|
|
|
Taxing Times Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown. For somebody who came to wear it by compulsion rather than inclination, it must be all the more painful. In better times, it would have been another story, but in these trying times, whoever that wears the crown, whether by choice or accident, must believe in the job entrusted to him or them and steer the state out of whatever crisis it lands in. The authorities must also believe in the state they are in charge of. It is true the solution to the present situation is no cakewalk for even the best of administrator, or government, elected or otherwise. Anybody, would have, and in the past actually have, faced the ire of the subjects in similar situations. The state has seen President’s Rules before, but never in such moments of crisis as we are witnessing today. Most of the other instances of Central Rule had been made inevitable because of constitutional breakdowns courtesy our legislators’ avarice, and were temporary arrangements before fresh mandates of the people could be sought. In the true sense of the word, it may be Lt. General (retd.) VK Nayyar alone who too had a violent crisis at hand during the extended spell of President’s Rule that he sat at the helm. The popular government then was dismissed on the ground of its inability of handling the ethnic riots between the Nagas and the Kukis in the hills as well as the slipping law and order. The Kuki-Naga feud did lose its initial destructive steam ultimately, largely out of fatigue, which saved General Nayyar the headache of making sensitive decisions, prone to contrasting interpretations by different parties in the conflict. Still, until well after the popular government had been dismissed, violence continued to sporadically erupt. But one thing that General Nayyar could not have been accused of is indecisiveness. It
is time the present administration is far trickier than what other state
administrators had to face in the past. Nobody can deny today there is a rift
between the hills and valley, between the Nagas and the Meiteis. No government
can afford to alienate either, although it ought not to be forgotten that one
camp wants the political entity the authorities are in charge of, intact, and
the other camp wants it severed. No doubt, it is important to put up a neutral
face so as to be able to command the moral authority of the entire subjects, but
neutrality cannot be equated to avoiding affirmative action. On the contrary, in
such a situation, neutrality can only manifest in a firm and equal application
of the law. It is again true that insensitive application of the law can result
in casualties but it must be the prerogative and duty of the administration to
decide where to draw the line. Peaceful agitations must be permitted so as to allow concerned parties to vent steam to avoid destructive explosions. But at no cost, must peace be allowed to be breached. While the heat was in the valley, people defied curfew to demonstrate. As long as the demonstrators did not enter the sensitive zones, or breach the peace, the administration looked the other way. Perhaps a similar thing can be done in the case of the agitations in the hills. Let there be demonstrations, but the highways must remain untouched. If not for anything else, then because it can trigger off bigger violence. (Courtesy: Imphal Free Press) Back to Top FrontPage Manipur Profiles Features Potpourri Opinions Editorials Books Photos Links Archives Contact Policy/Disclaimer |
