. Even in pre-independence India, many religious sect refuted the used of the term Hindu for religion.

Various School of thought also came to Manipur during the monarchial regime of which Ramanadi and Vaishnavism were among them, where the former dissolve but the latter retain with unique model of indigenous flavour or religious syncretism. The hindu or Hinduism as used in the political discourse today is more of political in nature but not of philosophy or religion per se.

The north-Indian hindu belt culture cannot be imposed to south India, though the latter are hindu as well. And both are extremely diverse in every nuance of social aspect ranging from the kinship relations to life-cycle ceremonies. So, the term Hindu should not be treated synonymously with religion as such. It is more of political and cultural colonization of north-Indian hindi belt region with religious toning for vote bank.

And the present superstructure of society seems to exist to the purpose of the said political culture. So, even the state government are alienated from themselves, to serve the purpose of the metropolis as their individuality cannot be boldly admitted and their activity becomes an alien in itself, which belong to someone else but not the reflection of their own interest.

Alas, we are alienated from our fellow community due to lack of trust and vested political interest. Instead of joining hands and developing a common political consciousness through empathy, we are busy competing and conflicting each other, which indirectly serves the interest of the metropolis. In order to prevent the cooperative relationship, the metropolis intentionally pits one community against the other, where we repeatedly falls in their trap, due to our foolishness and lack of political consciousness.

This situation is useful to the metropolis as it deflect the hostility that otherwise would be aimed at them. So, this isolation and inter-community hostility makes our fellow community alienated from each other. It prevent us from developing a common political interest and we as an insider group of people remain as a category with objective criteria or the force in itself excluding the subjective criteria, that is the force for itself.

So the citizenship amendment bill though a threat, provides us an opportunity to turn the force in itself into the force for itself, to develop political consciousness from the grass root and to have common political platform for the North east region. If we fail to build and grab the advantage of such situation, we are digging our own grave. Here, the civil society has a greater role to play and the political society, if committed to serve the interest of people, should go hand in hand with the civil society as it reflects the interest of people.

Even the civil society in Manipur can form a regional political party of its own as part of political mobilization and to test the level of political consciousness of people through referendum between our own regional party and the national party because, it is a high time for the north east to form regional political party for the cause of our culture, language, livelihood, for the native people, belief system and so on.

And if the government of India wants to maintain its unity with various union of state sign and form after India independence, the government of India must try to maintain and review its federal spirit and structure, and should engage and involve, the part of state in any action undertaken. Maximum centralization and decreasing political autonomy on part of the state is not a good sign and culture of politics in India as it was formed by union of various sovereign state.