
B Thohii
As the 9th General Election of Manipur draws closer, the political climate in the four hill districts of Manipur is beginning to get overcast by cloud of apprehension. One prays a bad patch does not lie ahead. There is growing concerned over whether or not the election affair would be left free to the people to exercise their democratic rights of choosing their representatives. There is a debate over the policy of linking electoral politics with Naga issue which has apparently led to polarization of opinion among the people.
We may be reminded of similar debate over election in the past. Naga Hoho’s call for “Not election but solution” in 1998 was sadly met by non-compliance and apathy marked by apparent divided opinion on the policy which led to polarization of the Nagas into two camp of opinions. It failed to yield total effectiveness, for which the apex body also has to receive flak. While the Nagas in the four hill districts adhered to the call of ‘election boycott’ and eventually lost Lok Sabha seat of Manipur’s outer constituency to the Kukis, surprisingly in Nagaland a very good percentage of voters went to poll in both Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections crossing above 73 percentage of poll rates.
Notwithstanding of the failure to achieve total compliance from the Nagas, the call of ‘election boycott’ by Naga Hoho was, however, a just political directive as far as the political imperative to Naga political problem is concerned. As a policy per se it was a uniform-effected non-cooperation movement against Indian electoral politics, and it created no room for confusion in the collective psyche of the people in regard to democratic rights and Naga issue.
However, one fact we cannot deny is that the policy of linking electoral politics with Naga issue is seemingly not free from debate as indicated in Nagaland in 1998 in both Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections. This is perhaps because people’s craze for election is too high for other reasons. The case is not different among the Nagas of Manipur.
But the present situation in the four hill districts of Manipur is different as far as the policy of linking electoral politics and Naga issue is concerned, and perhaps the debate lies in the policy itself per se. It is here we need to critically question ourselves as to why there is division of opinion every time election is around in the recent past. Is it because of people’s apathy to Naga issue or is it because of policy that disregards people’s voice on issue of common interest? If Indian electoral politics is to be used as a political means to achieve Naga political aspiration, I personally think that the kind of total compliance shown to Naga Hoho’s call of ‘election boycott’ in 1998 would be a better policy because this would arrest and contain potential polarization of people and of even becoming indifferent to issue of common interest.
Similar debate was also stirred among the Nagas of Manipur during last Lok Sabha election (2004) but here we need to draw a line between Lok Sabha election and State Assembly election in term of different political impacts and implications each has, and intensity of emotive elements involved in the election as far as the present political position of the Nagas in Manipur is concerned.
In the present situation, for the ensuing general election in Manipur, it would be politically sane on the part of those at the helm in civil society organizations, the ‘non-state actors’ and public leaders to have a hindsight of potential danger in polarization of people if the democratic rights of the people are to be deprived by those who have the power to do that. We can ill afford an undesirable polarization of people on election issue by way in which assertion of ‘top down’ policy by ‘key actors’ through threat system would begins to undermine people’s voice on issue of common interest. This may lead to loss of public confidence and alienation of the people.
Marx’s central concepts of alienation is at its basic an economic relation between employers and employees related to labour and wages in which the former exploits the latter. As a theory of alienation, this, of course, is much too simple to many contemporary thinkers. It’s a complex concept which also has relation to the concepts of power, justice, rights and freedom. One element in the human mind that is important here is a sense of power or powerlessness. It is always a fact that those with power also have the power to wilfully impose ideology or thought upon the powerless mass of the people in order to disarm moral and ethical power. It’s an efficient way of controlling the masses of the people. But this often leads to violence when the sense of powerlessness is identified and is in some way within reach. People who feel “pushed around” are more likely to identify a pusher. Such situation may leads to alienation.
In Boulding’s book “Three faces of power” distinguishes three kinds of power: threat power, economic power, and ‘Integrative power’. The instruments of threat power are frequently the means of destruction. The use of threat power is much more likely to lead to violence. There may be different responses to threat power: submission, defiance, flight, counter-threat or disarming behaviour. Economic power is most simply define as what the rich have more of than the poor. It can also, however, be increased by theft or by exploitation. Integrative power is the power of legitimacy, respect, loyalty, affection, love and so on. It is the most fundamental form of power. It may also, of course, be negative when there is illegitimacy, disrespect, disloyalty, and hatred.
In all social conflicts, the question of justice is deeply embedded. No body can possibly come out in favour of injustice. Justice, however, can mean very different things to different culture and different people. However, justice is commonly understood by the concept of distributive justice that people should get what they deserve based on the ideology of equality. The concept of equality is very closely bound to the question of human rights. There is wide agreement that certain rights should be recognized in the structure of society. The right to vote and choose a leader of one’s choice is, of course, obviously one such right.
Another aspect of human life and society closely bound up with the concept of justice is that of freedom. The concept is multidimensional. It is where the boundary between what we can do and what we can’t do is determine by other human or by law or other institution of society. Oddly, freedom for one person often implies a denial of freedom for another. In the world of the powerful and powerless, it is obvious that the powerful have more justice, rights, and freedom than the powerless. Thus the possibility boundary of the powerful is further out.
All this leads up to the question of the relation of all these concepts to the burning issue of electoral politics and Naga issue in the four hill districts of Manipur. Any possible use of threat power by those in power would ultimately lead to denial of rights, justice, and freedom to many.
This may lead to loss of public confidence on our own leaders. Our situation can be best analysed by relating to this integrative power in how those in power would use the legitimate power for integrative structure in our society or would use the power for disintegration of our society by use of threat power in a threat system disregarding people’s voice. The power now vested upon those at the helm in civil society organizations, or the ‘non-state actors’ is an integrative power of legitimacy, respect, loyalty, etc. derived from the acceptance and consent of the masses of the people. Loss of legitimacy can produce negative attitude from the people towards those in power.
This integrative power can become negative and loss legitimacy, respect, loyalty etc. if those at the helm begin to misuse the legitimate power and authority against the interest of the people in pursuit of self interest. In such situation the prevailing threat system may tries to reduce the voice of the people into oblivion.
On the other hand, loss of legitimacy can also cause to have remarkable effects in producing defiance in the threat system. Excesses of threat power may produce defiance and counter-threat. Any wilful imposition of ideology or policy through threat system may lead to breakdown or deficiency in the integrative structure of society that could lead to political violence.
Failure to disseminate right information through democratic process disregarding of people’s relevance in a democratic society is the contributing factor towards loss of public confidence in the power structure of any State or society. Public confidence, trust, and loyalty on the leaders in power are crucial in staking legitimacy of power. For instance, the misinformation that the Communist government fed the people of the Soviet Union became so clearly contradictory to the reality that by 1989 all respect for the government on the part of the mass of the people had been lost. The loss of legitimacy in the Communist government produced defiance in the threat system.
General apprehension besieging the people in the four hill districts of Manipur is on the question of possible use of threat power by those in power in the ensuing general election. If the propagandistic campaign or rumours that in the ensuing general election, only Independent candidates would be favoured over other candidates who have affiliation to political parties is true, I personally think that such policy is in political correctness not free from debate because apart from other aspects the policy, in a qualitative sense, would not help towards integrative structure of our Naga society. Instead it would create room for polarization of people.
To undo the burden of history with our inalienable aspiration for unification of the Nagas is a spirit that runs in the vein of all Nagas. Indeed, filial affection must grow and the spirit of oneness and love must dwell in one and all. So towards that, before anything else, a policy must begin to sew the patches of differences among Nagas and must not in otherwise intent to unpick the stitches of integrative structure in our society. Towards our destiny we cannot afford to ignore people’s relevance in the movement.