indigenousnagaland #9 - "Manipur Territorial Integrity" Debunked

INTRODUCTION

There are about 7 states in northeast India; the Naga indigenous land has been bifurcated to create 4 of these states, namely, Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh.

Four districts in Manipur, namely, Ukhrul, Tamenglong, Senapati and Chandel are the homes of various Naga indigenous tribes. According to Nandita Haksar (human rights lawyer and writer), these "Hill Districts have been systematically been denied their fair share in the development funds and all the good hospitals and medical facilities are available in the Valley; so also colleges and educational institutions; apart from the such facilities such as electricity and water. There is also a high degree of corruption, which further marginalizes the tribal communities."

Haksar continues, "The Nagas in Manipur have been demanding that their districts be integrated with Nagaland.

... I have spent many years in Manipur and they have been the most meaningful ones in my life. I have learnt so much from the people living in that war-torn State. It genuinely pains me to write this article because it seems to be a betrayal of the friendship and warmth I have received from friends and acquaintances in the Valley. This article [Constitutional Crisis In Manipur, Nandita Haksar, June 19, 2010] is as much an appeal to my fellow Indian citizens as to my Meitei friends to see that the integrity of Manipur lies by preserving Meitei culture and civilization not by suppressing the development of other nationalities. I say this in much the same way I would say to my fellow Indians that the integrity of India can never be based on suppression of the democratic aspirations of Kashmiris, Bodos or other minority nationalities."

The Hindu Meiteis originated the slogan or phrase "Manipur Territorial Integrity" after 1972, to rally and mobilize their people beyond their homeland for the suppression of the democratic aspirations of those neighboring lands and peoples who, since time immemorial, lived independently of Manipur. Even this 300 year old drum, of Rongmei Nagas, is older than the present cartography of Manipur:

FIRST ARGUMENT

"Manipur history goes 2000 years back in time and the Naga hills had always been under Manipur jurisdiction", the Meitei argued. But fact is, (a) the GSI (geographical survey of India) backed up the Naga oral tradition that "Manipur" (or "Imphal valley" in today's axiom) was filled with water just about 5 centuries ago and there's no habitable land at all there, and (b) when Meiteis came and inhabited the Imphal valley, they were under the protection of the Nagas, as you will see below:

[The Naga and Meitei cultures haven't been developed overnight but have had been evolved over an extended period of time long before the British entry into India. That much is clear; and the two cultures, in turn, are the greatest evidence for who's who between the two peoples. That much is clear again.]

The sovereign power in the Meitei tradition lies with the Raja, whose coronation ceremony is (in the order of importance) second to no other ceremony in the life of the kingdom. The Raja needs to adorn himself in Naga dress for a ceremonial act — of putting other dresses in obeisance to the Naga dress — during his coronation. This is an act witnessed and documented also by the British (e.g. James Jonestone). Even their religious conversion to Hinduism could not alter this practice.

However, for the Nagas, there's no similar requirement for a foreign article in a political event of any significance, including war and peace. That much is clear. The British (e.g. Captain Butler, James Jonestone) described the Nagas as republicans, in whose political system the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.

Therefore, from the above observation of the two cultures, we can see who needs whom or who's under whose political hegemony.

The Meitei themselves were a descendant of Tangkhul Naga; without the Tangkhul Nagas, Meitei has no origin — they can do a DNA test on themselves to ascertain this fact. Their Aryan race theory is a joke. All they need is a mirror, to stop joking.

According to O. Tomba — Meitei historian — their history textbooks have to be rewritten from cover to cover as a consequence of the evidence shown by the GSI.

The British document is clear on the acts of war of aggression conducted by the combined force of the British and Manipuri Raja. Nagas, however, hadn't signed a written pact with Manipur or British. The British and Meitei/Manipur had a written pact between themselves yet they parted ways. Nagas have no pact to withdraw from as a matter of fact. The objection raised by Meitei/Manipur in regard to the Naga Integration issue, simply has no legal validity.

The objection itself is of recent origin and machination concocted as an afterthought of opportunistic orientation, after August 4, 1972. All India Congress Committee (AICC) and Manipur Pradesh Congress Committee (MPCC) inked a pact with Nagas on August 4, 1972 which states, "It is agreed upon that the Congress Party does not oppose the Naga Integration movement and does not consider Naga Integration movement as anti-party, anti-National, anti-State and unconstitutional activity".

"Why was it possible for the Meiteis to agree to the integration of Naga areas [with Nagaland] in 1972 and why are they opposing it today?" asked Nandita Haksar in her article "Constitutional Crisis In Manipur", June 19, 2010.

SECOND ARGUMENT

Meitei argued that the AICC and MPCC agreement with Nagas was not done by Meitei community per se, but rather by Meitei politicians that were representing their own political party. Answer: Meitei communal consensus is not needed at all if they are not the owner of the land in question.

THIRD ARGUMENT

Their third argument is, Meiteis and Nagas have a social bond that goes back in time and that Nagas need Meitei consent on what Nagas can do with their own property. This is a joke — not an argument.

The so-called social bond: in the linguistic territory, the dominant Hindu Meitei has invented the ideologically saturated lexicon of communal hate, such as "Haothu", which, for its historical and literal significance, is way more expletive than calling a Black person "Nigger". "Hao", for all intents and purposes, refers to a subhuman and "Thu" means "vagina" or female genitalia. It's a multi-layered expletive for communal utilization, generated by the owner of the dirtiest mind. Other cultures come with varying ethical constraints that disciplined the human mind, but none of those constraints was to be found in the hearts, minds and culture of the dominant Hindu Meitei from the historical timeline to this day. A quick glance at other cultures that have inbuilt ethical constraints, will give you the insight of what others have, such as, to name a few:

(1) the unassailable prestige and heritage of a classless republic that is individually sovereign and equal among men,
(2) the restorative justice that is woven into the social fabrics,
(3) the separation of powers (separation of "church and state"),
(4) the rule of law (in polar opposite to the law of the ruler),
(5) A pure form of democracy, etc.

In contradistinction to the above-mentioned reality of other superior cultures, the Hindu Meitei has the following practices:

(1) Caste system (although somewhat lesser in severity than the mainland Hindus)
(2) Punitive justice (they sliced off the nose, ear, hand, etc.)
(3) Sovereign power lies in one individual: the Raja (king),
(4) the law of the ruler, instead of rule of law,
(5) monarchy, etc.

In the territory of richness of political philosophy, the Meitei's abolition of monarchy for the adoption of democracy, has sealed the argument in favor of the Nagas, who, according to Captain Butler, practice a pure form of democracy.

The differing minds between Nagas and Meiteis have evolved differing cultures. One is worthy of imitation whereas the other is worthy of condemnation. According to the British, there's no other people like the Nagas that took great pain not to hurt the susceptibilities of anybody that they talk to, as a trait of the people, and that it was worthy of imitation. That is in polar opposite to the endemic morally-repugnant-bigotries-without-remedies, by and of the Hindu Meitei, whose trait of unparalleled communal hate epitomized by "Haothu" neither has a parallel in history nor a remedy till date.

FOURTH ARGUMENT

Their fourth joke is, "There will be a civil war!". So much for the "social bond" — now we know what it is. The list goes on.

THE VERDICT

Property: cattle and land have an owner but a people doesn't have any — unless someone bizarrely presupposes another as his slave. (People have rights; states don't. None of the Meitei/Manipur apologists have a cogent case, with objective empiricism, to either invalidate the Naga claim to the Naga hills or validate their own claim that Meitei/Manipur is the owner of the Naga hills). The argument for so-called "Manipur territorial integrity!" — for which the conclusion is presupposed in the premise (PREMISE: "Manipur territorial integrity!"; CONCLUSION: "Manipur territorial integrity!") — is based on the error in reasoning called Circular Logic. This is not a legitimate a priori stand.

People: it's abhorent and sickening to see the desperate attempts at forging an unwanted relationship by a people on another. If I say that you're neither a friend nor family, then the matter must end there. Nagas will remain without Manipur and Manipur will remain without Nagas. Nagas will — at all cost, as they have every right to — disengage with Meiteis; don't humiliate yourself by trying to water a dead flower — the idea of Manipur is dead anyway.

Who's who: Meitei/Manipur that had had forged a historical alliance with the British (the commercially motivated coloniser) is now running and dancing right into the hands of the sleaziest snake charmer: India. Not all religions are cogent; some are just bizarre, ate human flesh, burnt people alive, and then put on sale at gunpoint the message of "peaceful coexistence". Unlike Meitei, the Mizos don't say, we are all one entity; also the Pangals, unlike Meitei, don't call anyone "Haothu!". Should we — by a conspiracy of silence — put our children's children to eternal damnation (physical and spiritual damnation) just like that? Fact: ours is a resistance to pure evil — an untiring asymmetrical lawfare, welfare and warfare. Danger: one lie will produce a hundred lies, then a hundred into a thousand and a thousand into a hundred thousand and a hundred thousand into a million lies — that's the culture of Meitei and nobody is obligated to chain himself with this scorpion of whose nature it is to sting; an endorsement of such an a priori structure as Manipur whereby you accept to be true what is not, will erase all that is true.

REFERENCES

"Constitutional Crisis in Manipur" by Nandita Haksar (Human rights lawyer and writer), mainstreamweekly.net.

"Manipur: Reactions to Nandita Haksar’s Article"

"Justice Denied to Tribals in the Hill Districts of Manipur", by Bela Bhatia

https://steemit.com/philosophy/@truthtellerhere/indigenousnagaland-8-india-s-state-sponspored-terrorism

      ###