Response to “If leader of Hizbul-Muzahideen wants to visit Kashmir, will India allow him?” and Hueiyen Editorial dated 8th May 2010
This is in response to an article “If leader of Hizbul-Muzahideen wants to visit Kashmir, will India allow him?” and the Hueiyen Editorial, both of which were printed in the Hueiyen Lanpao daily, Imphal on 08 May 2010.
Thanks for the issues raised in these pieces and hope that the same opportunity will be accorded to this article in the spirit of free debate and freedom of expression. Mr. Khangembam Romesh, in his piece has raised the issue of “sincerity” on the part of the Central Government and NSCN (IM). He also further goes on to talk about the validity or invalidity of his tour to be judged in light of particular laws. If I have not misunderstood, the same yardstick of sincerity, perhaps, should be applied to the Meiteis and the various Meitei civil societies as well. If my memory is not wrong, the whole of Manipur, particularly the valley, was jumping up and down over Ibobi’s blatant disregard for the rights of the people some months ago following the July 23 incident. Again, if I am not wrong, the arguments of the people’s right to decide, the legitimacy of the acts of the Government in the absence of people’s support, the primacy of democratic principles and rule of law were all shouted hoarsely by the people in Imphal valley.
Where are all these principles now? Just because Nagas are not Meiteis, these principles should not hold true for the Nagas? Mr. Romesh, you took such pains to point out the difference between “terrorists” and “normal” people. Who determines who is a “terrorist”? The state? If it is the state, I also remember the police arresting many Meitei leaders from AMUCO and UCM, booking them under various anti-terror laws and declaring them as terrorists. Are they terrorists just because the state says so? If it is not the state, then who determines? You and your majority Meitei community? If so, why should the Meiteis cry hoarse over the violation of democratic rights and freedoms when you yourself do not follow it?
Where is the “sincerity” of Meitei civil societies like AMUCO and UCM, etc. who have been fighting against militarization, opposing AFSPA, and protesting against the Ibobi government’s excessive use of police forces against civilians? Where is the “sincerity” of Meitei groups who have been howling over the Meitei’s right to self-determination? Where is the sincerity in allowing military forces to come in and mow down innocent civilian, just because they are Nagas and not Meiteis?
Do you think that only Meiteis have the right to self-determination but Nagas do not, where is the sincerity in that argument? Where is the sincerity in the Meetei’s claim of “Ching-Tam Amatani” when such a relationship is presupposed by the Meitei’s claim of dominance over those living in the hill districts and their constant attempts to control what happens in the hills instead of letting people in the hills decide their own fate?
Where is the sincerity when your leading organizations were trying their utmost to break Ibobi’s government some months ago accusing it of various illegalities and now, these very organizations are supporting his state terrorism policies just because they are directed against the Nagas? Where is the sincerity when the Meitei public accused the Indian Reserved Battalion and Manipur Police Commandos as lawbreakers some months ago and now they are touted as law-keepers?
You mentioned the killing of Dr. Kishan but is his life worth more because he is a Meitei and not just some helpless daily wage earner from the “desh” shot dead arbitrarily by “unidentified” gunmen? Where did all the vocal individuals and organizations go when Prof. Islamuddin and Mr. T. Thangthuam Paite, IGP (Int) was gunned down? Why you and your community silence because he was a Pangal and another Tribal Indian Police Officer? The complicity of some IRB personnel was revealed in the killing of Prof. Islamuddin, and these are the very same persons who are rampaging, looting, and killing people in Mao Gate, and yet you celebrate their maintenance of law and order now because it is happening far away from the valley? Where is the sincerity? I would think that all life is sacrosanct, and the human rights of all individuals are universal and the same. You let the Nagas know this and then, maybe only then, we can talk about sincerity more completely.
Mr. Romesh, you should, perhaps examine yourself in the light of your own statement that “The kind of understanding a person will have of his own identity is irreducibly distinct from the sort of understanding he can have of the identity of other people”. Your argument, taken to its logical end, would mean that a person is never wholly able to appreciate the difference existing in other people because he views their identity as distinct, and hence never able to understand the other person fully. If this is so, how can you even claim to say that Muivah is different from you? And yet you claim with such conviction that “the past and present life of Muivah” is “wholly
different from what we are.”
Let me also take this opportunity to point out the hypocrisy which appeared in the Hueiyen Editorial. It is stated that, “Only two parties can ease the tension. They are–the Government of India and the General Secretary of NSCN-IM, Th. Muivah.” For all Nagas, the only party creating problems is the Government of Manipur with full endorsement from some of your own
civil societies. You talk of letting Muivah come back in “happy times”.
Whose “happy times”? For Meiteis? The Editorial also said the Government of Manipur and the people would do anything to stop Muivah from entering the state. What people are you talking about? Is that including Nagas? I thought the wishes of the Naga people is very clear, they want Muivah to come so where will you accommodate this when you grandly imply the wishes of the people?
Your editorial further stated, “Therefore, the Government of Manipur should naturally take up security measures to protect the state’s territory, boundary and people.” You go on in the same breath to add that “Thursday’s casualties that occurred at Mao were the natural outcome of such a state action.” Would you say that protecting the people of Mao is not a part of such responsibilities, that killing of innocent civilians is protecting? Protection of the rights and lives of people, I thought, would suffer no hypocrisy or different standards but your argument seems to imply that it is ok to kill people in the periphery such as the Nagas as long as they are not Meiteis. It is because of double standards like these that Nagas are disillusioned with the Government of Manipur. I am sorry to say but I did not expect an editorial of Hueiyen Lanpao, which I have come to respect for its objective reporting, would go on to concretize the biases that divides the hills and the valley in Manipur.
I hope such bias commentary will not be repeated again. Let us remember the adage” You can fool the whole world for some time, and you can fool someone for all the time, but you cannot fool the whole world for all the time”.
Sincerely,
LK Tungba
If leader of Hizbul-Muzahideen wants to visit Kashmir, will India allow him ?
By Khangembam Romesh
Here the term ‘sincerity’ is desperately related with the question of identity of Muivah. Who is Muivah? What lies behind his proposed visit to Manipur? Whether the claim of his planned visit as ‘not non-natural’ is valid or invalid? Taking the legal into account, these questions may be taken into consideration. There are also certain things involved other than the legal. On what motive he is visiting his birth place after a long decade? What is the morality of his proposed meeting and interaction with the people especially Nagas, being as a law breaker/destroyer of Republic India?
The validity or invalidity of his tour is to be judged in the light of particular laws enacted by the respective state in the interest of the people. Cases involving a terrorist or a groups of terrorist are to be looked after by the state’s legal code (if it would affect directly or indirectly the state) according to the situation (not necessarily all the time, but at certain state of affairs based on the probable outcome, may be violent or not but no matter). In case of Muivah, I hope, both India Government and Manipur Government must agree that he is not above the people of Manipur; despite being born in Manipur. If he is just visiting his mother state, then what is the logic of his claim that he don’t need to take permission from Manipur Government. Everybody knows what his claim indicates for. Then, why should he be allowed to enter Manipur. I think, India Government must know better. If the rebel leader of the outfit Hizb-ul-Mujahideen plans to visit Kashmir to motivate innocent public in the name of peace under the banner of India-Pakistan Peace Dialogue-should India Government allow him to enter Kashmir? When I wish to go to Manipur, there is no restriction, no need to obtain permission, because I am different from Muivah. My act and intentions are quite different from that of his. The particular act performed by an individual or a group can determine, what is his/her hidden agenda. Muivah could have been born in a different time at Somdal in Ukhrul district, but his position in life and all his personal characteristics have been completely different from what he was.
Based on the contingency of some particular aspect of his present personality (say, twist of events and circumstances), his life (I would say as a whole), the fact of his being the person he is now, is just a terrorist, nothing else. The kind of understanding a person will have of his own identity is irreducibly distinct from the sort of understanding he can have of the identity of other people. The events of the past and present life of Muivah being wholly different from what we are. His vivid distinctness about the contingency of his own life (or whatever he had been involved), has been the fact that of killing many innocent people, violation of other’s rights, destroying other properties, demanding to take away properties of others just for a particular benefit (of a specific group), but which are not theirs or given and in turn threatening to the security of the country/state. This is what he has done so far, seems like still continuing.
Considering his inner motive that reflects from what he used to deliver at many events, how can one say the proposed visit is fair and just for peace. The incident of burning down loaded goods trucks coming to Manipur by NSCN (IM) armed cadres at Khuzuma (Nagaland) is that kind of violent action (may be deemed as one of terrorist activities), perhaps beyond the ‘ground rule’ of the peace talk. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India has to clarify in this regard (whether this act violates the ground rule or not), if there is sincerity in their peace policy. In case, if it were happened the violation of ground rule of the cease fire agreement between NSCN (IM) and India Government, what action has to be taken against them? Despite the existence of peace talk, such dreadful activities are being still carried out by NSCN (IM) within the territory of Nagaland.
I wonder how the MHA considers the planned trip as Muivah’s home visit. Has Muivah ever assert himself as a Manipuri at certain episode? My inclination, at this point, would be to have more of a think about the proposed trip and to revisit what Muivah and NSCN (IM) have done earlier on the land of Manipur (can be recalled the gruesome killings of Dr Kishan, Baby Lungnila Elizabeth, the incident of Shirui that took place some time back). The Central Government has to rework over the matter of the proposed visit of Muivah taking the situation severely into account. If the peace talk between Delhi and NSCN (IM) implemented effectively and confines the agreement only in Nagaland, then Muivah may not have entertained the scheme of touring Manipur. Why did Muivah plan to come to Manipur from Delhi via Kolkata by air to Dimapur and to travel by road to Somdal taking the land route on NH-39 (as per the indication in the wireless crash message from the Union Home Ministry). Why not via Imphal towards Ukhrul? So as I think, the issue of ‘sincerity’ in both Central Government and NSCN (IM) is a BIG question mark? What I want to comment is that the proposed tour is ‘un-natural’. This visit is not that kind of the emotional attachment bonded between Muivah and his birth place. If so, what has he done so far for Manipur? Nothing, he is just a terrorist, not a leader. Muivah and the Naga frontal organisations UNC, ANSAM, NPMHR, and NWUM have no right to profoundly claim the proposed unofficial trip of Muivah as “not un-natural”. The violation of a law and the punishable offence may be meted out to NSCN (IM), the Naga frontal organisations or individuals depending upon the situation. Because it has now, become a serious threat to the integrity of a state that belongs to independent India. In the present confrontation, there is no question of inherent Naga right. All Nagas in Manipur have every right as being Manipuri, but not for Muivah. The NSCN (IM) should not use the words ‘Meitei neighbour’, because Manipur is not the land of Meiteis only. They should understand it.
http://www.hueiyenlanpao.com/news.php?newsid=486