By : Seram Rojesh
June 18 will remain a landmark in the history of the post ‘Indian rule’ in ‘Manipur state’. It can be interpreted from many perspectives and understanding that how, why it is. It has been observing as ‘the Unity day, the great June uprising, the black day by many of the group of consciousness in the state. The general will of the people of Manipur reaffirms that people can go to that extend even to attack the existing Indian state if the state moves any steps that may destroy the existing state of Manipur.
On 18 June 2001, lakes of people defied Indian law imposed curfew and came on street to safe the existing Manipur state from Indian policy which desire to eliminate the state permanently and to keep Manipur as a small ‘colony’ like a place ‘defense colony’ ’mukherjee nagar’, vejay nagar of new Delhi or many such type in the name of protecting ‘Indian national interest’.18 people have sacrificed their life and more than 38 people caught the life bullets fired by Indian forces. More than 18 MLA quarters were burned including the chief minister office. The symbol of the state power system, Manipur Assembly was burn and destroyed and most significantly the Indian national flag was also burned behind the assembly road. Most of the Indian National political party offices including INC, BJP, Samata party, were also attacked by the people. The question is why the general will of the people on the day attacked all the symbols and the institutions of the state, India? Was it only to maintain the territorial integrity of Manipur? Than why many people in the protest came with ‘seven colors flag ‘of Manipur. What it signifies holding flag on the top of the point in front of the governor’s house and people around were clapping?
Why the Indian state wants to disintegrate and destroy Manipur? What was the internal logic behind the extension of ‘cease-fire’ ‘without territorial limit’ by the state? Is it because Indian government is afraid of the NSCN –IM or Government of India is Using NSCN-IM as a instrument to implement her policy to create more bloodshed in the region that has racially different from Indian core imaginary people of the country ? Can we look this policy as same as other policy of reorganization in other internal states? Or is it trying to say that your account and demand will be taking into account only when you have taken arms otherwise No? Many thousand questions emerge naturally.
The writer is trying to understand some few questions. In the light of the father of the political science, Aristotle’s theory of revolution, says; if a bigger alien country annexed a smaller country (entity) which has been there own existence as an independent then naturally the subject of the state (people) would always revolt against the state no matter whether the revolt will be succeeded or not rather as a natural that the people have no culture to be ruled by other alien forces or entity. His idea is that the revolution is a ‘natural’ outcome in such situation. So Aristotle suggests two main important ways to counter the revolution to the state;
(1) State should divide the ‘annexed territory’ into different units so that they can’t stand as an entity in future. Territory is of the important character of a state.
(2) ‘Economy’ should be made totally dependent on the ‘centre’ so that people can’t concentrate on the question of being separate existence from the centre. If people are fighting for ‘bread and butter’ than they can’t even think of their national questions.
As a political thinker he also suggests to the ‘people’ that people should not trust to the ‘centre’ that you will be protected by the centre. If you want to protect from the alien forces and your own existence than you have to establish your own forces to protect your own existence.
We can understand the politics the Indian state in the last 59 years in Manipur, that state has been systematically applying the two ways of counter revolution of Aristotle in the context of territorial issue. That is why the ‘hindutva party, the BJP tried to disintegrate Manipur in the name of cease fire by using the related organization demand. In Kashmir also especially BJP is trying to divide Jammu and Kashmir into three unites respectively Jammu, Ladhak and Kashmir with the recommendation of BHP (Bishwa Hindu Parishad) and RSS. Congress as an experience political party knows how to do politics in this regards. Congress is internally supporting the dividing forces very wisely. Congress know how to devide systematically. In 2001 BJP government dissolved Samata party led government of Manipur prior so that Indian government can implement the politics of “without territorial limits’. Communal party, BJP was expected a bloodshed between the people who what to safeguard Manipur and the groups who are contesting it after the declaration of ‘without territorial limits’. Indian government was expecting an attack on minorities or Nagas so that they can send more armies in the name of protecting the so called ‘nagas’ and divide Manipur into different pieces. Indian Political calculation was proved to wrong by the general will of people in ‘June 18’and the thousand of protester attacked all the symbols of the Indian states.
It is quite true that in the last six decades Indian rule in Manipur, Manipur economy is now totally dependent on the centre, New Delhi. General people of Manipur think without Delhi, Manipur can’t survive. That is why when national highway 59 and 53 is known as Manipuri life line not simply as Highway. This kind of ‘life line consciousness’ was never been in the mind of Manipur people before Indian rule in Manipur. Before, Manipur economy was never dependent on outside territory. Now this economics dependence became a key in the question of Manipuri national question. The general “unconscious perception” says ‘how can Manipur live separately from India when National highway 39and 43are blocked, there is no available of basic commodities in Manipur. Manipur have no enough resource’ in Manipuri ‘yetum amaphaoba saba heitaba Manipurna kamdouna tonganna leigani,chara hendana siroidro? Aristotle idea of economic dependency is quite right in the context of Manipuri dependency economy. We don’t need to confuse about Manipuri economy dependency to centre. It is a great success of ‘Indian economic core political policy’ towards the region particularly Manipur.
The existence of Manipur itself and growing Manipur national consciousness itself became a dangerous threat to the existence of Indian State. That is why India wanted Manipur to be disintegrated. It is also not because India hates Manipur or they love NSCN-IM but India wants to remain India as it is. The main idea is, if Manipur is disintegrated, the remaining Manipur valley will remain automatically as part of a small colony in India and the question of sovereign and independent Manipur will automatically vanished permanently since without the proper territorial entity, a state can’t be established. It is also wanted by the state that if the NSCN-IM is paid with their demand which is also fulfilled the ‘Indian national Interest’ than there is no threat that India can be disintegrated in the north east frontiers. India wanted to kill two ‘natural birds’ by one bullet without any Indian army casualties. this is a of narrow politics and it should be end.
Every people have the art to protect from the external threat. That is why people have existed as a people. As a same tradition people of Manipur has been exiting from the last many centuries and it will be as people in the future also. ‘June 18’ is also a day that peoples of Manipur reaffirms the existences of Manipur. It is a clear massage that the existences of Manipur can’t be threatened even by Indian state that if the Indian does not respect Manipur than Manipur does not respect India as a state. The statement on the street on ‘18th June’2001 can be read as a first people revolt against Indian misrule in Manipur which has been manifested in the last 52 years. It is also an expression of anger of the people for her lost pride and dignity of being ‘people’. It is much more territorial integrity issues.
Source: http://ifp.co.in/ArticleFull.asp?ArticleID=362
June 18 will remain a landmark in the history of the post ‘Indian rule’ in ‘Manipur state’. It can be interpreted from many perspectives and understanding that how, why it is. It has been observing as ‘the Unity day, the great June uprising, the black day by many of the group of consciousness in the state. The general will of the people of Manipur reaffirms that people can go to that extend even to attack the existing Indian state if the state moves any steps that may destroy the existing state of Manipur.
On 18 June 2001, lakes of people defied Indian law imposed curfew and came on street to safe the existing Manipur state from Indian policy which desire to eliminate the state permanently and to keep Manipur as a small ‘colony’ like a place ‘defense colony’ ’mukherjee nagar’, vejay nagar of new Delhi or many such type in the name of protecting ‘Indian national interest’.18 people have sacrificed their life and more than 38 people caught the life bullets fired by Indian forces. More than 18 MLA quarters were burned including the chief minister office. The symbol of the state power system, Manipur Assembly was burn and destroyed and most significantly the Indian national flag was also burned behind the assembly road. Most of the Indian National political party offices including INC, BJP, Samata party, were also attacked by the people. The question is why the general will of the people on the day attacked all the symbols and the institutions of the state, India? Was it only to maintain the territorial integrity of Manipur? Than why many people in the protest came with ‘seven colors flag ‘of Manipur. What it signifies holding flag on the top of the point in front of the governor’s house and people around were clapping?
Why the Indian state wants to disintegrate and destroy Manipur? What was the internal logic behind the extension of ‘cease-fire’ ‘without territorial limit’ by the state? Is it because Indian government is afraid of the NSCN –IM or Government of India is Using NSCN-IM as a instrument to implement her policy to create more bloodshed in the region that has racially different from Indian core imaginary people of the country ? Can we look this policy as same as other policy of reorganization in other internal states? Or is it trying to say that your account and demand will be taking into account only when you have taken arms otherwise No? Many thousand questions emerge naturally.
The writer is trying to understand some few questions. In the light of the father of the political science, Aristotle’s theory of revolution, says; if a bigger alien country annexed a smaller country (entity) which has been there own existence as an independent then naturally the subject of the state (people) would always revolt against the state no matter whether the revolt will be succeeded or not rather as a natural that the people have no culture to be ruled by other alien forces or entity. His idea is that the revolution is a ‘natural’ outcome in such situation. So Aristotle suggests two main important ways to counter the revolution to the state;
(1) State should divide the ‘annexed territory’ into different units so that they can’t stand as an entity in future. Territory is of the important character of a state.
(2) ‘Economy’ should be made totally dependent on the ‘centre’ so that people can’t concentrate on the question of being separate existence from the centre. If people are fighting for ‘bread and butter’ than they can’t even think of their national questions.
As a political thinker he also suggests to the ‘people’ that people should not trust to the ‘centre’ that you will be protected by the centre. If you want to protect from the alien forces and your own existence than you have to establish your own forces to protect your own existence.
We can understand the politics the Indian state in the last 59 years in Manipur, that state has been systematically applying the two ways of counter revolution of Aristotle in the context of territorial issue. That is why the ‘hindutva party, the BJP tried to disintegrate Manipur in the name of cease fire by using the related organization demand. In Kashmir also especially BJP is trying to divide Jammu and Kashmir into three unites respectively Jammu, Ladhak and Kashmir with the recommendation of BHP (Bishwa Hindu Parishad) and RSS. Congress as an experience political party knows how to do politics in this regards. Congress is internally supporting the dividing forces very wisely. Congress know how to devide systematically. In 2001 BJP government dissolved Samata party led government of Manipur prior so that Indian government can implement the politics of “without territorial limits’. Communal party, BJP was expected a bloodshed between the people who what to safeguard Manipur and the groups who are contesting it after the declaration of ‘without territorial limits’. Indian government was expecting an attack on minorities or Nagas so that they can send more armies in the name of protecting the so called ‘nagas’ and divide Manipur into different pieces. Indian Political calculation was proved to wrong by the general will of people in ‘June 18’and the thousand of protester attacked all the symbols of the Indian states.
It is quite true that in the last six decades Indian rule in Manipur, Manipur economy is now totally dependent on the centre, New Delhi. General people of Manipur think without Delhi, Manipur can’t survive. That is why when national highway 59 and 53 is known as Manipuri life line not simply as Highway. This kind of ‘life line consciousness’ was never been in the mind of Manipur people before Indian rule in Manipur. Before, Manipur economy was never dependent on outside territory. Now this economics dependence became a key in the question of Manipuri national question. The general “unconscious perception” says ‘how can Manipur live separately from India when National highway 39and 43are blocked, there is no available of basic commodities in Manipur. Manipur have no enough resource’ in Manipuri ‘yetum amaphaoba saba heitaba Manipurna kamdouna tonganna leigani,chara hendana siroidro? Aristotle idea of economic dependency is quite right in the context of Manipuri dependency economy. We don’t need to confuse about Manipuri economy dependency to centre. It is a great success of ‘Indian economic core political policy’ towards the region particularly Manipur.
The existence of Manipur itself and growing Manipur national consciousness itself became a dangerous threat to the existence of Indian State. That is why India wanted Manipur to be disintegrated. It is also not because India hates Manipur or they love NSCN-IM but India wants to remain India as it is. The main idea is, if Manipur is disintegrated, the remaining Manipur valley will remain automatically as part of a small colony in India and the question of sovereign and independent Manipur will automatically vanished permanently since without the proper territorial entity, a state can’t be established. It is also wanted by the state that if the NSCN-IM is paid with their demand which is also fulfilled the ‘Indian national Interest’ than there is no threat that India can be disintegrated in the north east frontiers. India wanted to kill two ‘natural birds’ by one bullet without any Indian army casualties. this is a of narrow politics and it should be end.
Every people have the art to protect from the external threat. That is why people have existed as a people. As a same tradition people of Manipur has been exiting from the last many centuries and it will be as people in the future also. ‘June 18’ is also a day that peoples of Manipur reaffirms the existences of Manipur. It is a clear massage that the existences of Manipur can’t be threatened even by Indian state that if the Indian does not respect Manipur than Manipur does not respect India as a state. The statement on the street on ‘18th June’2001 can be read as a first people revolt against Indian misrule in Manipur which has been manifested in the last 52 years. It is also an expression of anger of the people for her lost pride and dignity of being ‘people’. It is much more territorial integrity issues.
Source: http://ifp.co.in/ArticleFull.asp?ArticleID=362
No comments:
Post a Comment