If this article goes to the press and gets delivered to you, know that I had spent sleepless nights ru minating if I should be writing at all. The debate on the structure and institution of Kuki polity still rages on, and given that I have drawn flakes from different quarters for having an opinion on one such institutions - chieftainship- another commentary would not hurt more than it already has. I have reason to believe that my article titled "Chieftainship and Democracy" was not received very well by the elder generation. As for the "my generation', fortunately for me, even those who have diametrically opposite views are open to dialogue.
This article is written largely to purge my- self from the demonising criticism I might have un-wittingly invited.
To begin with, I find it a bit hilarious that despite a number of articles appearing in Gosem News with chieftainship as its core theme or sub theme, of which almost every second articles seem to be in concord with my exposition, I am being projected as a disoriented culture-basher, and most of all, not worthy of being given an audience. In fact, few articles that are even more critical than mine passed off without so much as an eyelid being batted. Now there are two ways of looking at the mixed reaction.
Synthesis: Thesis and Antithesis
First of all, it would appear that my writing has done considerable damage to the epistemological underpin- nings of our knowledge production exercise. I do not, and would never, condescend to moral and intellectual uprightness of my fellow brethren. In fact, I admire and encourage rudimentary knowledge based on pseudo-science and practised by rustic folks from the countryside. Only that when I am refused my point of view I become acutely agitated. If someone were to argue and critique my point, I would honestly wish the person do so with reasonable anchorage on rationality and logic and not on fuzzy principle: not simply because it appears unsavoury. In other words, counter-points to a point need not be at the risk of debate and discourse. As Marx would say, thesis and anti-thesis are only waiting to be synthesised. Prove me wrong rather than engaging in character assassination. We are only mediums propagating certain lines of thinking. Delegated to us is the responsibility of bringing into the discourse revolutionary and thought provoking anti-thesis to the conventional thesis. In shutting off anti-thesis, we would only be pushing our society and individual to perpetual Dark Age. Ever wondered why the Middle Age was labelled the Dark Age? Rest assured that it had nothing to do with natural darkness of the night. Rather, the metaphor closely reflected reality where humanity was pushed into complete darkness consequent to moral, material and intellectual degradation following the decline of the mighty Roman Empire. Let's not create fertile ground for history to repeat itself. Engaging Scholars from Academia.
Second of all, the younger generation of Kukis who are exposed to academia and scholarship accepts that change is long overdue. The only contentious issue being the nature of that change, which of course will be a while before unanimity is achieved. Any naysayer should pay a visit to any one university to feel the pulse of the youth. "We want change!" is the refrain. A university is probably the only place where ideas and dissenting voices are nurtured and encouraged. This has a positive impact on the students in that it inculcates confidence about their opinion however irrelevant they may be. When a student begins to accept the indestructibility of belief, he ceases to be dogmatic and becomes humble. A conviction dawns on him on the need to preserve probity and integrity. He thereby gives up parochial mindset and embraces the "truth". But then again he keeps abreast of all that affects him in a way that the "truth" he seeks becomes his own enemy.
He is well aware of the sticky situation effected by the strain between tradition and modernity. He knows for instance that wanton adoption of modern system (land ownership/patta rights) within our local system (chieftainship) has the potential of dislodging us from our own abode. He is not blind to the happenings around him; of the issue of overlapping census and the wrecking crusade launched by the majority Meitei community to confiscate parts of Kangchup-Chingkhong Sadar Hills highland by secession. He knows for a fact that his identity and his land are being contested and that his angst-rid- den existence hangs on a tricky balance of majoritarian politics.
To my Meitei brethren, if you think we suffocate you, you should consider being in our predicament. Your conduct defeats the idea of sharing a ëreal spaceí called Manipur under the much hype chingmi-tammi slogan. You are the majority here in Manipur, but when you venture out into the mainland you are one of us. Do not think that you can escape majority minority tussle. No one can! Try wearing a minority glass before you pass a judgement on us.
Coming back, our scholars do not claim to know the solution to the friction, but the certitude of the impend- ing danger does not escape their knowledge. Some- where between status quo and total transformation, a solution to the vexed issue lies hidden. Here comes the need to engage scholars from academia to the prospect and suspect of such tentative change. They have cultural legacy by being rooted in that tradition while possessing modern system of knowledge by socialisation and schooling. Every revolutionary change around the world happened right inside the campus of the universities before cracking into ob- stinate bastions. We could honour them by inviting to share their opinions.
banjom ding...
