The state of Manipur seems to struggle to pass a week off without some kind of bandh someplace by some group or the other, making life needlessly hard for the common man. Agreed, it is a sign of a failed government, for no people on earth will elect a government knowing that its rule will bring upon such frequent disruptions to their lives. The NH-39 has perhaps seen more bandh hours than traffic this year in particular.

The Naga bodiesí sponsored blockade, the truckers boycott, the resumed blockade by UNC, the Moreh related disruption, the JAC blockade, and the list never seems to end. In all these blockades and bandhs, it is important to remember that it is not the Ministers, top officials of the government who suffer the consequences
of these disruptions to normal life. It is the common man who needs to move around freely to make both ends meet that bear the brunt of it all. In this light, it is pertinent to retrospect for all concerned to rid the land of this menace of bandhs. There is an underlying reason for the people turning to bandhs and blockades at the fall of a hat. It is basically a reflection of the lack of faith in the government to deliver justice that often make the people take the law into their own hands, and pressurize the state machinery to act to redress their grievances. But the question really is, where are these activists when governments are being elected every five years? Have they exercised their franchise wisely at those crucial moments, or have they allowed their franchise to be either purchased or dictated against their better judgment? When in a democracy, the government is supposed to be representing the people, how is it that the people always end up electing the familiar faces that they knew had failed them on previous occasions? And, if they have elected a government of their choice, why do they need to act in a trust deficit that wreaks havoc on their own lives every time something goes haywire. Should they not trust their elected government to resolve the crises in their interest as and when they arose?

On the other hand, what standard of morality and public office ethics allow the government to remain inactive, or active against people's wishes, every time there is a crisis? Should it not be the government's responsibility to restore the faith of the masses every time a potential situation of crisis arose and thereby avoid the public disorder caused by blockades and bandhs? Governments are to function on a moral and ethical code that protects public interest. The breaking of locks of offices sealed by unlawful organizations is nothing more than playing to the gallery. The real challenge is to enable the peon to dutifully open the office every working morning, not for a minister to wield the hammer. It is hardly the job of a minister to open the door of offices. If at all, adequate security should be provided to the state employees who should be made to turn up for duty of face the consequences. It is the soft pedaling by a compromised government that the militants are taking advantage of. Nowhere in the world would we find outlawed organizations sealing government offices unless the government is thrown out of a certain region like it were in Sri Lanka during the heydays of the dreaded LTTE. It is a sad commentary on the kind of authority that the state commands in the state and reflects the helpless of the state government.

It is important to note that a government which operates on unchallenged standards of public morality and governance ethics do not get cowed down by theatrics and threats of outlawed organizations, and the best way to deal with dissent and militancy also lies in making the government accountable and transparent. Uncorrupted officials seldom get abducted or served ransom letters, for the militants also know all too well where the loot lies.