By : A Bimol Akoijam/IFP 12/30/2007 1:05:51 AM
Crisis is not entirely a negative event. While it comes as a moment of calamity, it also opens up opportunities for a new beginning. This is because a person’s character or personality, her/his predilections, and strengths and weaknesses become tangibly visible as she or he confronts the crisis. In that, it gives the person an opportunity to realize what and who she/he is. Besides, it also opens up the possibility of learning new ways of dealing with a situation. Hence, crisis is a moment for self-realization and growth.
Perhaps, such positive aspects of a crisis situation may not be true for a pathological or an imbecile. She or he would be either overwhelmed by the crisis or preoccupied by her/his defensive and knee-jerk reactions to the situation. Consequently, the person shall live with the same old habits, until another crisis—which the person is likely to invite umpteen numbers in course of her/his life—hits again for her/him to repeat the same old knee-jerk, episodic and high voltage reactions. Thus, looking at the manner in which the person responds to a crisis allows us to know the person and her/his potential for growth.
The same logic of crisis is applicable to the collective life as well. The manner in which a given collectivity handles or responds to a crisis situation allows us to see its nature and strengths and weaknesses. In short, crisis allows us to see the “national character” of a given people and their potential for growth.
The Two Epochal Crises
Incidentally, at the beginning of the 21st century, the people of Manipur were given two major opportunities to realize their “national character” and their potential for growth and further evolution in the form of two crises. One came in the form of the “Territorial Integrity” of Manipur (June 2001), and the other appeared shortly in the form of the Bare Protest by the Meira Paibis that followed the murder of Monorama (July 2004). The magnitudes of those two moments were unprecedented. People from all walks of life in the state were somehow implicated in, or touched by, those events that hit the headlines across the globe. Both the events even managed to rattle the otherwise reticent or indifferent “mainstream” political establishment of the largest democracy in the world.
But what were our responses to those crises? What have we learned from those two crises? To many, it might seem redundant to ask these two questions. For, those incredible “patriotic” outcries, they might insist, were self-evident. People have sacrificed their lives in those “Great” uprisings, public meetings had been organized, and many memorandums had been drafted and submitted etc. Thus, one might ask as to what else is there that we need to know by asking these questions?
However, beyond such self-evident, and if one may, self-congratulatory postures, there are enough worrying signs for us. To cite, and serve as an entry point to those signs, let us take the developments that we all see today — perhaps more glaringly than ever before. Each year, June 18 continues to remind the divide between the hills and valley of Manipur. The communal harangue not only has increased but also proliferated in various domains of our life than ever before. It has even manifested amongst the political class, which used to give a united stand on the issue, and the State Assembly bears that testimony today. If our responses to that crisis were self-evidently adequate, why have such developments continued to take place even today?
Or, take the other crisis, after those incredible moments of public protest, the very idea of “People’s Protest” came to an ironical climax when “the people” voted a party which did not even include the issue of Armed Forces Special Powers Act in its election manifestos! In fact, the party won with an unprecedented majority, despite the “conglomerate” of civil society bodies had tried to make it an election issue just before the elections. Will we blame “the people”—as ignorant or an entity that can be bought? Or will we do some soul searching into who and what these “people” are, including the nature of the leadership that have spearheaded the incredible “people’s movement”? Or, significantly, should we look at the why, what and wherefore of the rumbling “what after AFSPA” that we get to hear in Manipur then and now?
Perhaps, we need to be wary of our possible self-fulfilling postures and false consciousness that obstruct us from taking a hard look at these questions. In fact, given our responses to these crises, it seems that we did not fully comprehend our reality that was revealed to us by those two crises.
Response to mask?
The two crises have revealed something crucial in our collective life. But it seems that we have responded to the mask rather than the real visage that lies behind that mask. For instance, what gets revealed in the crisis of June 2001 is not particularly the challenge to the territorial integrity of Manipur by certain organizations or sections of its population. But in a very critical sense, what it reveals to us is the fact that Manipur has already been reduced to a legal-constitutional fiction from being a real geo-political entity that has the necessary politico-legal agency to preserve itself. Besides, most seem to have conflated memory (of the past) with reality (of the concreteness of the present). And consequently, they seem to be more or less oblivious to the fact that the organizing principle and vocabulary of the present is very different from those of the past. Indeed, the legitimacy and hierarchical loyalty structure of kingdom cannot be the same as those of a horizontal democratic and republican order inhabited by the ideas of “citizenship”, rights etc. In short, that Manipur has moved on from a world of a kingdom to inhabit in a republican and democratic order, and that too as a legal-constitutional fiction, is something that we seem to have tragically missed. Similarly, what does the crisis of 2004 reveal is not so much the reality of a juridical problem as it is the nakedness of a stark political reality. Far from being an issue of a piece of legislation, it is a spine-chilling disclosure that a “state of exception” has been used as a “paradigm of government” in Manipur for a long time. This too, most seem to have missed.
Indeed, we must reflect on the nature of those crises and also take a hard look at the nature of our responses so as to see whether those have been informed and concerted ones or episodic and knee-jerk reactions. And our leaders should take the initiative in that exercise. And one hopes that they know that it is a responsibility that they have rather than a privilege position that they occupy. If we fail to reflect on these issues and our leaders fail us, we shall not only invite one crisis after another but also repeat our old habits to sustain the stagnation and decadence that we experience today.
Let this New Year give us the capacity to learn and grow from the crises of life!
The author can be reached at bimol_akoijam@ yahoo.co.in
[IFP]
Crisis is not entirely a negative event. While it comes as a moment of calamity, it also opens up opportunities for a new beginning. This is because a person’s character or personality, her/his predilections, and strengths and weaknesses become tangibly visible as she or he confronts the crisis. In that, it gives the person an opportunity to realize what and who she/he is. Besides, it also opens up the possibility of learning new ways of dealing with a situation. Hence, crisis is a moment for self-realization and growth.
Perhaps, such positive aspects of a crisis situation may not be true for a pathological or an imbecile. She or he would be either overwhelmed by the crisis or preoccupied by her/his defensive and knee-jerk reactions to the situation. Consequently, the person shall live with the same old habits, until another crisis—which the person is likely to invite umpteen numbers in course of her/his life—hits again for her/him to repeat the same old knee-jerk, episodic and high voltage reactions. Thus, looking at the manner in which the person responds to a crisis allows us to know the person and her/his potential for growth.
The same logic of crisis is applicable to the collective life as well. The manner in which a given collectivity handles or responds to a crisis situation allows us to see its nature and strengths and weaknesses. In short, crisis allows us to see the “national character” of a given people and their potential for growth.
The Two Epochal Crises
Incidentally, at the beginning of the 21st century, the people of Manipur were given two major opportunities to realize their “national character” and their potential for growth and further evolution in the form of two crises. One came in the form of the “Territorial Integrity” of Manipur (June 2001), and the other appeared shortly in the form of the Bare Protest by the Meira Paibis that followed the murder of Monorama (July 2004). The magnitudes of those two moments were unprecedented. People from all walks of life in the state were somehow implicated in, or touched by, those events that hit the headlines across the globe. Both the events even managed to rattle the otherwise reticent or indifferent “mainstream” political establishment of the largest democracy in the world.
But what were our responses to those crises? What have we learned from those two crises? To many, it might seem redundant to ask these two questions. For, those incredible “patriotic” outcries, they might insist, were self-evident. People have sacrificed their lives in those “Great” uprisings, public meetings had been organized, and many memorandums had been drafted and submitted etc. Thus, one might ask as to what else is there that we need to know by asking these questions?
However, beyond such self-evident, and if one may, self-congratulatory postures, there are enough worrying signs for us. To cite, and serve as an entry point to those signs, let us take the developments that we all see today — perhaps more glaringly than ever before. Each year, June 18 continues to remind the divide between the hills and valley of Manipur. The communal harangue not only has increased but also proliferated in various domains of our life than ever before. It has even manifested amongst the political class, which used to give a united stand on the issue, and the State Assembly bears that testimony today. If our responses to that crisis were self-evidently adequate, why have such developments continued to take place even today?
Or, take the other crisis, after those incredible moments of public protest, the very idea of “People’s Protest” came to an ironical climax when “the people” voted a party which did not even include the issue of Armed Forces Special Powers Act in its election manifestos! In fact, the party won with an unprecedented majority, despite the “conglomerate” of civil society bodies had tried to make it an election issue just before the elections. Will we blame “the people”—as ignorant or an entity that can be bought? Or will we do some soul searching into who and what these “people” are, including the nature of the leadership that have spearheaded the incredible “people’s movement”? Or, significantly, should we look at the why, what and wherefore of the rumbling “what after AFSPA” that we get to hear in Manipur then and now?
Perhaps, we need to be wary of our possible self-fulfilling postures and false consciousness that obstruct us from taking a hard look at these questions. In fact, given our responses to these crises, it seems that we did not fully comprehend our reality that was revealed to us by those two crises.
Response to mask?
The two crises have revealed something crucial in our collective life. But it seems that we have responded to the mask rather than the real visage that lies behind that mask. For instance, what gets revealed in the crisis of June 2001 is not particularly the challenge to the territorial integrity of Manipur by certain organizations or sections of its population. But in a very critical sense, what it reveals to us is the fact that Manipur has already been reduced to a legal-constitutional fiction from being a real geo-political entity that has the necessary politico-legal agency to preserve itself. Besides, most seem to have conflated memory (of the past) with reality (of the concreteness of the present). And consequently, they seem to be more or less oblivious to the fact that the organizing principle and vocabulary of the present is very different from those of the past. Indeed, the legitimacy and hierarchical loyalty structure of kingdom cannot be the same as those of a horizontal democratic and republican order inhabited by the ideas of “citizenship”, rights etc. In short, that Manipur has moved on from a world of a kingdom to inhabit in a republican and democratic order, and that too as a legal-constitutional fiction, is something that we seem to have tragically missed. Similarly, what does the crisis of 2004 reveal is not so much the reality of a juridical problem as it is the nakedness of a stark political reality. Far from being an issue of a piece of legislation, it is a spine-chilling disclosure that a “state of exception” has been used as a “paradigm of government” in Manipur for a long time. This too, most seem to have missed.
Indeed, we must reflect on the nature of those crises and also take a hard look at the nature of our responses so as to see whether those have been informed and concerted ones or episodic and knee-jerk reactions. And our leaders should take the initiative in that exercise. And one hopes that they know that it is a responsibility that they have rather than a privilege position that they occupy. If we fail to reflect on these issues and our leaders fail us, we shall not only invite one crisis after another but also repeat our old habits to sustain the stagnation and decadence that we experience today.
Let this New Year give us the capacity to learn and grow from the crises of life!
The author can be reached at bimol_akoijam@ yahoo.co.in
[IFP]
