By Kitdor H. Blah
“The Christian Scriptures that we call the New Testament were written in Greek, by Greek educated scribes and in a world dominated by Greek thought. The idea of Logos was absorbed by the gospel writer, but he went further than the Greek thinkers, and he attributed personhood to the Logos.’’
Prof. Homen Thangjam, a Meitei, said one thing in a recent interview that captured my thought. He stated that when a community is militarized, whether by the State or other causes, the language too becomes militarized. He provided one anecdote where a pregnant woman was killed in front of her infant son, and this happened simultaneously with extra-judicial killings, and so the two events created a debate over extra judicial killings in the floor of the Manipur Assembly. The Chief Minister at the time said there was no other option but to kill. So, this militarization of language became absorbed in the daily parlance. “Shall I kill you?” and “Shall I beat you up?” became common expressions in day to day life, such as in traffic. This analysis by Prof Thangjam could provide a clue as to the way forward.
I recently read one article by Bhogtoram Mawroh that places “Jaitbynriew politics” as one of the causes of conflict. But the problem, I believe, is not politics but rhetoric. Yes, politics and social activism, can be used to cause disorder. But that does not mean that politics or activism are inherently disorderly. And “Jaitbynriew politics” is the same. In a society, there will always be conflict between communities, just as there will always be conflict in politics between competing ideologies or parties. But the root cause of disorder is the rhetoric of our politics, or the way we engage in public discourse. Words like, “Ha ri lajong katba mon,” may be one example of a bad rhetoric in our Khasi politics. But it is not only the Jaitbynriew politics that carries bad rhetoric. Even those who may consider themselves liberals often use bad rhetoric like for instance, recently, one prominent liberal thinker in this State called Khasis racists for demanding a review of the Reservation Policy. Such broad brushing of an entire community as racists is very bad rhetoric.
Scrolling through Facebook pages, I have seen Meiteis terming Kuki women as AIDS ridden. And in retaliation, the Kukis called on the Meiteis to undress before Indian army, as a reference to the protest by Manipuri women over the rape and killing of Thangjam Manorama by the Assam Rifles in 2004. These are ugly and shameful rhetoric from both sides. Even if normalcy returns, as long as such rhetoric exists between the two communities, Manipur will always be a ticking time bomb. And as long as such rhetoric exists in any State or Nation, that State or Nation will also be likely to erupt at any time. It is not Jaitbynriew politics that is the problem, it is the rhetoric with which we carry out our politics that is problematic. A militarized language will inevitably manifest itself in actions. Words are the eternal creators of reality.
The Greeks had an idea of the Logos. Logos can be translated into English as Word or Reason. In Greek philosophy, Logos meant the Rationality or the Meaning that brought about the order in the world. In other words, the order and design and meaning that we see in the visible world originated from some higher and unseen principle, i.e., the Logos. Thus, the principle of disorder is Anti-Logos. The Christian Scriptures that we call the New Testament were written in Greek, by Greek educated scribes and in a world dominated by Greek thought. The idea of Logos was absorbed by the gospel writer, but he went further than the Greek thinkers, and he attributed personhood to the Logos. The Christian tradition was built on the Jewish tradition that everything was created by the spoken word, and so the gospel writer expounded that Logos, which means Word or Reason, was a person, i.e. God. Moreover, the gospel writer says that this Logos, or ordering principle became a man in the person of Christ. So, in the gospel tradition, if the Word that created the world and its order, were to become a man, that man would embody the character of Christ, such as sacrifice, meekness, longsuffering, giving life, blessing enemies, forgiving others, even saving the world by his own death. Thus, the character of Anti-Logos, which results in disorder, will be the opposite. The gist of this tradition is that if the world that has been ordered by the Logos or Word, has devolved into disorder, the only way to save it is by the Logos or the Word itself. So, if our language has become so militarized and it has created disorder, we must bring order back by restoring order in our language or rhetoric.
The recent horror of a mob of men parading two women naked is the epitome of disorder. There is so much more evil in this conflict that has not been reported on social media. Stories of beheadings, rapes, torching, and the accompanying rhetoric on social media is a testament that disorder in society is indelibly rooted in disorder in rhetoric. If that incident of parading women naked is the culmination of the conflict, then the evil acts themselves are a culmination of the militarized rhetoric between the two communities. Manipur has been plagued by all sorts of conflict, from inter-community conflicts, the AFSPA, extra judicial killings, and this history has shaped the language and the rhetoric. In a democracy, conflict is not inherently evil. There may be a conflict between Meiteis and Kukis over land rights or Scheduled Tribes status, and this kind of conflict is inevitable, just as there is conflict between the Khasis and Garos over the Reservation Policy or between the South of India and the North of India over Hindi language. Conflict and Conflict Resolution are inevitable in any human relationship. But what causes conflict to result in such unmitigated evil against women and men and possibly even children, is the disorder in the language and the rhetoric that accompanies such conflict. Perhaps, the way forward for Manipur is first and foremost to reshape the rhetoric, if both communities want to restore humanity and peace. It would be wishful thinking to believe that the two communities can integrate as one, with no differences or sense of separation. It would be dangerous and illusory to believe that the two communities can co-exist henceforth without conflict. But perhaps, the way forward would be to reshape the rhetoric, while acknowledging the differences and the conflict. Both communities must acknowledge the inhumanity that has manifested due to the militarized language, and both communities must address the conflict by a new rhetoric – one that does not involve words that violate the inherent worth of any man or woman.
The Indian Republic is guided by the principles framed in the Constitution. The Constitution contains the principles that are to form the social order of the Republic. Right to Freedom of Expression is one of those principles. Justice through the Courts is another principle. If the principles contained in the Constitution are not enough to restore order, then the Republic is in danger. But maybe, no man made document is enough to restore order if the rhetoric that drives our politics and social movements is itself in disorder. The Constitution is simply words on a document. While it has provided a framework for social justice, it cannot prevent disorder or restore order if the words that accompany politics and daily parlance are militarized. We cannot do away with conflict, but we must resolve conflict with healthy rhetoric. Philosophical thinking and articulation is the chief education that our society needs. The State, the forces, the political parties, the NGOs, must all be aware of the importance and power of rhetoric. It may just be the defining factor between order and disorder, between Logos and Anti-Logos.