The foreign' Indians

It was the rarest of spectacles, an alignment of political stars that no astrologer could have predicted: Rahul Gandhi, Narendra Modi and Arvind Kejriwal, all lending their support to a single agitation. Even more unexpectedly, the agitation in question was one being staged by students from India’s Northeast region.

For decades now, that region and the “mainland” of India (to which it is connected tenuously by a land corridor 22 kilometres wide at its narrowest point) have had a troubled relationship. Differences in culture, religion and food habits, and even in physical appearances, have deepened the sense of alienation felt by many from the region who made the journey to India’s bustling metropolises in search of education or jobs.

It was his appearance that sparked off the fight that seems to have led to the tragic death of Nido Tania, a student from Arunachal Pradesh, in Delhi’s Lajpat Nagar. Police records and the testimony of his friends show that Tania was severely beaten up by a group of youth after he broke a shop’s display window. He had stopped to ask for directions, and been met with a racist taunt, which infuriated him.

Such taunts are “par for the course”, says Nicholas Kharkongor, a writer and director of mixed Naga and Khasi descent who lives in Delhi. He’s been in Delhi and Mumbai for 20 years now, and has learnt to blank out these taunts, he says. His forbearance has meant that he has not found himself in “any sort of extreme situation”.

“If in a place you have a singular exotica, a few people from elsewhere, you will be nice to them. If there are a lot, fascination will give way to xenophobia. Delhi has a huge Northeastern population,” he says.

The size of this population came into notice in 2012 after rumours circulating on SMS sparked off an exodus of people from the region who live and work in cities such as Delhi, Pune and Bengaluru. The incident drew the attention of Prof Sanjib Baruah, an authority on the region who teaches at Bard College in New York. In a paper for the January 2013 issue of Himal Southasian, Prof Baruah noted the presence of at least 2 lakh Northeasterners in Delhi.

In an email interview, he wrote that while he was very disturbed by the Tania incident, he saw a silver lining. “I am glad that Kejriwal and Rahul Gandhi went to the protests. The political establishment appears to be taking this incident more seriously than previous racial incidents. I hope the discussion leads to the recognition of such crimes as hate crimes,” he wrote.

Watershed moment

These protests could prove to be a watershed moment given the recognition from all major political parties that there is racial discrimination being faced by some Indians in India, a fact that has long been ignored or denied. It is also a watershed moment in the very vocal identification by the protesters from the Northeast of themselves as Indians. The region has been home to numerous separatist insurgencies down the decades since 1947, and the Indian identity was not something everyone from the region sported easily.

Borkung Hrangkhawl, a rap musician from Tripura who lives in Delhi, is the son of a legendary insurgent leader from the state, Bijoy Kumar Hrangkhawl. His father gave up the gun after 10 years of armed struggle, in 1988, and took to politics. Asked whether he feels Indian, Borkung paused for a moment to say that it was a loaded question before answering “yes”.

“A lot of us don’t feel Indian,” says Kharkongor, but adds that he is not among those. “I feel very Indian,” he says.

Prof. Baruah, who authored a seminal text called India Against Itself on the politics of nationality, says, “Northeasterners are seeking integration as equal citizens, which is not the same as assimilation”.

The younger generation of writers, thinkers and musicians from the region seem to agree with this view.

Ankush Saikia, an author who divides his time between Tezpur and Shillong and lived in Delhi earlier, says “focusing on differences rather than factors that bring us together is harmful for everyone in the long run”.

He agrees that it is a difficult and complex matter, and says, “We need to look at the treatment of people from outside the Northeast in the Northeast itself, and the many opportunities available to and availed by people from the Northeast in the rest of India.”

Perhaps the worst sufferers of the periodic bouts of violence against “outsiders” have been the Bengali minority who scattered throughout the Northeast for generations.

Sonali Dutta, who now lives in the United Kingdom, recalls an incident from her college days in Shillong.

“It was during Durga Puja and I was walking back home from the pandal with my boyfriend just after dusk. As we approached a quiet, poorly lit stretch on the street leading down to my house, six Khasi boys surrounded us. One of them exposed a knife in his inner leather jacket pocket. While they were busy punching and kicking my boyfriend along with profuse racial verbal abuses, I managed to slip out of their circle to look for help. In the meantime, my boyfriend broke out of their loop, caught my hand and yelled, ‘run!’ I threw my handbag and we ran for our lives.”

There’s a sense of xenophobia in the Northeast, says Kharkongor. “It needs to go…I don’t know what can be done about it,” he says. The situation there is “more grim”, he adds.

“Bridges need to be built between this region and the rest of the country so that there can be understanding and interaction, and ultimately, mutual respect,” says Mitra Phukan, the Assam-based president of the Northeast Writers’ Forum.

Mary Therese Kurkalang, director of the Cultures of Peace Festival, is at the forefront of efforts to build such bridges. She left Shillong to live in Delhi in 1998 and has been there since. “I consciously choose to live in India’s capital that is not always known for being kind to women or minorities or to anyone at many and various levels,” she says, adding, “There is also much that this city offers. I came to this city with `5,000, a suitcase full of synthetic clothes, a Class 12 Pass certificate, and a great deal of hope! After 16 years, I can look back and say, ‘Delhi you didn’t let me down!’ I run a company of my own, know thousands of people (and not just on social media), I have a wonderful Punjabi landlady in whose flat I have lived for 11 years running! I celebrate Christmas, Id and Diwali with equal gusto. So every now and then, if someone asks me ‘aap kahaan se ho’, I patiently explain to them where Shillong is, starting from Kolkata, then to Assam and a 100 kilometres up to Shillong — the capital of Meghalaya ‘the abode of clouds’ where perhaps a bit of me always floats.”

Source: Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad 11/02/2014

Share:

Read full story►

Cant fight racism by soft power alone

At a discussion on Doordarshan in the studio at Mandi House in New Delhi on Friday, several students and professionals from the Northeast spoke with anger and sadness about the discrimination they face on a daily level.

Words which are barred by court edicts such as “Chinky” still remain in common use, filling them with anger, but also a sense of despair.

That they continue to work, study and live in metros like Delhi redounds to their credit and to the city’s shame. This issue is not unique to the region or its people; they live in a country and societies steeped in prejudice, where Dalits, women, religious minorities and tribals are constant targets of violence, abuse and harm; this is happening as communities and individuals rise against the repressive behaviour that has characterised social conduct for centuries.

This is the broader narrative in which the sporadic violence and daily abuse against so many of those from the Northeast takes place. What is important to recognise is that so many of them are speaking out courageously, mobilising and standing for their rights. Yet, few turn to the state for succour or protection. A survey conducted recently by my Centre on challenges faced by women from the region in Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru and Calcutta says that few of the women who faced molestation, harassment, humiliation or intimidation of any kind wanted to go to the police for help. Many said they did not think it would be of any use while others said they didn’t want to be further humiliated.

This stinging perception of law enforcers underlines a basic principle: that police forces in metropolitan cities must be more representative of demography and sensitive to concerns of different ethnic, religious and language groups, not the “local” majority. Thus, while behavioural change is crucial, it will take time. So does changing laws. But, recruitment rules can be changed, as can retraining police.

One way of dealing with ignorance on an issue like this is to spread knowledge, especially through curricula in schools, colleges and universities. The school and university networks need to do this rigourously. Too many committees have written on these issues; very little has been implemented.

This is not going to be an easy task. Take the case of the United States: there was a time there when the pejorative “ni**er” word was used extensively when referring to Afro-Americans. Anyone who uses it these days there runs the risk of being hustled away by police and a jail term for racial abuse. It took decades for this to happen, to upturn people’s views, to end segregation in the “land of the free and the brave”. It took courageous men and women to do that, black and white, who braved police batons and dogs — leaders like Martin Luther King, who held no office as he pursued his dream of freedom and equality, and fell to an assassin’s bullet. Presidents and politicians supported him as did cultural icons like Pete Seeger. Laws were necessary to end discrimination, but this couldn’t happen in isolation without a robust human rights movement, the role of media and educators.

For times, tides and attitudes to change, the democratic deficit can be bridged with a combination of the power of justice and the widest dissemination of cultural, historic and social knowledge. There must be the sure understanding that the use of the word “Chinky” can mean jail. Use the Prevention of Atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act. We shall overcome, but not by soft power alone: meet the sting of discrimination with the full force of the law.

Sanjoy Hazarika is Director of the Centre for North East Studies and Policy Research, Jamia Millia Islamia, and author, columnist and documentary film maker. Views espressed are personal.

Source: Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad 11/02/2014

Share:

Read full story►

Racism, Our Dirty Secret

Prejudice based on one’s regional origins

 is deep-seated among Indians, including the police

-Indrajit Hazra

Article 14 of the Constitution deals with ‘Right to Equality’. It tells us with the straightest of faces that ‘The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.’ The very following sentence in the country’s operations manual is Article 15(1) that deals with ‘Fundamental Rights’. It says even more pithily, ‘The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.’ 

    Last Friday, Delhi high court pulled up the police and the state government for lack of progress on the case of 19-year-old Nido Tania, a student from Arunachal Pradesh, who died in the city following a racist attack. 

    Now, you can take your pick from all the constitutional categories mentioned above to illustrate how the real world strays from the scripture when it comes to equality before the law or when reassuring that the state is absolutely against any kind of discriminatory behaviour on its part. But with Nido’s death, the result of injuries received after a racist attack, let us stick to the statutory discrimination on grounds of race. 

    Much has been made of how ‘mainland Indians’ look upon Indians from the northeastern region bearing Mongoloid features. In Jaipur last month, a schoolteacher told a woman from a publishing house how she first thought she was Japanese and was impressed with her fluent Hindi. The teacher had no intention to offend the lady from Delhi who is originally from Manipur. Indeed, her intention was to compliment her in a strange, roundabout way. And, even as i was shocked, no offence was taken by the Manipuri lady. 

    Discrimination has two components to it: one, recognising the distinction between, say, people bearing Mongoloid features and those bearing Caucasoid features, an ability that is as helpful as that of being able to differentiate between a mosque and a temple, or an Audi and a Skoda. And two, there’s discrimination where the ability to make a distinction leads to prejudice. 

    It is this second variety of discrimination that needs to be – and can be – weeded out. This is possible not by striking at the proverbial source of the problem – ‘by changing the social mindset’ – but by addressing the problem at the spot where prejudicial discrimination comes to be redressed: before the law. 

    Almost two years before Nido’s death, 19-year-old Loitam Richard from Manipur was found dead in his hostel room in Bangalore. The local police first employed Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code to describe death ‘under mysterious circumstances’ that didn’t rule out murder, accidental death or suicide. Later, the hostel supervisor filed a fresh complaint against two fellow students who reportedly beat up Richard the night before his body was found. The police then filed the case under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC. 

    The tardy gathering of evidence, compounded by the initial suspicion that ‘the northeast boy’ was a drug-user and his death was caused by an overdose, was standard operational procedure. Richard was found dead in April 2012. The case is yet to reach the courts. And since the incident didn’t take place in, say, Australia, the media barely noticed. In any case, there is no ‘consul general of Bangalore’ to haul up and grill in television studios. 

    The law and order machinery across India is dysfunctional. But added to this is selective dysfunction – along socio-economic, caste, religious, regional and racial lines. The police, irrespective of what the Constitution says about legal recourse for ‘everyone’, behave differently when the complainant is from a slum and when he is from a highrise. A similar selective response holds true when it comes to complainants from northeast bearing physical features considered by far too many Indians, law enforcers included, as ‘un-Indian’, which in turn are hitched to stereotypes such as drug use and promiscuity. 

    This is what happened when the brutal rape and murder of Thangjam Manorama in 2004 in Manipur by some armymen led to a commission of inquiry whose report was never released and no perpetrators punished. This is what happened with investigations and subsequent (lack of) legal proceedings in the Loitam Richard case. This is what is happening with investigations in the Nido Tania case, where the Delhi high court has slammed the police for failing to even submit the victim’s autopsy report more than a week after his death. 

    As a nation, we are hardwired to see racial prejudice only where Indians are victims and where ‘white people’ are perpetrators. But racism against Indians by Indians thrives. And neither is it confined to the attitudinal behaviour of ‘mainland Indians’ towards ‘northeasterners’, the latter also capable of their very own brand of xenophobia. 

    For the ‘social mindset’ to change, the law must first treat, and be seen treating, crimes – including non-racist crimes – against northeast Indians seriously. It is how law enforcers deal with cases in which ethnic or racial minorities are victims and complainants that will determine whether India confines itself to benign discrimination. Until then, constitutional exceptions will continue to prove a shameful rule. 

 The writer is an author and journalist.
Source: Times Of India, Hyderabad 10/2/2014

Share:

Read full story►

PRICE OF INDIGENEITY: Meiteis’ demand for Scheduled Tribe Status(Republished from kanglaonline)

By:
Seram Neken, Imphal based Freelance Journalist

Simply speaking, groups with indigenous character are termed as ‘Scheduled Tribes’ in India. The word ‘Indigenous’ as used by the international community, is not used in Indian constitution as it refers to some sense of political self-determination. Perhaps, the framers of the Constitution gave room for cultural self-determinism of some specific groups in the form of Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste under Clause 1 of Articles 341 and 342. Besides their primitive nature and geographical isolation; the Scheduled Tribes are identified with their social, educational and economic backwardness. Taking into account the presumed sufferings from extreme backwardness on account of the primitive agricultural practices, lack of infrastructural facilities and geographical isolation, the Constitution made provisions for safeguarding the interests and for accelerating the socio-economic development of the scheduled communities.

Indigenous peoples are peoples defined in international or national legislation as having a set of specific rights based on their historical ties to a particular territory, and their cultural or historical distinctiveness from other politically and socially dominant populations. They are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, identity, cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems. A special set of political rights for the indigenous peoples have been set by international organizations like the United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank in accordance international law. The United Nations have issued a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to guide national policies of various countries to collective rights of indigenous peoples—such as culture, identity, language and access to employment, health, education and natural resources. India has the most substantial population of indigenous communities which are recognized as Scheduled Tribes in its Constitution. In Himachal Pradesh, Rajputs and Brahmans are schedule Tribes. In Tripura, the descendents of the Kings are scheduled tribes. In Sikkim, the Bhutias are scheduled Tribes, so on and so forth.

Numerous government policies aim at promotion of tribal communities inhabiting all over India. The central and state governments have made sustained efforts to provide opportunities to these communities for their economic development by eradicating poverty and health problems and developing communication for removal of isolation of their habitats. Although Article 14 provides for equality before law and equal protection of law to all people, Article 15(4) allows the States to make special provisions for the advancement of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. In matters of employment or appointment to any office, Article 16(4) mentions that the State should make provisions for reservation in favour of any backward class citizen who is not adequately represented in the services. Article 16 (4A) and 16(4B) empower the States to make provisions for promotion in the services in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Article 46 directs the States to promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections particularly the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Article 275(1) makes provisions for grants-in-aid from the Consolidated Fund of India for promoting the welfare of the Scheduled Tribes and administration of Scheduled Areas. Reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in Parliament, state Legislature and in Panchayats is provided under Article 330, Article 332 and Article 243(D) respectively.

Even though the Meiteis in Manipur valley have fulfilled the criteria for being listed in Scheduled Tribes list, they have long been denied these opportunities due to non-inclusion in the list. After Manipur’s merger to Indian Union, Meiteis were given the status of the General Category. In spite of the Meiteis’ belongingness to the Mongoloid stock, a few influential people of that time introduced Meiteis as the descendents of the Aryans to the government of India. People of hill areas were given the status of Scheduled Tribe, while Lois and Yaithibis were categorized as Scheduled Castes. Meiteis have lagged behind other communities of Manipur in matters of appointments to various jobs and promotion to higher ranks due to its being in the general category. Now, Meiteis may also be given the opportunity to preserve and protect its unique culture and tradition under the Constitution. Moreover, in order to being balanced development of the various communities and to narrow down the apparent disparity among communities in Manipur, Meiteis should be accorded Scheduled Tribe status by declaring the whole state of Manipur as hill state. Recognition of Meiteis as a Scheduled Tribe will minimize the apprehension created by onslaught of outsiders from within or without the country. It will help preserve the composite identity and territory of the land.

Recognizing certain religions as religious minority under National Commission of Minorities Act 1992, the Government of India provides assistance in the education of children belonging to these religious minorities. Although National and State commissions have been set up to protect the people of religious communities, Sanamahi religion is yet to be recognized under this category. As Meiteis are adopting all the age-old indigenous traditions, the community can well be categorized as tribal. Meiteis worship Sanamahi deity and follow their age-old traditions during various ceremonies. Even after adopting Hinduism, Meiteis are still following the primitive culture and heritage of the forefathers. Meiteis particularly those following Sanamahi faith are fit to be recognized as Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution of India. Sanamahi faith may also be recognized as a religious minority. Non-inclusion of Meiteis in Scheduled Tribe list is a historical blunder. As an indigenous group, Meiteis need to protect and preserve its age-old customs, traditions and territory under the provisions of Indian Constitution. Right thinking individuals of the state should support the move for recognition of Meiteis as a Scheduled Tribe, even though it is a bit delayed.

Source: kanglaonline.com

Share:

Read full story►

When “tribe” definition ceases to be anthropological and becomes constitutional

By Pradip Phanjoubam

The storm in the tea-cup over the demand from certain sections of the Meitei community for inclusion in the 5th Schedule of the Indian constitution which lists an ever increasing number of recognized tribes in India, is unfortunate for many radically different reasons. Obviously, the tribal status in India is no longer defined by anthropological or sociological parameters, but by the cravings of the incentives accorded to this status.

In this way, the conditions for an ever proliferating number of demands from different communities to be given the tribal status, and equally importantly, the reason for perpetuating this retrogressive social status by those who are already classified in this category, are inherent in the constitution itself. Let there be no dispute about this, what the section of the Meiteis are demanding is not the tribal status but the incentives that come along with it, just as the opposition to the demand by tribal students bodies in the state, is not to another community joining the tribal ranks, but the fear that there will be more competitors of these same incentives and governmental doles.

Both, are pathetic in equal measures, and in fact are the two sides of the same coin. The Meiteis should not be wanting to be tribals, I will give some of my reasons why, and on the other hand, the tribals should have been happy at the prospect of an expanded fraternity. That both parties see it other than this way, is nothing short of a tragedy of a grand story being reduced to a trivial and mundane one. On the wide canvas, the harmatia (or fatal flaw in personality) as the Greeks call it, is that of the incentive structuring of the Indian constitution, and not so much of the much visible dramatis personae of the current issue in Manipur.

I will not go further on whether the tribal status is good or bad for communities which are already listed in the 5th Schedule of the constitution, considering the sensitivity of the issue, but here are some of my reasons why the demand from a section of the Meiteis for tribal status is a bad idea, and I am not saying this out of sentimental reasons, but sound economics. It is a bad idea because the gains can only be short term, and the unseen prices paid for it will be far heavier. I have not done any empirical survey on the matter, so what I say here will be from general observations alone.

Whatever else may be said, the Meitei economy today is one of the most diversified, if not the most diversified in the entire northeast region, including Assam, precisely because its growth has been intrinsic in nature, and not so much a result of pre-fabricated, one-size-fit-all economic models dropped from above. It may not be a monetarily rich economy yet, but have no doubt it would prove the most resilient ultimately. In it is practically every component of a naturally cultured, therefore multifaceted, life’s battle hardened economy. Look at the range of professions the community has nurtured. From cycle repair shops to excellent motorcar workshops, from watch mechanics and TV repair professionals to medical professionals of the highest standards, from traditional doll makers, truck drivers, weavers, to media professionals and academics of repute. Blacksmiths, goldsmiths, gunsmiths, sportsmen, professional dancers, farmers, carpenters, masons, computer hackers… you name it and the Meitei society would have them. Many of these professions were groomed by survival needs, and most began as, and still are extremely lowly paid jobs. Yet they have managed to survive as economic traditions.

This range and reach could not have happened in a completely sponsored economy, which are essentially top heavy and bottom empty. The top is essential no doubt, but ultimately it will be the bottom which will make the difference, once the sponsors retreat.

In fact, most of my criticisms of the Manipur government’s employment, therefore economic policies have been from this standpoint. No government has done much to build the place’s modern economy from this rich traditional foundation, by striving to enrich the environment in which this diversification can thrive and expand, such as by ensuring electricity availability, improving road and internet connectivity, extending better credit facilities to prospective entrepreneurs etc. Instead, today gainful employment has come to mean only garnering government jobs, and we all know government jobs have a very low ceiling, and in fact this ceiling has already been reached. Nonetheless, creating jobs in the government’s parlance continues woefully to be confined to raising more police constabularies etc.

Let those amongst the Meiteis who want the 5th Schedule tribal status do some serious rethinking. Even the OBC status they are now classified into should be treated as a temporary measure. Imagine how hollow and vulnerable an economy which has only government job holders and nothing else would be. There is much wisdom in the saying “Phadi leitana imung keidouneida oiroi” (a household without phadi/towel, can never be complete).

But as I mentioned earlier, if the demand for tribal status by the Meiteis (or at least a section of the community) is bad, the opposition to it from those already classified as tribals is as shameful for it demonstrates how uncivil our “civil society” still is. Indeed, the debate over who or what should constitute the rather ethereal notion of “civil society” gets all the more intriguing in a conflict situation, such as in Manipur. The question is, should “civil society” have a technical definition and be treated as constituting of the occupants of a space earmarked between the State and private vested interests, or other power players, such as the militant challengers to the State’s authority and legitimacy?

While this definition of “civil society” is definitely not sufficient, it has been indeed a convenient one. The trouble however is, when there is a technical definition of “civil society”, it invariably turns into a hotly contested space, and in fact often readily transforms into an extension of the conflicts they are supposed to be arbitrating thus becoming in the process an instrument of the same war, though by other means.

Manipur is familiar with this phenomenon. The “civil society” space has been deeply fissured on sectarian ethnic lines, demonstrations of which are never in short supply. Such wars by other means are fought on practically every issue involving any two or more communities of the state’s multitude of communities. The division is also seen along other broader lines such as between the hill districts and valley districts, between the tribals and non-tribals etc.

It is not uncommon to even hear of self proclaimed human rights organisations, thrown up by mutually antagonistic ethnic communities, speaking two different languages on the same issue. It is as if there is nothing universal about even human rights. How then can the “civil society” be the agent for the much hyped problem solving discourses, is a question much ignored.

The technical ear-marking of a so called “civil society” space leads to another familiar problematic situation. The conflicting parties themselves begin actually to contest for this space by putting up their “civil society” proxies, having realized how powerful these bodies can be in force multiplying their agenda through precisely the “wars by other means”.

The result is a complication of the conflicts themselves. So much has already been written about how even students’ movements have become organs of those behind these conflicts. Some even float their own “civil society” bodies. Must this not be considered a corruption of the popular understanding of “civil society”? A rethink is vital to consider if the definition of civil society must not have some qualitative elements over and above just the quantitative.

A weak State has not helped matter one bit either. Here, legitimate powers that should vest only with it often get wrested away by numerous “civil society” bodies, adding to the general residue of insecurity amongst a larger section of the society. The Weberian notion of legitimate violence is no longer a monopoly of the state, precisely because of its ineptitude and lack of commitment. This legitimacy vests in the hands of so many so called “civil society” bodies, precisely because of the state defaulting. Take the latest case of the hauling up of ice-cream manufacturers for unhygienic factory environment by a students’ body. The vigilant act which would have gained them public legitimacy should have rested solely  with the government had it also been as committed to public interest.

Although in a different context, and lacking half the gravity of the powerfully communicated despair in Macbeth’s last word for his queen at the news of her death, in considering Manipur politics, one is reminded of how the great Shakespearean character summarised his wife’s life, “….a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

There are many issues of extreme urgency awaiting government attention. Law and order without dispute would rank as number one among all of these. I am not simply referring to the obvious case of insurgency but also again to the manner in which a major portion of what should have remained as sole governmental responsibility, as well as the seal of authority that should have been exclusively the government’s, are being allowed to be wrested away systematically by non-governmental players in the state’s sordid power game.

Or are we witnessing a cruel parody of what Karl Marx called the “withering away of the state”, to give way to a “dictatorship of the proletariat”. The presumption seemed to have been, when the masses are the dictators over their own affairs, rooms for injustice and oppression would be automatically eliminated. The lessons of the atrocities of the French Revolution, which too had justice and equality as its slogans, were surprisingly missed, and VI Lenin’s interpretation of Marxism took cognizance of this problematic area when he stressed on the centrality of the Party of elite thinkers and leaders in any Communist revolution.

In a way he anticipated a basic foundation of modern electoral democracy too, for indeed, democracy is also about a people electing its elite leadership to be in charge of their affairs till so long as they enjoy their confidence as expressed in their periodically renewed electoral mandates. In this way the quality of a democracy is also determined by the capability of an electorate to choose the best amongst its elite. You get the elite you deserve.

In Manipur, the state is withering away, not by any grand Marxian design, but precisely for the abject lack of a will or imagination to come up with a design. For our elected elite, the needs for accountability or good governance are secondary to their personal agenda centred around the competition for the spoils and clout of office.

A rule of the masses has thereby been unleashed, leading to a mad contest for the powers of governance amongst various “civil society” organisations. Today many of these mushrooming power centres have naturally filled in where the government is absent and have even assumed the judicial powers of summons, inquisitions and trials, executive powers of levying taxes, excise duties and even to mete out summary punishments.

They legislate too through diktats and decrees. And yet the government continues to pretend there is nothing seriously wrong and that the law and order situation has improved. Time for all, most pertinently the government, to wake up.
Source:kanglaonline.com

Share:

Read full story►