Editor,
The state capital of Manipur is the centre of commercial and governance hub for all communities that reside in the state. The vitality is accentuated by the presence of central and state offices and academic institutes that cater to higher studies. It is disheartening to hear stories of atrocities that were played out by both sides of the belligerent community. Dialogue and diplomacy should have been employed and who better than the state government run by the majority community with historical records dating back to the 15th Century and a 40 seat share in the state legislature out of a mere total of 60, to take on that task.
If one is an ardent follower of English dailies that are published from Imphal, the editorials are filled with one sided narratives to propagate the chauvinism of the larger community without objectively exploring the facts and root causes of the tribal sentiments. The electronic media does no better when the language of tribal protesters in the hills were dubbed as “Myanmar’s” and the ignorant state government would see no citizens, always insurgents.
Travelling from Imphal to Churachandpur (Lamka), you will witness swathes of open fields of the Imphal Valley surrounded by rolling hills. Now, in the name of protecting wildlife and ecology, land previously not surveyed have been declared part of Wildlife Sanctuaries or Protected Forest, and if one doesn’t reside on a hillock, the growing urban areas have been declared Wetlands, since it was once a paddy field, at least 6 Chief Ministers ago.
What pains me personally is, when a village whose settlement rights were granted by the British, was demarcated to be within a Protected Forest to push forward the many insidious schemes of the government. This drove the point home that tribals are no longer safe in Manipur.
The Meiteis first cry wolf and demanded the Inner Line Permit (ILP) to protect against outsiders entering the state; then they declare tribal settlements invalid. Then with the triumvirate celebration of the High Court judgement telling government to start the process for granting ST status to Meiteis. Now they are crying for a national register of citizens (NRC). If you put the pieces together you can clearly see the sinister design of the state masquerading as welfare.
In the guise of earning brownie points and with wide national coverage of a burning Manipur, it is demeaning to see the majority community of the ‘Jewel of India’ parroting a Hindu versus Christian narrative in the current predicament.
We can only hope that this time a permanent solution can be evolved to satisfy both communities, through dialogue and deliberations, with the condition that all insurgent groups of the community come within an SOO (Suspension of Operation) framework.
Yours etc.,
KC Pau
Shillong-6
On culture, morality & worldviews: Need for public exchange
Editor,
The’Letters’ column in your esteemed daily has seen a brief exchange between this writer and Mr. Glenn C. Kharkongor through the following letters: ‘Protect the children’ by John Saitkhuid on 29th April, 2023, ‘Culture and children’ by Glenn C. Kharkongor on 3rd May, 2023, ‘Protect children across cultures’ by John Saitkhuid on May 5, 2023.
One reader that has read the exchange with interest is Deepa Majumdar. Her response to the exchange was expressed through her letter titled ‘Modernity over-sexualised’ which was published on May 6, 2023. While the initial letter by this writer was concentrated on the single event and the need to protect the physical boundaries of children, it seems that the exchange that followed has skimmed the surface of deeper issues such as morality, culture, objective truth, modernity, sexualisation, that cannot be addressed satisfactorily through this column.
For instance, the point raised by Kharkongor regarding the Biblical proverb ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’ and how many Christian countries now outlaw child beating, touches on the tension between objective morality vs culture. Yet, the same writer justifies the Dalai Lama incident on the grounds of culture. Also, Deepa Majumdar has touched on the relationship between modernity and sexualisation. However, this writer has not appealed to modernity or modern values as the basis of his contention at all, but to factual incidents in our world, i.e. the abuse of children. In fact, modernity is the antithesis to this writer’s worldview. Contrary to Majumdar’s statements, modernity has in fact normalised children’s exposure to sexuality, such as exposing pre puberty children to ideas of gender fluidity. Thus, modernity is not the grounds on which this writer’s contention is based, but rather, the factual incidents of child abuse that exist in reality. Also, Deepa Majumdar considers infallibility a divine potential and even the essence of human nature. Even if I grant her that, potential does not equal present reality. And we cannot assume that any priest, or holy man, has achieved that potential. But I do not believe that infallibility is the potential or essence of human nature. But again, this touches on deeper issues that cannot be addressed satisfactorily through this ‘Letters’ column.
My conclusion to this whole exchange is this: That we are touching on issues that are bigger than one isolated event. From this exchange, we can see that the points of differences between this writer and Kharkongor or Ms. Majumdar, does not arise simply by our interpretation of the single event of concern, but by our worldviews, and more importantly, by the grounds on which our differing worldviews stand. It is rooted in doctrine, whether religious, cultural, or natural. Thus, these issues cannot be satisfactorily addressed through an exchange in this column. There is a dire need for a public debate on this tension between differing worldviews, that this exchange has touched upon, and this writer is more than willing to have such an exchange with any person from the other side.
Yours etc.,
John Saitkhuid,
Shillong