Policemen fire tear gas shells to disperse protesters at Mao Gate. Picture by Eastern Projections

Federalism challenged

What has happened at Mao Gate, Manipur, is simply the revival of an old saga. India does not call itself a “federal” republic. The word was wisely left out by the framers of the Constitution, possibly because this document was crafted amidst a great deal of insecurity following the trauma and bloodshed of Partition.

An insecure nation could not have possibly wanted strong, autonomous states. Even today when India has emerged as a great contender for the title “superpower”, there is constant fear lurking in the minds of the rulers in Delhi that states, particularly those in the Northeast, which began their tryst with India as recalcitrant units, might eventually rebel and break away from the Centre.

This insecurity has given rise to several wrong policies, which have undermined the decision-making powers of states and reduced them to subservient poltroons of a patronising Centre. In recent times, even crucial decisions about government formation in states where the Congress party gets the majority votes, are decided by a high command in Delhi.

Perhaps this is what guided Union home minister P. Chidambaram to take a unilateral decision of allowing Th. Muivah, the NSCN (I-M) protagonist, to visit his village, Somdal, which happens to be within the constitutional boundaries of Manipur, without as much as taking the Manipur government into confidence. Only after the decision was announced was Manipur told to ensure safe passage for Muivah.

State autonomy

The Union home ministry’s capricious decision, followed by an equally arrogant diktat of forcing compliance from the Manipur government should get the states thinking whether they actually enjoy any autonomy at all and whether it is not high time to be debating this issue.

Senior advocate of Supreme Court, Fali S. Nariman, in his article, The Federal way Forward, says the Union of a strong Centre and weak states has not worked. Only strong self-reliant states will make a United India. Nariman goes on to point out that while Article 1 of the Constitution did proclaim the federal character of India, ironically, Article 3 empowers Parliament to diminish the area of any state, alter its boundaries and change its name. This could be achieved (the Supreme Court had said in 1960) despite the opposition of the state and of its inhabitants. If Parliament, by ordinary law, could abolish a state, could the Union of States ever be described as “federal”? The framers of the Constitution evaded this issue and refrained from using this word.

There are enough bleeding heart liberals in this country who believe they have intrinsic knowledge of every insurgency/militancy/rebellion/Naxalism/Maoism/sub-nationalist movements currently on the boil. They also believe they can rule this country better than what they see happening at present. Some of their prescriptions, however, are rather simplistic. Those who don’t live in glass houses do not know what it is like to lose a glass pane. The gale that comes through the broken pane could blow away the entire house. This is how strong the cyclonic storms are in the Northeast. But I would still argue that it is good to have activists who are antagonistic to the state. Even those who demonise the “rotten” state and call it “Empire” yet enjoy so much liberty to continue with their project are welcome. After all, it takes all kinds to make India and Bharat a functioning republic and not a dysfunctional authoritarian regime.

Muivah question

But let us now get back to Muivah for now. Of course, every “person” on this earth has a right to visit his birthplace and native village. There can be no quarrel on this. And every such person must, of course, have valid travel documents if he/she has lived abroad for over 40 years and only comes visiting. If special concessions are made in the case of Muivah, might it not be that precedence is created whereby every controversial renegade visits his home when he feels like and exits into the jungles or other international havens when he chooses to? Perhaps the problem lies with definitions. Who is Muivah to the Indian state? How is he perceived by the government and people of Manipur? (Here I am talking about the Meiteis because Manipur is a state whose communities are vertically divided on ethnic, religious and ideological lines). There is no ambiguity about how the Nagas of Manipur define Muivah. He is their hero; the leader of their national movement; their ato kilonser. But it would be interesting to hear what the perception of the ordinary Nagas of Nagaland are about Muivah.

Muivah is, therefore, a man of multiple identities, which also is not a problem, but is Muivah an Indian citizen? There is a question mark here. To Manipur, Muivah is persona non-grata, because, if he has his way, the state would be so reduced in size as to make it only a district adjoining Nagalim.The NSCN (I-M) claims that it extends to all Naga-inhabited areas within Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. This is the map of Nagalim an ideological homeland where all Nagas will live happily ever after, if it materialises. But Muivah’s claims are not acceptable to all three states. The Centre has very discreetly chosen to let the ambiguity persist.

Boundary row

The Centre is well aware of the repercussions if it even begins to tinker with the boundaries of any of the states in the Northeast. Any attempt to incise Manipur could lead to a revolution which would snowball into something so devastating that the Dantewada incident would appear like a side-show to the real thing. The region is a conduit for both drugs and arms — two very lethal elements that sustain insurgency here. Those who understand the region by virtue of having to deal with it on a daily basis would know how terribly complex and tortuous the situation is and that it does not lend itself to simplistic diagnostic prescription. Not even the astute Chidambaram understands even a fraction of the underlying reasons for conflict here.

That is why the Union home minister’s argument that Muivah has a right to visit his native home has now turned into political voyeurism as we watch the dead being buried and listen to the agonising cries of the wounded. Indeed this is conventional wisdom turned on its head.

By no stretch of the imagination is Muivah an ordinary “citizen”. His visit to Ukhrul at a time when Manipur is undergoing other internal contortions (boycott of district council elections in the hills) and the blockade on National Highway 39, is bound to conflate the unrest. Now Muivah has only heightened the animosity that was otherwise hidden under the veneer of a happy co-existence. Perhaps that was his intention. He was trying to gauge if the “movement” has reached a “fatigue level”. Undoubtedly, Muivah is enjoying the adulation he has been shown at Mao Gate. After all, the Nagas like all tribals here, never question received wisdom, nor have they shown the stamina for an honest critique of their history. To the intrusive observer, Nagas appear to dwell on the past with extraordinary persistence, yet try to grasp the challenging future, without living the thorny present. This cannot but be problematical.

Meanwhile, Chidambaram will have to live with the deaths he has caused through his indiscreet political decision of, first, granting Muivah the permission to travel to Manipur and, secondly, of bypassing the state government which has remained uncharacteristically unrelenting. Sometimes states can also bare their fangs if that is the only means to the political survival of the key players.

(The writer can be contacted at patricia17@rediffmail.com)