Making discourses work

Obviously discourses do not work in Manipur, which is probably why its conflict scenarios never ever change. True discourses also cannot possibly happen, for what people generally do in the name of discourses is to state their positions and stick to them. The illusions of any resolution to any of the myriad problems are merely breathers the conflicting parties agree to so that they can go for each other’s jugular again after they have regained their breaths. Hence we have the cyclic recurrence of all the most vexing problems. Take any issue, be it hill-valley friction, demand for Inner Line Permit System, district creation or retraction, Tipaimukh dam construction, correcting census anomalies, delimitation of constituencies or whatever else – the conflicts of interests remain unresolved because none ever was interested in allowing reason to decide these issues. There are also time bombs like the Framework Agreement between the Government of India and NSCN(IM), a finalisation of which is still pending. Sometime or the other, the negotiators will have to work out something everybody in the region can accept without feeling cheated, but how would they manage to resolve the contradictions within which can create mayhem. Since sovereignty is out of the question, probably a contemplated solution could be in terms of more autonomy for Naga districts in states outside Nagaland and an upper house for Nagaland Assembly, and to balance it out, concession such as in the ST demands for the Meiteis, ILPS etc. There would also obviously be more autonomy contemplated for non-Naga hill districts and perhaps even the valley districts too in the spirit of the adage “good fences make good neighbours”. Even if such a speculation is accurate, the question will remain what acceptability these proposals will receive from all who have not been part of the negotiations.

We are just picking up some of the most immediate examples but the same scenario of obduracy of opinion can be said of so many, if not most other situations in the state. It is an obsessive, and to that extent atavistic, narcissism that has come to be the dominant determinant of the visions of the communities here. We have all lost the ability to put ourselves in the shoes of others and from that vantage, critique our own opinions. For one thing, this can never be a way our conflicts can ever see an acceptable resolution, not to talk of an honourable one. This dreadful and endemic myopia will, it seems inevitable, continue to condemn all of us to another generation of social tension. And let there be no doubt that no one party can have it all for all the time, for even the smallest party can stand in the way of even the biggest bully. The state’s own experience in the past two or three decades, which have seen some of the most gruesome violence, ought to have demonstrated this to everybody convincingly.

But it is not too late yet. Let us learn to step down from our stated positions and try to see beyond merely our own self-interests, or community interests, as the case may be. This is not just a question of simply assuming a liberal position at all. It is in fact what one may call an enlightened self-interest. Seeking the middle path on which all can walk without treading on each other’s toes, is indeed what democracy is about in its essence right from the time the Magna Carta was signed in 1215. Let us first of all think of absorbing this essence and then give form to it latter. Both these tasks can only be accomplished by sincere, consensual, discourses where reason is given the premium. The only way such a discursive space can be created is for all of us to abandon our frustratingly familiar, obstinately linear, mono-track visions. Only then can we begin seeing the infinitely wide possibilities that exist beyond our own secluded opinions. In all of these, let the goals be a resolution to our common problems and the return of peace. Once this spirit is agreed upon, let us pose the same questions that have been troubling the state again and try to find the answers. What is so wrong or right about the seven new districts we now have? What is so wrong or right about conducting a fresh census exercise, in the entire state if certain numbers are simply not adding up even by the most elementary arithmetic? Now that aadhar identity has become compulsory, probably the next census will throw up a much more accurate and therefore unobjectionable census data. What is so wrong or right about the 6th Schedule type autonomy for the hills? What is so wrong or right about the ILPS? Whose interest is promoted and whose obstructed by the ST demand amongst the Meiteis? Honest, open queries and equally honest answers to these can open up new realities and new possibilities to a path of peace.