By D. V. Kumar
The recent violence on innocent targeted people which happened on the 28th of October, 2022 in Shillong following a rally for employment shocked the conscience of every Meghalayan and legitimately so. Two visuals from that day struck me the most. The first one was about a child standing on a scooty when the violence was happening right in front of him or her who must have asked his or her parents what it was all about which the parents must have found it extremely difficult to answer. The second one was about an injured young boy (non-tribal) being shifted into a vehicle and a couple of local (tribal) boys almost guarding him so that no further attacks took place on him with many from the nearby rally looking almost sympathetically at the injured boy. . These two visuals convey two different kinds of epistemic importance. The first visual gives us a warning that we need to be more responsible when are voicing our protest on any issue as children of the most impressionable age are also present in public spaces. We certainly do not want them to grow up with a violent image of their society.
The second visual (that of a boy being shifted into a vehicle) underlines the essential humanity of people who were present there and indicates, may be things are not that bad in Meghalaya. This visual along with condemnations of violence pouring in from many prominent civil society organisations, leaders of some political parties, well-known public personalities, religious organisations points to the fact that there is a strong civil society culture here and hopefully this would go a long way in undoing some of the damage caused to the image of Meghalaya as a peaceful state. Violence of the kind which happened is politically and economically self-defeating. It is politically self-defeating because it casts serious doubts about the health of our democratic polity which allows expression of legitimate demands and protests. Such incidents have given an opportunity for raising unreasonable and irresponsible demands such as calling for imposition of AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) in Meghalaya and ‘boycott of Meghalaya’. Clearly such demands further vitiate the atmosphere.
It is also economically self-defeating because it does not address serious economic issues such as unemployment in a systematic manner. The issue of unemployment is a structural issue and it needs structural solutions. Instead of trying to find structural solutions to the problem, such violence actually makes it more difficult to find one. For example, in the context of Meghalaya, tourism is one of the major structural issues which needs to be factored in to tackle the problem of unemployment. Violent incidents such as the recent one negatively impact tourism. Its negative fallout has already been felt as the autumn festival which is a huge tourist attraction suffered because, as per the newspaper reports, many have cancelled their tickets. Not only that many who would have wanted to visit Meghalaya on the following days which happened to be Saturday and Sunday would have cancelled their plans as well following the violence.
The unemployment situation in the entire country is quite depressing. As per available reports, , India’s labour market shrunk substantially resulting in an increase of a large number of unemployed. Clearly, the situation is not better in Meghalaya and requires concerted attempts of all concerned to tackle the problem of unemployment. Private initiative too plays a vital role in providing for good job opportunities. But that would come in only when there is a conducive social, political and economic atmosphere. It therefore becomes quite essential on the part of both government and civil society organisations to create such an atmosphere of trust and harmony. Experts argue that wherever investment climate which includes social, economic and political aspects (literacy rate, life expectancy, sound banking facilities, well-developed irrigation facilities, enabling government policies, political will and very importantly socially harmonious environment etc.) is good, such states have developed better than others. Examples of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Telengana, Punjab etc. are usually given in this regard.
The real adversary of development in the north-east is certainly not the innocent people walking on the streets of Meghalaya. The real adversary is the history of social, cultural and political marginalisation that societies in the north-east suffered from, a history the various ethnic movements (MNF in Mizoram, for example) tried to overcome. It would not be an exaggeration to say that they have been successful to a great extent as they have been able to acquire reasonable amount of political (statehood), economic (independent sources of revenue, however meagre they are) and cultural (learning one’s own language in schools, for example) autonomy. This however does not mean that they are completely free from the structures of marginalisation. They continue to feel neglected and discriminated against as developmental policies and programmes are formulated without taking into account their sensitivities and aspirations and adequate employment opportunities have not been created. Their sense of discrimination and frustration gets accentuated by measures such as CAA and NRC. It should, however, be remembered that they are legitimate and democratic channels of protest available which they can use to express their sense of injustice. Inflicting physical harm on hapless and innocent people will certainly not solve the problems and in fact may prove to be counter-productive.
One of the defining moral principles of a democratic polity is its ability to ensure that minorities-religious, linguistic, ethnic-fulfil their socio-economic and political aspirations unhindered. The moral stature of a democratic polity would suffer immensely if minorities, wherever they are located, are subjected to attacks-physical or conceptual. The health of democracy is usually judged by some formalistic aspects such as frequent holding of elections rather than substantive ones such as how well it protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of people. The sagacity of our Constitution makers needs to be recognised in this context for conceiving a democratic, inclusive and liberal India which through various constitutional provisions makes it a welcoming polity for different kinds of minorities in India. In my understanding, the Constitution of India should be seen as a very powerful moral document as it emphasises the moral and legal equality of every citizen in India.
Legitimate channels of expressing our sense of injustice are available within the Constitutional framework.
(D. V. Kumar is Professor, Dept of Sociology, NEHU, Shillong)