Rules of Game

By: Heigrujam Nabashyam

In the last session of the Parliament during a discussion on the rail budget when a member of the Lok Sabha commented that the rail budget looked like the budget of West Bengal, the rail minister Mamata Banerjee, an MP from West Bengal shot back “What is your problem with West Bengal”. The fact was, the rail budget was obviously lopsided with the interests of West Bengal to which the rail minister belongs. Interestingly the rail minister did not stop with that stunning shot; she also said that she would do whatever she could for the development of West Bengal – a classic statement from an Union minister in the parliament.
The statement of the rail minister certainly smacks of parochialism. But as a Mamata brigade member of the Rajya Sabha wrote in the column of The Telegraph, “India cannot prosper without a prosperous Bengal”, the minister for railways was right in putting Bengal first before the nation. Or should there be a different opinion?
It is the prerogative of the government – and the minister is the government – to focus on whatever programme or whichever area that the government considers priority. Equally it is also the responsibility of every member of the House – ruling or opposition to draw the attention of the government which they consider should be the priority. Though, finally it is the government that prevails. And that was exactly what Mamata Banerjee was doing – doing whatever she could for the development of West Bengal, as the Union minister of railways.
The same is true in all the departments of the government – of the present or of the past. The same will be true in any future government, too. This is not only true for the Union government of India, it is also true for any government in the states and Manipur is no exception.
The same is also true not only for India, but also true for any country in the world irrespective of the form and system of the government including that of the United States of America which stands for individual liberty and freedom and democratic rights for all its people and of the government of the People’s Republic of China whose system is anathema to individual liberty and freedom and having a government of one party dictatorship.
However the beauty of a democratic system – unlike a dictatorial one is that the government may be taken to task by the opposition or by any citizen for any violation of the rules of the game. Orders of the government could also be struck down by the judiciary if the orders are found to be ultra vires with the law of the land. The most important deterrent to the government in a democratic system is, of course, the ire of the people – the voters – who can vote the government out in the next elections, if the government goes against their wishes. Speaking to the media to mark his 20 years in cricket in Bombay – Mumbai the Master Blaster Sachin Tendulkar provoked the Supreme leader of the Shiv Sena, Bal Thackrey by his “cheeky single” – “Mumbai belongs to all Indians”. Though there was no issue with his other statements that he was a Maharastrian and he was extremely proud of that and he was an Indian first.
The sensitivity of the Shiv Sena or its offshoot Maharastra Navnirman Sena for Mumbai has some sort of a legacy after the formation of Gujarat and Maharashtra on linguistic consideration from the earlier Bombay state. The Marathi speaking people or the Marathi Manoos as the Shiv Sena and its offshoot love to call themselves, - consider that Mumbai belongs to the Marathi Manoos. And that nobody should challenge that.
But the hard fact is Bombay - Mumbai is the financial capital of the country besides being the capital city of Maharashtra. The control of the economic power in this financial capital is in the hands of the corporate people who are non-Marathi Manoos. This, without any doubt, is the basic cause for the sensitivities of the proponents of the Marathi Manoos.
When Tendulkar was scolded for his “cheeky” statement, leaders from across the political spectrum of India showed solidarity with Sachin Tendulkar, not for any cricket but for all reasons of politics. They condemned the Sena Supremo for his parochialism. And if I were somebody I would also have condemned the Supremo as I had a little experience of the ethos of the Manoos in Bombay sometime last winter, despite my being a non-stranger to the Maharashtrian life.
The feeling or sentiment of a lost territory is, I believe, not typical for the Marathi Manoos. The sentiment is common in cities, towns and places where emigrants or people from other parts of the country have marginalized the sons of the soil. This is a phenomenon; even the advanced societies in the world are not free from. Indeed, the most infamous remark in the recent past of reflecting such sentiments was – “Britain would be swamped by the Asians” - made by the then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Unfortunately the spirit of this phenomenon is on the rise in certain areas and in certain sections of society in India and with globalization the phenomenon will become more and more prominent.
When Mamata Banerjee as Union minister put Bengal before the nation in her rail budget, nobody called her parochial, because she knew how to play the game. She was doing it for Bengal – not for the Bengalis – therefore she was not parochial. It is also understandable how she and for that matter any leader would feel in a hypothetical situation where the sons of the soil are marginalized by emigrants in their own home state.
However, this is not to suggest that parochialism may be justified and that attempt should be made to sort the matter out on the streets because the issue is much more important and complicated and needs thorough planning and execution with the sanction of law to deal the matter.
In a similar vein but much at a lower level, it was reported that some civil society organizations in Manipur – FRIENDS, The Inner Line Permit Demand Committee Kangleipak, etc. - held a meeting and voiced serious concern of the indigenous peoples of Manipur for the alleged threats to the sons of the soil by the emigrants from Nepal and Bangladesh. And the fun is the state government does not even consider them as illegal immigrants. According to the reports placed in the meeting the emigrant populations of the Nepalis and the Bangladeshis have far exceeded the population of many of the smaller indigenous communities of Manipur put together.
It may be noted that there are at least 36 indigenous groups or communities in Manipur and many of the communities have populations of few thousands each only. Therefore given the vulnerability of the social demography of Manipur the rise in the migrant population in Manipur is disturbing. This naturally calls the state government to take steps to check this disturbing trend by applying appropriate laws, as it is a tricky situation.
The Manipur government must enact proper land laws to protect the indigenous communities and this will help maintain the demographic balance more than any other measure. At the same time Manipur should not be made difficult to reach by any citizen or by the tourists by imposing any restrictions including the Restricted Area Permit imposed by the Union Government. But the state government must play the game wisely so that the sons of the soil would be placed in a better position while taking on the challenges of globalization.
The writer is a Ex-Candidate Singjamei a/c, Manipur