The 18th of June and the ceasefire mode.

At the very outset,I'm pleased to statethat this 15th June is the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta.It punctured the theory of the Divine Right of the king.In that sense,it's the harbinger of democracy,as we know it today.

But,in today's world,is democracy the legitimate target of attacks(just like the Taliban did today in Kabul)?

Specifically,in our case,would democracy solve the problem underlying 18th June?

Incidentally,on the 18th June 2015,the Hong Kong legislative body voted down the Chinese model of democratic election prescribed for Hong Kongers.In other words,they said that the Western-style democracy would prevail over the Chinese model in the long run.

Again,on the 18th June 2015,there was a bloody shooting inside the historic church in South Carolina,snuffing out nine innocent black lives.The shooting emphatically reminded us the wounds of the tight tussle between those people espousing the idea of federation and those of confederation.I'll be quick to clarify that confederation based on the idea of slavery is totally unacceptable.But the tussle between decentralisation(confederation) and centralisation(federation) is still relevant today.

I've no idea why the above two events happened on the same day which is the soul crushing one for us ie,the 18th of June.But every newspaper reader knows that they actually did happen on that day.Did they serve as the fodder for thought for us here in Manipur?

The 18th of June,for the Manipuris,essentially boils down to the intricacies of the hill-valley relationship.For many decades,we have a more or less working federal setup.But hill-valley problems remain as strong as ever.So,would a more de-centralized confederation system be the answer?

Together with this federal system,we have also electoral democracy rooted in both the societies of both the hill and the valley.But this also not solve our problem.

But one thing is beyond controversy.Hill-valley relationship of Manipur is as intricate and old as the polemics of federation vs confederation  and Western-style democracy vs pro-poor syatem,like that of China.

I know it's laughable to even think of attempting to sketch a simple profile of hill-valley problem of Manipur in a single blog post.It's a soul-crushing probelm for Manipur.

But bloggers are a new breed of people!So,I would try it anyway!!

To my mind,hill-valley relationship of Manipur essentailly boils down to the game of 'fair competition and mutual respect' between the people of hill and valley.Any political system that enables the free play of this game would be suitable for us.

Putting our problem in the canvas of 'fair competition and mutual respect' game,this blogger,being born in the valley,would try to answer the crucial question: what had happened to the valley society which disables it to fully and truthfully engage in the game?

Whenever I ask this question,I perenially come to face to face with one single person--Poireiton.The trouble of Manipuri society has its genesis in the person of Poireiton.It's not about race--it does not matter whether he came from the East or the West.

What is of utmost importance now--in the context of the general development of social history of Manipur,Pireiton is the first challenge.

In the context of real-politic,he is anti-Pakhangba.

It's not from history book but I think it would not be any controversial to state that prior to 33 AD,the administration of State,being of homogenous and small population,was almost a flawless affair.This being so,Pakhangba decided to bestow some of the benefits of this flawless state administration model to the less fortunate folks(like Poireiton).

It may be taken as the first attempt to make the society heterogenous.As expected,Pakhangbe encountered problem at the very outset in the person of Poireiton.We know that Pakhangba might have tried to porttray himself as some kind of a divinity to bestow the fruits of the good state adminstration to numerous groups of people--Poireiton's group being just one of them.It's clear that it was smooth sailing with all other groups,except that of Poireiton's.

There is still a lot of controversy regarding what actaully transpired beween Pakhangba and Poireiton.

But two non-conttroversial facts stand out.

1) Pakhangba not only married Poireiton's sister but also installed her as the queen.This shows the immensity of the challenge posed by Poireiton to Pakahngba in particular and to the regning political system in general.This also points to the likely scenario that it was not the case of the outright subjugation of Poireiton.It is more of a case of uneasy ceasefire.

2) This point  seems to be further consolidated by the second fact that Poireiton and his group came with comparably sophisticated culture,as shown by the cullinary surprises experienced by Pakhangba and his ruling class(as is evident in the transcription of Poireiton's name in some forms of rice which are still considered to be delicacies).The clash of two comparably sophisticated culture points to the existence of an uneasy ceasefire.

Seen in this light,we are still living with the longest ever ongoing ceasefire in human history.No neighbouring community(be it of hill or whatever)would ever respect a society which has been under a choking ceasefire for a such a long time.In other words,we still cannot command the respects of the neighbouring communities for this reason.

The first and foremost condition which we need to meet so as to tackle the problems like that of the 18th June is quite simple--walking out of the choking and debilitating ceasefire.

We need to quickly walk out this of ceasefire mode.

The deception game reveals the coming retaliatory move.

'Look,how magnificient my trial balloon is',said India's military.

The Indian media men of all hues,standing thousand of miles away,clapped,cheered and said,'Bravo,bravo'.

It totally alarms me in seeing how the whole body of Indian media,cuting across the imaginable tags of regional,national,pro and anti-goverment,suddenly became the mouthpiece of the military.I don't think it's the case of lack of will or professional ethics to fact check the Indian military's story.

To my mind,it goes way deeper than that.Delh's political class,together with the military,have a quite talk with all the media houses and then,they formed a 'team' for a brief collaborative effort in national interest.That's the reason why we saw total unanimity in cheering the Indian military's story and a zero effort at fact checking.Imagine how two most unlikely agencies,media and military,forming a team,however brief it may.It's totally alarming.It's the most dangerous place we are living in.

If they can go this far,the inevitable question comes to the fore--'Is the Indian military's story merely a trial balloon?'.

It's more than a trial baloon.It's a multi-layered deception play.

As the Indian military's story is in retaliation to the June 4 ambush in Chandel(my last post),we need to ask how that ambush came about.

That ambush is the retaliatory move to the killing of more than 40 Burmese soldiers in Laukkaing,bordering Yunnan province of China.

If we go a little bit further,it's quite clear that the Laukaing ambush is yet another retaliatroty move to the public announcement of the battleline,way back in Nov 2014.

Again,if we look at the anatomy of the above moves and countermoves,it's quite reasonable to infer that India would rather cut a sorry figure amonst the comity of nations if it jumps headlong into the loop of these moves and countermoves.But it must be noted here that India is the sole architech of this anatomy.This own deed of India now prevents it from jumping headlong into the loop,even if it desires so.Looking from this angle the June 9 story is proving something more than a mere trial baloon.So,what's the options available to it?To my mind,the only option available to it is to persuade some rebels groups of Manipur to strike at the eco-system wherethe Khaplang group is an important player.But the Khaplang group itself would not be the target because doing so would not make New Delhi's point.

New Delhi's point or the doctrine behind the coming retaliation is to make as muuch as trouble to Burma as during the Laukkaing ambush(subjecting China to such trouble would come at a later stage,possibly with the active participation of US).So,the coming retaliation would happen somewhere inside Burma.

All the above deductions tell us that there would be radical churns withn the myriad rebel groups of Manipur vis a vis their inter-group relationship.With the whole weight of the Indian State bearing on the effort to persuade some rebel groups to make the retaliatory move on its behalf,the inter-group relationshjp amonst the rebel groups of Manipur would witness a sea change.

To my mind,many rebel groups,without even the persuasion from India,would secretly help the groups(which are New Delhi's choices) in making the retaliatory strke in the near future.A lot of radical changes are coming our way.

The 4th of June--patterns and memories

When more than 40 Burmese army were killed,the result was border tension between China and Burma.

Now,China started a live ammunition military drill near Burmese border(rmeinding us that the border is still tense) and then,suddenly,17 Indian armymen were killed and more 16 injured in an ambush in Chandel district.

I'm more interested in the emerging pattern than the comparative statement of the casualities of the two attacks.

The pattern does not stop here.

When the Burmese soldiers were killed,Mr Rajnath Singh was in Imphal on an official visit.

When the Indian soldiers were killed today,Mr Ashton Carter,the US defence secretary,is still in New Delhi on an official visit.

Looking back,it's clear that it takes 130  days to discern the pattern emerging out of the two ambushes.The pattern makers in the first ambush are Burmese army,ethnic Chinese and one Indian Dignitary,Mr Rajnath Singh.And,today's pattern makers are Indian army,Chinese army(in the form of live ammunittion drill) and one US dignitaty,Mr Ashton Carter.

In our scheme of things,the first two pattern makers of the ambushes may be considered to be the constants.So,the two variables are Mr Rajnath Singh and Mr Ashton Carter.If we look back,it would be clear that Mr Rajnath Singh brought the news of the ambush here at Imphal.Looking at today's ambush with the same logic but traversing in the opposite direction,could it be inferred that Mr Carter is being asked to bring further 'patterns' in the near future?

Would Mr Carter accept the challenge?

The last but not the least.I would be acused of being wifully overlooking the significance of the day the Mnipur ambush ttok place.Today is 4th of June which coomemorates the culmination of the students protest in Tiannemain Square.Is there any pattern out of the Tiannemian Square bloodshed and today's ambush?

This is a profound question and I have not the time to read up further into the Tiannemian Square students protest.So,I'll try my best by depending on my memories.

Was Hua Gua Feng accused of being a revisionist?Was the huge blood shed at the Tiannemian Square a result of steady creeping in of revisionist thoughts within the revolutionary cadres of China?

As far as my memories go,the word 'revisionsm' seems to be the main theme of the 4th of June blood shed in the Tiannemian Squeare.Gooing with this logic,does today's ambush trying to hint at the emegence of revisionist thought amongst the revolutionay cadres of Manipur?

I have no means of answering this question because I can only utilize the information culled from the newsreports.Would Manipur's newspapers ever talk about the terms like 'revisionsm?

Knowing my own limitatioms,I think I have tried my best.