As our flight from Delhi landed at the airport in Imphal, the capital of Manipur, the relief was palpable. The temperature at 28 degrees Celsius was welcome. But my happiness was short-lived.
As I looked around, it was impossible to miss the evidence of under-development. The two vehicles we used had passed their prime a long time back. In the city one saw many places where garbage had not been collected. Soon I was to hear a lot about galloping unemployment, failure to attract industry and a flawed education system.
The most tragic sight in the city was an exceedingly long queue of motorists who have been waiting for hours to buy a few litres of petrol or diesel. At another outlet one saw an even longer queue of two-wheelers for the same purpose. What a waste of time and productivity, I thought.
In the next three days, I had several conversations with academics, members of civil society, editors and journalists. They spoke about the immediate cause of the fuel crisis, the blockade of national highways number 39 and 53 that normally brought supplies through Nagaland into Manipur. The supply line had been disrupted by serious political developments. But they talked much more about the malaise that has gripped Manipur for long.
Serious discontent prevailed, I was told, among people against the government, both at the central and state levels. A young but thoughtful interlocutor said that a “disconnect” existed between the government and the people, essentially because fruits of development had not reached the latter adequately. “Why was it so,” I asked. “Corruption,” was the cryptic response.
Unhappiness with New Delhi was even more complex. When I pointed out that many positive developments had taken place such as a steep increase in the development budget, the positive contribution of the North Eastern Council and the setting up of a new ministry, namely, the Ministry of Development of North East Region, the point was conceded for a while.
Then the litany against New Delhi or ‘against India’ began: ‘the independent kingdom of Manipur’ was merged with India through a dubious process in 1947-48; the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and the restricted areas permit regime were unacceptable restrictions on the province’s democracy; the extent of insurgency was exaggerated; attacks by insurgents were sometimes found to be the acts by agents provocateurs, etc.
A major grievance was that, in the context of a feud over the proposed visit of NSCN leader Thuingaleng Muivah to his ancestral village in Manipur, Delhi was favouring him and was being unfair to the people of Manipur. By refraining from taking effective action to end the blockade of national highways, the central government was not doing what it should, they argued.
Some feared that the size of Manipur might shrink “once again”. The reference was to the Nehruvian time when India settled its boundary with U Nu’s Burma. This had entailed ignoring Manipur’s claim to the Kabaw Valley.
Independent India had to factor in the decisions of the Raj as well as the larger ramifications involving other neighbours. Whereas for India and Myanmar the matter had been settled a long time back, the noteworthy point was that the perception in Manipur was one of a historic wrong.
Insurgency in Manipur might be under control, but it has not disappeared. The presence of security personnel is quite visible. Nevertheless, a plethora of underground outfits continue to flourish through extortion of large sums of money from business and even government officials.
Topography of the area is helpful to their hit-and-run operations. They are reportedly a divided lot, but they manage to create a sense of abnormalcy and uncertainty in the state. Until this is remedied, new business groups can hardly be expected to invest without which economic problems cannot be resolved.
Addressing an elite audience of strategic community in Delhi recently, Home Minister P. Chidambaram asserted that insurgency in the North-East could be contained, controlled and resolved. Most would agree with him. For this very purpose, the Ministry of Home Affairs should consider undertaking a fresh evaluation of ground realities in Manipur. This should be followed by an in-depth dialogue involving all stakeholders, including the government and a representative section of society.
Alternatively, a more flexible Track II approach could be adopted. The objective of dialogue in either format should be to identify key obstacles to development and to craft an acceptable and actionable blueprint for future.
No one can wean away the people of Manipur from the Republic of India, but it is the Republic’s duty to reduce their discontent. Only then will Manipur, known as “the flower on the lofty heights”, become a shining jewel on the forehead of Mother India.
