Coexistence, and indeed all notions of federalism, is about making reasonable compromises by all stakeholders competing for their individual spheres of control so that a new common space is created where each one of them can stand together equitably in the spirit of what has been what has been spelled out as the game theory. This theory is in many ways an extended and nuanced study of common sense, which at its basic, says that no player in a social situation, be it business, economic welfare scheme or conflict, can improve their expected payoff by unilaterally changing their strategy, without also taking into consideration everyone else’s interest. It recommends avoiding a zero-sum-games in one player’s gain translates into another player’s loss. Instead, It instead recommends non-zero-sum-games, where the total outcomes can be mutually beneficial, or in simple terms, a win-win situation. In this way, the rewards, utilities, or consequences a player receives is based on the combined strategies of everyone involved.
There is in this sense, nothing very bad about compromises. In fact, resolving deep differences will have to involve compromises from all parties concerned. No one party can have it all its way and each must be ready to give up some and get some. Unless this is the underlying spirit, no conflict of interest can ever be resolved amicably. Consequently, such a spirit will have to be a necessary condition for all meaningful dialogues if resolving differences is the objective. In this search for an answer, it is perfectly in place to sometimes shift standpoints. Everybody is expected to weigh options periodically at different points in time and then make decisions contingent upon the emerging situations. And situations do change. To refuse this would be obduracy. In the words of Bertrand Russell, changing opinion does not always have to be a matter of fickleness, but of a sign of intellectual vitality and growth. Anybody who believes all that he ever believed must unconditionally and unquestioningly remain unchanged, is a dead mind.
In the search for an answer to the vexing problems Manipur is immersed in, it is hence legitimate to try out different approaches. This applies most immediately to the multi-pronged horizontal violent ethnic conflicts among the state’s major communities we are witness to today, but also equally to the more endemic problem of the many longitudinal separatist insurrections against the Indian state. Whatever the stumbling blocks, lasting peace can only be won through negotiated settlements, where each party’s genuine anxieties and grievances are addressed, and solutions sought on the understanding recommended by the game theory – incidentally a theory for which American mathematician John Nash, won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1994. There are already several informal, track-2, talks initiatives to resolve the ethnic crisis in the state, hopefully the reconciliations reached on these forums will percolate to official forums and ultimately bring amicable resolutions acceptable to all stakeholders.
There are also several peace talks with militant factions in the longitudinal separatist conflicts being are tried out currently. Although not entirely successful yet, or even if they fail ultimately, these are gambles worth the while. Maybe these are overtures which could not have been avoided. For without doubt the hostile posturing of many of these groups were stagnating and fatiguing their societies, and if they had pushed on, a critical point of tolerance probably would have been reached, and maybe the fate they suffered would have been much worse than the stalemates they are caught in at this moment in peace parleys.
This extreme stress of public tolerance of violence is destined to come sometime or the other in any conflict scenario. Indeed, this was showing more than anywhere else in Nagaland at about the time the Naga truce was agreed upon in 1997. One wonders if Manipur too is not approaching such a critical point. The writings on the wall, or should we say writings on the placards at different public rallies, had become increasingly critical of insurgency related violence, though now overshadowed by the more immediate deadly ethnic conflicts. Otherwise, the idle talks in government offices, local tea stalls, social gatherings etc., all have this same message of violence and insurgency fatigue.
For the good of everybody, it will do well for the different underground organizations to put their ears close enough to the ground to hear these anguished voices and reframe their approaches accordingly. This does not mean the people have lost all faith in the original causes that ignited these insurrections in the first place. Many of these causes are still here, although many others have understandably altered completely. But without doubt, the people are simply and overwhelmingly tired of the method of revolt, especially when it seems like the insurrections are headed towards a dead end.
It is time to take stock of things and ideology once again. Some intense and unreserved self-questioning is called for at this moment before Manipur slips further into the abyss of mindless mayhem. Even if things do not go as hoped for, as indeed the seeming quagmire those peace parleys already in progress seem to be caught in, it ought to be kept in mind that sometimes failure rather than success has the most valuable lesson in store. New approaches, even if they do not succeed, always leave those who have tried wiser and spiritually stronger. If success is the reward, nothing like it, but even failures have their own rewards. For instance, they necessitate stock taking, and refreshed strategies at problem solving.
From all the waters that have flowed down the many rivers and streams of this beleaguered region, maybe the lesson is that ultimately the solution to the problems besetting the people here have to be a regional, rather isolated piecemeal tonics, though this is against the outlook of many known Machiavellian strategists who see causing splits and factures in the complex ethnic cauldron of the region is legitimate and gainful, not bothered of the possible poison they would likely end up introducing in the relationship among even ordinary citizenry. Fortunately, these Machiavellians are not the only ones making up the state and its institutions. There are also so many who are wary of the split and weaken first approach, for they complicate rather than simplify the problems being tackled. We have no doubt that ultimately the solution of the region will have to be predicated by an acknowledgment of a mutually bonded destiny – bonded by geography, geopolitics and history, recent as well as ancient.
Editor, Imphal Review of Arts and Politics and author
