A Response to “The nation state and its territory”

Bimol Akoijam
MS Prabhakaran, the author of the article,The nation state and its territory (Hindu, 8 June, 2011), is an old hand in the state of affairs in Northeast. In fact, you can almost count him as one of the Northeasterner as such. However, he, like most non-professional academics who haven’t grappled, perhaps, thoroughly with the conceptual categories and perspectives that are being invoked in his above article, ends up conflating the "categories" and correspondingly created confusions and avoidable conclusions which have far reaching political implications.

For instance, his conflation between “state” and “nation” and “nation-state” have produced a distorted idea of “territoriality” vis-à-vis the former three categories. In a similar manner, because of his conflation between “memory” and “history”, he fails to see the difference between those articulating the “Naga nation” and the “Manipuri nation” (and the geo-political statuses and the issue of “territoriality” in juridico-political terms) in the light of the “aspiration” that distinguishes between what he has termed as something that “came into being within living memory or has been a stable polity for centuries”.

Consequently, he misses two crucial aspects. First, he misses the difference in the definitions of “Manipur” and “Nagaland” (correspondingly, what are these two “entities”); for instance, going by the Schedule 1 of the Constitution of India, which incidentally also gives enough hints on the historicity of the formation of the present postcolonial Indian State (as different from the “idea of India” which has been appropriated by, albeit in a truncated form that does not sit well with, the present Indian State), the former (Manipur) existed as a “geo-political” entity with a stable polity before the commencement of the Constitution (thereby the present Indian State) while the latter (Nagaland) as a “geopolitical entity” with a “stable polity” came into being by virtue of the Constitution (thereby, after the present Indian State and in some sense, by virtue of its political will).

Secondly, that the historicity and contemporary reality of postcolonial politics have produced an “instable polity” in Manipur was completely ignored in his analytical engagement. It is worthwhile to remember that a state with a constitution of its own with a democratically elected Assembly based on universal adult franchise and a “responsible” government was unceremoniously dissolved by New Delhi as it “took over” the state in 1949 and initiated a long 23 years of a bureaucratic rule of Manipur by New Delhi.

This aspect of Manipur's recent history has critical bearings on contemporary Manipur. Having been freed from the alien rule, while the rest of world got the opportunity to shape their destiny on their own terms and aspirations as a mark of postcolonial ethos, Manipur was reduced to an unfortunate trajectory in the form of a deprivation of that postcolonial experience of self rule. As a result of this ironical post-colonial life, the sense of “peoplehood” and polity based on the notion “popular sovereignty” in Manipur has been weaken over the years. Indeed, the fractured nature of the idea of “people of Manipur” has lots to do with that weakening of a democratic politics in the state. The awareness of being a people who have a common stake in the socio-economic and political processes determined by a shared (democratic) polity of being a state was substituted by a political culture wherein the people have been reduced to (competing) “clients” whose well-being was/is critically depended upon their competing proximity to the distant “patron” (New Delhi) and its representative at Imphal.

In fact, this "patron-client" relationship between New Delhi and Manipur reproduces and re-enforces subservient mindset and lack of self-confidence to deal with issues with a sense of one’s own sense of agency associated with old feudal and colonial dispensations in Manipur.  In fact, this "patron-client" structure is one singular aspect that critically determines not only the political culture in Manipur but also many other aspects of life beyond politics in the state.

It is also this aspect that brings in New Delhi as a primary mover in the region, particularly Manipur. Incidentally, it is also a fact that the deepening of the present so-called “ethnic” divide in Manipur is not un-related to the ongoing negotiation between the Naga rebels and the Government of India. This has also been subsequently left out of the analytical purview of Prabhakaran’s analysis.

On the other hand, things get complicated in Manipur as derivative discourses and politics that smack of “two-nation” theory (deeply informed by some sense of “ethnic” and “religious” ideas) and a majoritarian nationalist imagination that smacks of “imperial nostalgia” (a strand of which is a counterpart of Hindu nationalist, either in its right wing variety or those who equate “Indic”, wittingly or unwittingly, with “Hindu”) continue to play havoc in Manipur.

And yet, the political class and its intelligentsia of a “nation” whose birth trauma was caused by a “two-nation theory”, and whose contemporary life continues to be haunted by the ghost of that theory and remnant communal politics, have hardly countered the aspirations and politics of similar kinds that marked the so-called “ethnic conundrum” in the Northeast, particularly Manipur. 

Indeed, that the leadership and members of the intelligentsia in this country have never denounced the political ideology that smacks of “two-nation theory” (saying that people with different religion or ethnic groups have different “destinies”) that lies behind the territorial demands is a telling revelation. (In fact, I have come across well-known public figures and lobbyists who denounce communal politics and its concomitant ideas in the case of the so-called “mainstream” India while supporting the same in case of what’s happening in Manipur).

Thus, generally speaking, these issues have hardly been acknowledged, leave alone addressed, when one talks or writes of the “conflict” ridden Manipur and its contested and unstable polity. The present write up by MS Prabhakaran is no exception to that kind of articulation.

And it must go without saying that such absences or denials have critical bearings on the present and future of not only the Nagas or the Manipuris but also the people in the entire Northeast and arguably India as a “nation” and more accurately as a postcolonial “state”.

AFSPA : Prescribing Colas for cold

It cannot get clearer than this. The Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court with Justice Amitabh Roy and Justice BS Agarwal on the bench, in their August 31, 2010, ruling has clearly stated that the State Government can go ahead and peruse the report submitted by the C Upendra Commission and accordingly take action in the case pertaining to the arrest, ‘rape’ and custodial killing of Th Manorama way back in the month of July in 2004. Though the details and the legal terminologies which encase the Armed Forces Special Powers Act may be Greek to the common people, not lettered with the proceedings of the Court or the language used in legal proceedings, the implication of AFSPA is more than clear to the 25 odd lakh population of the State. This specifically means that the Gauhati High Court has refused to buy the argument of the Assam Rifles that since their men acted under the legal immunity granted by the said Act, the State Government is not authorised to institute the Judicial Inquiry, much less act on it, and hence the Commission's report should not be entertained at all. The argument of the Assam Rifles rests on two premises, one on the legal and the other on the successful indoctrination of the idea that human casualties or to put it in a more sophisticated term, made popular by the Indian Army, collateral damages which are inevitable during any CI Ops. The long years of such indoctrination obviously gave the security personnel a sense of immunity from the laws of the land and the inevitability of the collateral damages came to be understood as the license to shoot indiscriminately and kill indiscriminately, pick up suspected targets and act as the police, judge and executioner, all rolled into one. The timing of the Court's ruling has also come at the opportune moment, if we take a look at what is happening in the other trouble spot of India, Kashmir. Ever since the civil unrest started in Kashmir more than two months back, it has snuffed out the lives of a number of youngsters, who are at the most in their late teens. Boys as young as 13 or 14 coming out to the street to engage the security personnel who are armed not only with their guns, but also AFSPA, says something very significant and it is but natural that a debate should start on whether AFSPA is the wrong prescription for the situation in the North East and Kashmir. The ruling of the Gauhati High Court on August 31 is sure to set a precedent and give a dose of booster shot in the arms of all those who feel they have been wronged by the wrong side of the law under AFSPA. As we have said, the ruling of the Gauhati High Court is clear and we can also predict clearly that the military establishment, maybe backed by the Union Home Ministry, will move the Supreme Court for a hearing of the said case and we can be rest assured that it would consume so much time that the relevance of the issue may lose their sting. Kashmir is hot right now, Sharmila is still on her fast unto death agitation demanding revocation or repeal of the Act and is set to complete ten years of her fast in November this year and of course seminars and discourses, such as the one which is lined up on September 8 at New Delhi where Parliamentarians, scholars, members of the armed forces and representatives from Indian civil societies will meet to discuss the said Act under the topic, “We need to need to break the deadlock in the debate on AFSPA.”
All the points we have mentioned are clear, this much is certain. What is uncertain is, of course, how the Supreme Court will view the judgement passed by the Gauhati High Court. Despite the din and ruckus created over AFSPA and the propaganda that runs along the line that it is not only discriminatory but is a perfect tool to keep the people of the North East under subjugation, through the barrel of the guns, we do understand the spirit of AFSPA. That National integrity is paramount to Delhi is under- standable and we leave it to the contending parties to come to a negotiated settlement on the question of whether a group of people or territory should remain within the Indian Union or not. However while the spirit of AFSPA is understandable, what is unacceptable and will not pass the test of a free and democratic country is the abuse of the said Act. The clear lack of any guilt or remorse on the part of the military officers, who, besides getting trained in warfare, have been taught to be gentlemen and officers, only add to the rabid stand against this Act. The clauses contained in AFSPA harks back to the days of the British Raj, meaning it was intended to keep under control a colonised people and region, and adding to the satanic side of the Act is the very conduct of some security personnel, including officers, who are supposed to lead by example. Why, even the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court more than three decades back are not adhered to at all. If the directives of the Supreme Court had been taken as the soul or the conscience keeper of the Act, then such a hue and cry against the said Act may not have arisen. We may not have witnessed an Oinam, a Manora-ma, a Ngaprum Rose, Malom, Heirangoithong, RIMS, Tonsen Lamkhai etc. These instances are but just a fraction of all the cases of excesses committed by the men in uniform that come to mind and Nagaland, too will have many similar tales to tell. In Manorama's death, the State Government has at last been given the opportunity to prove its mettle and demonstrate how it can stand up to the mighty Indian military establishment. This is one extremely uneasy and uncertain point in the whole story that is unfolding before our eyes. That a definite date for the Cabinet to meet and discuss the reports of the C Upendra Commission has not yet been set, rings out an uncomfortable thought and we hope it is not a precursor of the things to come.

Sharmila’s date with AFSPA

The timing is right and so are the circumstances. The debate over the controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act is not something new and it has been there since the late 70s or early 80s, when the Naga People's Movement for Human Rights filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India challenging the validity or legality of the said Act. The Court ruled in favour of the said Act, but in the process it laid down a certain set of dos and don'ts for the security personnel, who operate under the legal protection provided by this Act. At the moment, the debate over the continued imposition of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act has reached a crescendo, with the focus on the unrest in Jammu and Kashmir, which has so far claimed the lives of nearly 70 or more civilians in the last 60 days or so. Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has already made his position clear and that is AFSPA needs to be repealed as it has only succeeded in alienating the people of Kashmir further. This point has also been brought to the notice of the Centre numerous times, by several human rights groups from the North East and perhaps, the year 2004 will go down as a water shed in the protest against the continued imposition of the said Act. The nude protest by women folk in front of Kangla, the self immolation of Pebam Chittaranjan, the over two months long agitation which ultimately led Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh to fly down to Imphal in November , 2004 wherein the Justice Jeevan Reddy Commission was constituted to look into the finer details of the said Act and see what can be done. As things have turned out, the Centre has been sleeping over the recommendations of the Justice Jeevan Reddy Commission, but the significance of the Prime Minister's observation that a humane Act is needed, cannot be lost on anyone, especially the policy framers of the country as well as the military establishment. At that point of time, in 2004, Kashmir did not figure prominently in the debate, but today, the focus on the said Act, which is a remnant of the British Raj, has come into focus following the turmoil in Kashmir for more than two months, which has seen teenagers coming out on the streets to engage the security personnel in a battle of stone pelting or catapult war. There is something different in the present turmoil, for the security forces are not engaged by any armed or banned organisations, but by the ordinary folks, mostly comprising of young people, some of whom must have just stepped into their teens. With the body bags increasing, it took Union Home Minister P Chidambaram to admit that proposals to amend the said Act, which gives sweeping powers to the military, have met with stiff opposition from some quarters and we do not need rocket science technology to work out who are the ones opposing any move to dilute the said Act and make it more humane or make the security forces more accountable to the law of the land. The fact that the Supreme Court deemed it necessary to issue a certain set of guidelines or dos and don'ts to the security forces, operating under this Act, is a tacit acceptance of the fact that the said Act contains provisions for misuse of power, that do nothing except victimise the people.
While AFSPA has come to occupy centre stage in Delhi and elsewhere due to the turmoil in Kashmir, in Manipur too, this Act has resurfaced to occupy precious newspapers columns for two entirely different reasons. Wittingly or unwittingly, it was Chief Minister O Ibobi who raked up the AFSPA issue while addressing the people while paying tributes to late Major Laishram Jyotin, who died fighting terrorists, who had stormed the Indian Embassy at Kabul in the early part of this year. Perhaps it was over enthusiasm or perhaps it was the failure to grasp the heart beats of the people, or perhaps it was a deliberate attempt to add more punch to the questions posed against the numerous women activists, who have been crying hoarse about human rights violations, but have been keeping a deafening silence, over the increasing cases of bomb attacks and violence in Imphal area. Whatever the case, Chief Minister O Ibobi managed to rake up the AFSPA issue, when he opted for the carrot and stick policy, by hinting or subtly threatening that AFSPA may be re-imposed in the seven Assembly segments of the Indian Municipal Council, if things do not improve. That the carrot and stick policy no longer impresses an adult audience, seems to have blown over the head of the Chief Minister, but in one stroke he has been able to bring the focus back on AFSPA, while this issue is being hotly debated in other parts of the country, following the unprecedented public turmoil in Kashmir. On a more sombre but dignified manner, this said Act has come back to the consciousness of the people of Manipur, as Irom Sharmila Chanu is set to complete ten years of hunger strike, demanding the total revocation of the said Act. The lone crusader has in the last ten years or so, demonstrated to the whole world, how an issue can be kept alive or a target pursued by steering clear of threatrics and indulging in lung power or street politics, where everything is noise and din with little substance. It has been a dignified and silent protest, far removed from the type of protests that we have seen in this part of the world. So in Kashmir, it is the turmoil during the last 60 days or so of public protest, while in Manipur, it was the ‘slip of the tongue’ of the Chief Minister and the dignified and silent protest launched by Sharmila which have brought the said controversial Act into the consciousness of the people. The important and critical question lying before us, as former Health Director Dr Th Suresh pointed out in a letter to the Editor and published some days back in this newspaper is, what would be the fate of Sharmila, if everyone accepts some cuts and amendments in AFSPA instead of its total repeal ? The answer can only be provided by Sharmila herself, but let's also not forget that constructive counselling is important and that she has done more than what all the other champions of human rights have done till date.

The Himalayan divide

Two most populous countries in the world with vast human resources at their disposal, vast geographical areas which add to their advantage over geographically smaller Nations, occupying strategic positions on the map of South Asia with easy access to sea routes, which means avenues for maritime trade and commerce, natural boundaries and immediate neighbours to boot. One a Communist country, with constant State interventions in almost every aspects of the life of its citizens, but which nevertheless have found the right, if not perfect, formula to blend Communism with a market driven economy and the other, the largest democracy in the world, embracing within its fold different religions, communities and linguistic groups, and wedded to the idea of Socialism for the greater period after 1947 only to be rudely woken up by the changing global scenario in the early 90s. Indeed, no other country or Nation, would come close to the journey that India and China have chosen to step into the 21st Century and very significantly, today, China has replaced Japan as the second largest or strongest economy in the world, just after the United States. India too has not been doing badly, counted as it is amongst the top 15 Nations in terms of its economic growth and potential. Apart from its recently discovered economic renaissance, China today stands as the country with the biggest military, while India too comes somewhere close after China, the US and Russia. One a democracy and one a Communist country, with the mighty Himalayan range serving as the natural boundary between the two Nations, which many believe will be the giants of the new millennium. That two countries, with the biggest populations in the world and hitherto striving and surviving under the Utopian dream or political beliefs of Socialism where the term Capitalism was considered a dirty word, should today emerge as economic power houses on the world stage is something that would not have been thought possible two or even one decade ago. The other side of the new found global status of these two neighbours is the politics of one upmanship being staged before the world, in the race to dominate the scenario in South East Asia, for the future of Asia lies here and not the Middle East, where the US has shown that it has more than a simple interest in over throwing tin pot dictators like Saddam Hussein or dogmatic regimes like the Taliban or exterminating terror groups like Al Qaeda. The uneasy relationship between China and India is not new and we can trace this to the Nehru era, when the slogan Hindi-Chini-Bhai-Bhai was over night turned into an open confrontation on the high altitude battle fields of the Himalayas. India suffered great losses in the confrontations, and even today, China has not retracted from its claim that Arunachal Pradesh, part or the whole of it, belongs to them. The latest movement of missiles close to the Indo-China border by the Chinese has only exacerbated the tense relationship.
It is not a question of who wins or who loses, but a question of power equation and political influence in South East Asia. Already China has shown interest in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan, with promises of financial and technical aid, which is sure to hurt the interest of India. The changing posture of New Delhi towards the Military Junta in Myanmar, at the expense of Aung San Suu Kyi, is a telling commentary of the compulsion and need of strategic tie ups in regional politics. Again it is due to the dictates of regional politics that India today no longer talks about Tibet as an occupied province of China. This brief sketch of the two most populous countries in the world may perhaps give us the opportunity to have a wider understanding of the ruckus and political outcry raised after the Chinese refused to grant visa to Lt General BS Jaswal, the GOC-in-C of the Northern Command of the Indian Army on the ground that China still views Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed zone. Not surprisingly, a whole lot of political parties and the Indian military establishment have cried foul over the conduct of the Chinese Government. Some have even called the visa refusal an insult to India, though Union Defence Minister AK Antony has somehow tried to play it down by asserting that this will not mean an end to any military co-operation between the two countries. That China should see India as a potential rival in Asia and even in the world, is by itself an acknowledgement of the growing political and economic clout of India, but a closer look will expose that India is not exactly a holy cow, when it comes to matters of diplomatic ties. Much before the Lt General was denied a visa by China, a similar incident, which bordered on the nonsense, happened in Manipur. This did not kick up a ruckus nor did it register in the consciousness of the Indian Republic. To cut a long story short, sometime in the early/middle part of July this year, an invitation was sent to the Chinese General Consul based in Kolkata, Mr Mao Siwei by the Dean of Social Science of Manipur University. The Chinese diplomat was supposed to be here from August 9 to 16 and among his itinerary was a lecture on the topic, China And India : Linked Yet Different Civilisations. The invitation was sent not by any Tom, Dick or Harry, but by the Dean of Social Science, Manipur University, which is a statutory post created by Parliament. However the Consul General was denied permission to visit Manipur by the Ministry of External Affairs, without citing any reason ! Herein lies a tale. A Consul General already in Kolkata, a city in India denied entry to Manipur, a State of India sounds much weirder than refusing a visa to an Army officer to visit China from India !

Shooting the messenger ?

It comes close to a case of barking up the wrong tree or shooting the messenger ! The outburst against Union Home Minister P Chidambaram for stating that there is no question of compromising the territorial integrity of Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh by the United Naga Council recently amounts to missing the target by miles. As the Union Home Minister, Chidambaram is sure to have his takes and views on the Greater Lim issue, but what he said on the floor of Parliament a few days back, is nothing more than what two Prime Ministers of India had said earlier. It is a little surprising to see that the UNC, which otherwise is regarded as a keen observer with a clear agenda guided by political prudence should overlook the subtle but significant points made by two Prime Ministers on the Lim issue earlier. Yes Chidambaram, in line with his personality, spoke out bluntly but let us not forget the recent Independence Day address to the Nation by Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh. Not given to loud talks and rhetorics, the observation of the Prime Minister, “I would like to convey to all political parties and groups of the North East that disputes in the name of States or tribes can only harm us,” is pregnant with meaning and in a way is a direct address to the Lim issue. This is as good as what Mr Chidambaram said on the floor of the Parliament, though we do agree it was bereft of political niceties and diplomacy. Before Dr Manmohan Singh, Atal Behari Vajpayee, during his days as the Prime Minister in the NDA Government delivered a similar message, wherein he said that political consensus is needed to resolve the Lim issue, while addressing a public meeting at Kohima some years back. This is political prudence at its best. The question therefore is why the UNC should be so rankled by the statement of Mr Chidambaram, when all he did was echo the message of the two Prime Ministers in clear cut terms, without dolling it up with political niceties and diplomacy. In such a charged up political scenario, the decision of the apex Naga body in Manipur to extend the 20 days economic blockade by yet another 25 days is not surprising. The 20 days economic blockade announced by the UNC came into force on August 4 and was to wind up by 6 am of August 24, which is today (Tuesday). However as things stand today, the blockade has been extended by another 25 days and to put it bluntly, we will not be surprised if Manipur as a whole remain indifferent to it, as like bandhs and general strikes, economic blockade has also lost its novelty and down the years the rest of Manipur have learnt to cope with what is available, without making much of a hue and cry. This is precisely the reason why there was no response or even the slightest hint of an acknowledgement when the indefinite blockade was suspended on June 18 this year after 68 days of cutting off the lifelines of the State. That the decision to decide the fate of the people of Manipur was taken at Kohima only added to the chagrin of the people and of course no one could have missed the arrogance in the tone of the blockade sponsors, when they announced the suspension of the economic blockade. Much have been said about the demand raised by the NSCN (IM) to integrate all Naga inhabited areas under one administrative umbrella as well as the stiff opposition to this demand by civil society organisations like the All Manipur United Clubs' Organisation and the United Committee Manipur. In fact, before the demand for a Greater Lim became vocal and before this idea was passed on to the Naga civil society organisations in Manipur by the NSCN (IM), AMUCO had demonstrated great far sightedness in organising the massive integrity rally on August 4, 1997, which has since served as the rallying point for all those who stand for a unified Manipur.
After August 4, 1997, Manipur has experienced troubling times, such as the June 18 incident of 2001, the 52 days economic blockade imposed by the All Naga Students' Association, Manipur in 2005 to the stand off between the NSCN (IM) and the State Government over the proposed visit of Th Muivah to his native place sometime in the early part of May this year. The Mao incident of May 6, 2010 in which two young students lost their lives and the 68 days economic blockade that followed are all intrinsically linked to the Lim issue and there is every reason to pre-suppose that the stiff opposition to the election to the Autonomous District Council had something or everything to do with the Lim demand. Otherwise, how can one explain the diametrically opposing stand taken by the Kukis and the Nagas, for the ADCs are meant for the tribal people and these two represent the biggest tribes in Manipur. Or are we to believe that the opposition to the ADC election was solely linked to the third amendment of 2008 ? We do not really comprehend the finer nuances of the politics of the ongoing peace parleys between the NSCN (IM) and the Government of India, so we really do not know whether Union Home Minister P Chidambaram is answerable to the various charges levelled against him by the UNC, but one point that is clear to us is, the Home Minister said what other political leaders have said before him, though not as directly and as bluntly as him. The examples of the two Prime Ministers, we have cited above, should be self explanatory. It was not only the statements of the two Prime Ministers, but if we care to minutely study the political developments vis-a-vis the Lim issue, the roll back of the term “without territorial limits” from the June 14, 2001 Bangkok Declaration during the days of the NDA regime, way back in July 2001, should have conveyed the core message. The points we have quoted, obviously blew over the heads of organisations like the UNC. It is a pity that the UNC reacted only against the statement of the Union Home Minister, though the fact stands that two Prime Ministers before him had said much the same thing, though they put it differently.

Prime Time privilege

Forget about Parliament, even the mainstream media, meaning the news channels and newspapers that have a pan-India reach and outlook, have always tended to overlook the North East region, in its coverage. There could be many factors for this such as the limited market and the general lack of awareness of the region amongst the newspaper readers or news channel watchers in mainland India, or it could just be a case of “North East ? Where is that ?,” where people from this region are identified by their Mongoloid features. Chinky is the term used to identify the North East boys and girls in places such as Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai etc and while most of the youths from this region have managed to come to terms with it, the overt derogatory tone accompanying this term cannot miss the eye. To draw a parallel, it is like using the term Hao Macha to describe the hill men in Manipur, particularly by the Meiteis, and we have seen and experienced, how the usage of such terms can lead to deep wounds and scars that refuse to go away. Even in the West, the Blacks are no longer referred to as Negroes or the more discriminatory Niggers. Even the term Blacks now come with another more acceptable name, which is African Americans. In fact so deeply is the modern world against racism or racial discrimination, in the post Apartheid era, that any comment which is construed as racially demeaning or discriminatory, is most likely to land the person responsible in a soup ! We have just made a general observation of where the North East, including Manipur stands in the overall mental make up of the people of the so called mainland India. The fact that the term North East is used particularly to refer to the seven States, eight if Sikkim is included, is in itself some sort of a “Us and Them” syndrome. This reality that we see all around gets reflected in the manner in which the media, which have an all India audience or readership, overlooks many critical issues besetting this region. So while the marriage between Sania Mirza and a cricket player from Pakistan made it to the prominent pages of all the newspapers and occupied prime time slots in the news channels, critical issues like the humanitarian crisis arising out of the economic blockade imposed on the highways leading to Manipur, the stand off between the Government of Manipur and the NSCN (IM) over the proposed visit of Th Muivah to his birth place in Somdal, the mautam or bamboo flowering phenomena which has come back to haunt some States in the North East are stashed away in the cold storage. The mainland media or the media which has an all India reach seemed more concerned over the movements of former junior Foreign Minister Shashi Tharoor and Sunanda Pushkar ! Some years back, it took Rajdeep Sardesai of CCN IBN to personally explain the stand of the news channel why the same coverage was not given when Assam and Bihar faced floods of the same magnitude at the same time. This time too, Sardesai has anchored a show, “Is Manipur India's Forgotten State ?” These measures though welcome seem to be more like some damage control exercise rather than trying to sincerely look into the situation and bring it to the knowledge of the people, to whom North East is as alien as China or the most isolated Nation in the world North Korea.
This is the general scenario, including the coverage of the North East in the mainstream media (We are using this term for want of a better alternative, much like the term Bollywood) and merely digesting the fact that two of the leading fortnightly magazines in the country, India Today and Outlook do not have their correspondents in the North East is an exercise in itself. Yes, earlier there were correspondents of these two publications based in Guwahati, but for reasons best known to them, the job of covering the North East has now fallen on the correspondent based in Kolkata. It is amid this climate of seeming indifference, not only among the political circle and the media, not to talk about the public of India, that Manipur figured prominently just the other day on the floor of the Lok Sabha. It is not often that critical issues besetting the State or the North East region get prime time slots in Parliament, but this time, it was a bit heartening to see Union Home Minister P Chidambaram put to rest certain issues, by speaking bluntly and without trying to confuse the public. These issues pertain to the controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the creation of a Greater Nagalim, where Naga inhabited areas from Manipur, Assam and Arunachal are sought to be brought under a single administrative unit. To the people of the North East and Manipur the Armed Forces Special Powers Act is not something new and it is perhaps this Act which propelled Manipur into one of those prime time slots in the news channels and precious column in the newspapers. This happened way back in 2004, when people rose as one to demand the revocation of the said Act, after the bullet riddled body of Th Manorama was found the day after she was whisked away by a team of Assam Rifles personnel. The nude protest in front of Kangla will remain etched in the minds of everyone and the said controversial Army Act will always be associated with this historic and never before seen demonstration by women folk in India. Yes a debate on the controversial Act is raging and Home Minister Chidambaram took pains to explain that the Government needs to consult all concerned. It should be obvious that the concerned here is the defence establishment. Ironically everyone seems to have forgotten the lone woman, who will continue to be seen as the inspiring force behind the anti-AFSPA movement, Irom Chanu Sharmila who is set to complete ten years of fasting to demand the revocation of the said Act. History will not judge India favourably, if it ignores the gutsy mission of this lone crusader, when it comes to the question of AFSPA. And for the records, Manipur too was in the limelight during the months of June and July in 2001, when the Bangkok Declaration between India and the IM group was announced.