10-20-2006, 10:25 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Trouble in North-East </b>
By S. Viswam
President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam has become an extremely popular head of State and is being hailed as the âPeopleâs Presidentâ because of his ability to establish easy rapport with any type of audience he addresses and any group of people he meets. He is constantly âeducatingâ the people by playing a teacherâs role and trying to explain in lucid language the intricacies of many complicated subjects.
His visits outside the national capital are looked forward to by the people, especially by students who enjoy the opportunity of interacting with him.
However, earlier this week, the President had a different kind of experience. When he arrived on Monday in Manipurâs capital, Imphal, instead of cheering crowds and welcome banners he was greeted with deserted streets, closed markets, offices and schools, and an eerie silence. Imphal looked like a ghost town. Only men in uniforms were visible on the roads. His visit, though brief, was boycotted by the people.
Not only Imphal but the entire State of Manipur had fully responded to a strike call by Apunba Lup, a conglomeration of 32 political and social organisations, to protest against the Centreâs failure to repeal the controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act. Attendance was thin at the convocation ceremony of the Manipur University, the only function the President attended.
The Centre could not have received a stronger message from the people of any State in support of a demand for intervention and speedy action. Implicit in the success of the protest strike was the depth of popular resentment over the Centreâs insensitivity in comprehending the nature of a popular grievance, the non-response to which has evolved into a powerful source of discontent.
The protest strike was also in the nature of a reminder to the Centre that the entire North-East is a vast zone of discontent. Each one of the âseven sistersâ has a grievance against the Centre, and the region itself is in the grip of some form of insurgency or the other. Assam has had the Ulfa problem in its hands for more than a decade. Unrest in Manipur is endemic. Nagaland has been simmering ever since Independence. Mizoram shows signs of settling down in peace after many decades of unrest but this could be a surface calm.
Indeed, you will hardly find parallels for the kind of alienation that marks Centre-State relations in a federal set-up as obtains today between the Centre and the North-East. <b>The Centre may have its own excuses, but each one of the seven sisters has found only insensitivity on the Centreâs part in understanding its problems, problems that are qualitatively different and more complicated than those besetting other States.</b>
Manipur is a classic example of the emotional gulf that separates it from the Centre. There has been a long history of discontent in the State over many issues. Often in the past this discontent has also exploded in violence and bloodshed.
Manipurâs experience, like that of many States in the North-East and rest of the country, is that the Centre wakes up when there is violence and returns to slumber when peace is restored.
The charge of insensitivity and lack of understanding against the Centre has spawned agitations which have been secessionist in approach. These agitations and the Centreâs indifferent response to them have created demands for sovereignty in almost all the seven North-Eastern States.
In Manipur, the enforcement of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, both anti-insurgency legislations, has led to popular protest from time to time, with the people complaining of continued Army oppression and atrocities.
The demand for the repeal of the AFSPA, described as one of the most draconian pieces of anti-people legislations by the Manipuris, and for its sister legislation, the UAPA, is as old as the day of their enactments. The implementation of both seem to have been extremely unflattering to the conduct of the armed forces. Both the Acts have helped to keep insurgency under control but at a very heavy price in terms of popular response.
Two years ago, Manipur witnessed unprecedented civil turmoil in the wake of the abduction and killing of a woman, Manorama, allegedly by some Army men. An incident during the protest strike in which a group of women bared themselves in front of some soldiers daring them to shoot them down shocked the conscience of entire India. During a subsequent visit to Imphal, the Prime Minister met some of those brave women and promised them that the Centre would replace the AFSPA with a more humane Act.
He appointed a committee under Justice Jeevan Reddy to review the AFSPA provisions and recommend modifications to make the legislation more humane. The committee completed its task speedily and submitted its report nearly a year ago. The Centre is sitting on it and the recommendations are gathering dust in the Union home ministryâs shelves.
The Committee has recommended the total scrapping of the AFPA and some modifications in the UAPA to protect the people against Army atrocities and at the same time protect the armed forces against popular anger. Last week, asked by the media during his foreign tour about the fate of the report, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh replied that it was under process and no decision had been taken. The message has got home to Manipur: the Centre has no intention of repealing the Act nor of disciplining the Army.
It was not only Dr Singhâs casual response that sent messages to Manipur which provoked the shut down of the State during the Presidentâs visit on Monday. A fortnight ago, New Delhi had a surprise visit from an unusual visitor. Irom Sharmila, a Manipuri social activist who has been on a fast for the last six years in protest against the two anti-insurgency legislations, flew into the capital and after a visit to Rajghat, staged a dharna at Jantar Mantar demanding the release of the Jeevan Reddy Committee report and the repeal of the AFSPA.
Ms Sharmila has not consumed any food voluntarily for the last six years. She is force-fed through a nasal drip under the orders of a court. Manipurâs Chief Minister Ibobi Singh came to New Delhi specially to give her moral support and spent some time with her at Jantar Mantar. <b>But, not so surprisingly, no Central minister or politician or any social activist was seen anywhere near Jantar Mantar. Unlike the strong med-ia interest that usually marks agitations led by Medha Patkar, Ms Sharmilaâs hunger-strike evoked only marginal interest.</b>
Inaction, true, is also a form of action. Evasion and shirking of responsibility can also be a matter of policy. But in evading official follow-up action on the Jeevan Reddy Committee findings, Dr Singh and home minister Shivraj Patil are provoking the proverbially gentle Manipuris to battle. <b>The gentle Manipuris have sent a warning to the Centre in the form of message: the bandh against President Kalam is only a curtain-raiser to another struggle like the one two years ago which shook the country. The Centre needs to wake up. </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By S. Viswam
President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam has become an extremely popular head of State and is being hailed as the âPeopleâs Presidentâ because of his ability to establish easy rapport with any type of audience he addresses and any group of people he meets. He is constantly âeducatingâ the people by playing a teacherâs role and trying to explain in lucid language the intricacies of many complicated subjects.
His visits outside the national capital are looked forward to by the people, especially by students who enjoy the opportunity of interacting with him.
However, earlier this week, the President had a different kind of experience. When he arrived on Monday in Manipurâs capital, Imphal, instead of cheering crowds and welcome banners he was greeted with deserted streets, closed markets, offices and schools, and an eerie silence. Imphal looked like a ghost town. Only men in uniforms were visible on the roads. His visit, though brief, was boycotted by the people.
Not only Imphal but the entire State of Manipur had fully responded to a strike call by Apunba Lup, a conglomeration of 32 political and social organisations, to protest against the Centreâs failure to repeal the controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act. Attendance was thin at the convocation ceremony of the Manipur University, the only function the President attended.
The Centre could not have received a stronger message from the people of any State in support of a demand for intervention and speedy action. Implicit in the success of the protest strike was the depth of popular resentment over the Centreâs insensitivity in comprehending the nature of a popular grievance, the non-response to which has evolved into a powerful source of discontent.
The protest strike was also in the nature of a reminder to the Centre that the entire North-East is a vast zone of discontent. Each one of the âseven sistersâ has a grievance against the Centre, and the region itself is in the grip of some form of insurgency or the other. Assam has had the Ulfa problem in its hands for more than a decade. Unrest in Manipur is endemic. Nagaland has been simmering ever since Independence. Mizoram shows signs of settling down in peace after many decades of unrest but this could be a surface calm.
Indeed, you will hardly find parallels for the kind of alienation that marks Centre-State relations in a federal set-up as obtains today between the Centre and the North-East. <b>The Centre may have its own excuses, but each one of the seven sisters has found only insensitivity on the Centreâs part in understanding its problems, problems that are qualitatively different and more complicated than those besetting other States.</b>
Manipur is a classic example of the emotional gulf that separates it from the Centre. There has been a long history of discontent in the State over many issues. Often in the past this discontent has also exploded in violence and bloodshed.
Manipurâs experience, like that of many States in the North-East and rest of the country, is that the Centre wakes up when there is violence and returns to slumber when peace is restored.
The charge of insensitivity and lack of understanding against the Centre has spawned agitations which have been secessionist in approach. These agitations and the Centreâs indifferent response to them have created demands for sovereignty in almost all the seven North-Eastern States.
In Manipur, the enforcement of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, both anti-insurgency legislations, has led to popular protest from time to time, with the people complaining of continued Army oppression and atrocities.
The demand for the repeal of the AFSPA, described as one of the most draconian pieces of anti-people legislations by the Manipuris, and for its sister legislation, the UAPA, is as old as the day of their enactments. The implementation of both seem to have been extremely unflattering to the conduct of the armed forces. Both the Acts have helped to keep insurgency under control but at a very heavy price in terms of popular response.
Two years ago, Manipur witnessed unprecedented civil turmoil in the wake of the abduction and killing of a woman, Manorama, allegedly by some Army men. An incident during the protest strike in which a group of women bared themselves in front of some soldiers daring them to shoot them down shocked the conscience of entire India. During a subsequent visit to Imphal, the Prime Minister met some of those brave women and promised them that the Centre would replace the AFSPA with a more humane Act.
He appointed a committee under Justice Jeevan Reddy to review the AFSPA provisions and recommend modifications to make the legislation more humane. The committee completed its task speedily and submitted its report nearly a year ago. The Centre is sitting on it and the recommendations are gathering dust in the Union home ministryâs shelves.
The Committee has recommended the total scrapping of the AFPA and some modifications in the UAPA to protect the people against Army atrocities and at the same time protect the armed forces against popular anger. Last week, asked by the media during his foreign tour about the fate of the report, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh replied that it was under process and no decision had been taken. The message has got home to Manipur: the Centre has no intention of repealing the Act nor of disciplining the Army.
It was not only Dr Singhâs casual response that sent messages to Manipur which provoked the shut down of the State during the Presidentâs visit on Monday. A fortnight ago, New Delhi had a surprise visit from an unusual visitor. Irom Sharmila, a Manipuri social activist who has been on a fast for the last six years in protest against the two anti-insurgency legislations, flew into the capital and after a visit to Rajghat, staged a dharna at Jantar Mantar demanding the release of the Jeevan Reddy Committee report and the repeal of the AFSPA.
Ms Sharmila has not consumed any food voluntarily for the last six years. She is force-fed through a nasal drip under the orders of a court. Manipurâs Chief Minister Ibobi Singh came to New Delhi specially to give her moral support and spent some time with her at Jantar Mantar. <b>But, not so surprisingly, no Central minister or politician or any social activist was seen anywhere near Jantar Mantar. Unlike the strong med-ia interest that usually marks agitations led by Medha Patkar, Ms Sharmilaâs hunger-strike evoked only marginal interest.</b>
Inaction, true, is also a form of action. Evasion and shirking of responsibility can also be a matter of policy. But in evading official follow-up action on the Jeevan Reddy Committee findings, Dr Singh and home minister Shivraj Patil are provoking the proverbially gentle Manipuris to battle. <b>The gentle Manipuris have sent a warning to the Centre in the form of message: the bandh against President Kalam is only a curtain-raiser to another struggle like the one two years ago which shook the country. The Centre needs to wake up. </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->