Witoubou Newmai
The ever increasing relevance of the idiom, "One man's loss is another man's gain" in Manipur has today reached a defiant situation, more than what is necessary. When the situation has reached such a highly charged level, realising the urgent need to encourage honest and comprehensive studies on the situation, vis-a-vis the major issues involving the Nagas, the Meiteis, the Kukis, the non-locals, and the 'hills and the valley divide', can be a great beginning in attempting to seek a solution to the problems, as clashes of interests have prevented the society from moving forward.
At times, the peculiar nature of the Manipur situation is quite amusing, and the whole affair appears to be a series of gala drama. However, the situation warrants a closer look as misdiagnosis of the situation leading to vested interests has given rise to more trouble, and has greatly played a regressive part.
Such misdiagnosis, intentional or unintentional, often prompts the state government to come up with clichéd measures -- appeals or allurement with material benefits or security enforcement, never realising that such an approach will only work where there is a mechanism to support it.
This amounts to undermining the advancement of academic studies on social problems. This has also been an important factor for the government’s inability to come up with critical identification graphs on the age-old problems dogging Manipur. It also gives one room to wonder whether the problems are created by the government in order to relish or benefit from their regulation. It is time for people to get out of the stereotype dealing of things, and begin embracing new approaches to solving problems.
One approach that the concerned authorities need to take is to identify what are exogenously generated problems and which are endogenously produced or by nature.
When it comes to facing such a situation, we can study the findings of noted scholars like Russel Hardin. According to him, good or bad can be generated either endogenously by the members of the group that is affected by it or by other agencies or even by nature.
Hardin humorously gives an example that a large asteroid striking the earth would be a bad that is exogenously generated. And to eliminate such a bad would require action not an endogenous regulation such as the highway development programmes. Obviously, the regulation to deal with the asteroid should be exogenous.
Mr Hardin however says that 'exogenously produced but endogenously regulated bads of significance are not so common'. When will the concerned authorities be comfortable to apply such an approach?
As long as vested interests continue to overwhelm the people at the helm, an approach such as this is still a far cry.
