The following text is the speech delivered by Dr Maya John at a program organized on 30th September 2016 by North East Forum for International Solidarity (NEFIS). The program was organized to commemorate the 120th birth anniversary of the freedom fighter, peasant leader, trade unionist and social activist, Hijam Irabot
(1896 – 1951). The meeting was also addressed by the civil rights
activist, Irom Sharmila, and the well-known Indian sociologist, Dr
Nandini Sundar. This was the first time after calling off her hunger
strike that Irom Sharmila addressed a gathering outside Manipur. The
concerned program revolved around the aspirations of the people of the
North East and strategies required for fulfilling such democratic
aspirations.
Speech
I
thank the organizers for inviting me on this extremely important
occasion and I’m grateful for being given the opportunity to share the
platform with Irom Sharmila today. As I’ve been requested to speak on
the vision and efforts of Hijam Irabot, I shall begin with tracing the
trajectory of his political life.
Many
of you may know Irabot as a cultural and social activist who was born
in Manipur. Irabot was born at Hijam Leikai but was soon sent to live
with relatives in Imphal after his father’s demise. With his mother
passing away a little later, Irabot was orphaned in his youth. He
struggled to complete his education from Imphal and later Dacca.
Interestingly, during these years of his youth he showed remarkable
political initiative by founding two student bodies, Bal Sangha and
Chatra Sanmelan
.
Unable
to finish his schooling, Irabot returned from Dacca to Manipur and
began living with a friend who was employed by the royal court.
Recognizing young talent, the king came to employ the services of
Irabot. Irabot
went on to marry into the royal family of Manipur and was appointed a
member of the Sadr Panchayat. However, the young Irabot soon began to
distance himself from the king as he increasingly moved towards a
secular, democratic and egalitarian approach. For instance, as the Vice
President of the organization Nikhil Manipuri Hindu Mahasabha, which was
patronized by the Manipuri king, Irabot went on to drop the term
‘Hindu’ from the organization’s name. Irabot organized the first four
sessions of this organization, and in the absence of the king from the
last session, he seized the opportunity to transform it into a political
organization. Given the king’s continuous interference in the
functioning of the Mahasabha, which actually clashed with the growing
discontent of the Manipuri people against the conjoined forces of
British imperialists and ruling elite of the region, Irabot soon
resigned from the Sadr Panchayat in protest. He even submitted to the
king and Manipur State Durbar a draft outline for the formation of a
proper legislature.
Irabot
proceeded to break away from the Nikhil Manipur Mahasabha and formed a
separate political party, Praja Sanmelani, which actively participated
in the militant Second Nupi Lan or women’s war of 1939. He showed
immense leadership in this movement and was by now instrumental in
raising issues that went beyond concerns of social reform and were closely
linked to the people’s aspirations. Friends, the Second Nupi Lan was
the struggle of Manipuri women, who had been playing a decisive role in
the agrarian economy of the region. Their struggle began as an agitation
against the Manipur king and the British Political Agent’s policy of
indiscriminate export of rice which had created a famine-like situation
in Manipur. By participating in the struggle, Irabot and his supporters
helped to further nurture a movement for economic and political reforms
that the Second Nupi Lan had triggered.
Coming
increasingly into conflict with the Manipur royalty, Irabot was
arrested in 1940 and eventually pushed into exile from Manipur. The
1940s were marked by his radicalization and the widening of his
ideological horizon. Meeting with several communist leaders in jail,
Irabot was soon drawn to the trade union movement of Calcutta and the
kisan sabha movement in the Cachar district and Surma valley. In
Calcutta he participated in the jute mill workers strikes, while he
helped organize Manipuri peasants and non-Manipuri former tea-garden
workers in the Cachar.
He
increasingly emerged as not just the ‘father of Manipur’ but the
brother of all struggling brethren in the region. He became part of the
undivided CPI and attended the first Party congress of the CPI in 1943
as a special invitee from Cachar, as well as the All India Kisan Sabha
conference in 1944. We must remember that this Communist Party was very
different from what exists today. This was a party that believed in the
right to self-determination and was committed to an uncompromising
struggle for equality and liberty for all. As a communist, he
increasingly worked with a sense of international solidarity, which
means that Irabot’s
endeavors represented the battle against British colonialism, the
royalty and all pro-capitalist forces in the Indian subcontinent.
This
history and the legacy of Irabot need to be retrieved in our
contemporary time; more so given the way in which the Indian state has
been plundering the resources of the North East under its ‘Look East’
Policy and due to its efforts to consolidate a position of dominance
among ASEAN countries. We must remember that the North East region was a
geo-political unit that existed in relative isolation from mainland
India with a relatively fluid and shifting frontier till supra-local
forces, i.e. the British colonial state and capitalist businesses began
making inroads. Traditional communities in this geo-political zone had
nurtured intricate inter-community economic interaction and trade
patterns, but these were steadily destabilized with the entry of market
forces and the integration of the region with the international market.
Historically,
the British colonial state –henceforth, the Indian state – along with
capitalist forces working in conjunction with the elites in the North
East have transformed the traditional economy and life of a large number
of groups. This nexus of forces has created a huge under-development in
large parts of the North East. This nexus has also allowed the Indian
state to conveniently position itself an ‘adjudicator’ and ‘peace-maker’
in matters of local conflicts by making them impossible to resolve
within the local context. Now the transformed communities of the North
East are forced to mould their disputes, reactions and claims in terms
of an extra-local political and economic focus, i.e. in terms of the
emerging global economic scenario and international strategic
considerations. In other words, the British, and now, the Indian state’s
steady intervention in the region has undermined traditional communal
ways of resolving inter and intra-community disputes. This entire
process has been used to subjugate and exploit the people of the North
East.
Not
surprisingly, the growing assertion of the impoverished working masses
in the North East has been persistently crushed by this nexus via
militarization of the region. However, given the persistent discontent
among the people of the region and the long history of insurgent
movements, the Indian state has tried to stem the tide by bestowing the
small North East electorate a disproportionately higher political
representation in the Indian parliament. Friends, it is noteworthy that
as of now the people of North East constitute 3.8% of the total
electorate of India whereas its representation in the parliament is 4.6%
i.e. 25 seats out 543 in the parliament. Nevertheless, this
representation has led to little empowerment of the North East
population. Instead, the elections have facilitated the co-option of
leaders and the pacification of various North East communities.
The
under-development of the region and the impoverishment of a large
section of its population is evident to all the young people sitting
here in the audience – all we have to do is look at the large migration
from the North East into mainland India for education and employment.
Not only do these youth join the ranks of the ever widening pool of
unemployed in this country who are desperately taking up insecure,
poorly-paid jobs, but they are also faced with problems of racist
attacks. The insecurity of urban life in mainland India have cut short
many dreams of North East youth. Here in the very same central
university where we are sitting, and where several North East youth have
been able to take admission, exclusion persists in the form of
imposition of Hindi language at the undergraduate level.
In
such a context, retrieving Irabot’s legacy is crucial. The articulate
manner in which Irabot expressed the need for equality and the fact that
everyone should be secured, as well as his belief that socialism was
necessary for the reconstitution of an egalitarian economy and polity
is a message we must take back with us today. Irabot revolted against
the system – against the nexus of colonialism, the royalty and
capitalist forces – and he died fighting. Did he die in vain? How do we
situate his legacy and ensure its continuation? These are important
questions to ask of ourselves today. To begin to answer these
fundamental questions we must closely engage with the later phase of
Irabot’s life.
In
the later phase of Irabot’s life, both Manipur and India saw a very
different kind of trend emerging which did not match the real
aspirations of the struggling people – something which Irabot in a very
perceptive manner discussed in the context of the first Manipur
Assembly. Let us take the example of how the founding document of this
country, the Constitution, was formulated. We have only to turn to the
indisputable fact that the Constituent Assembly which drafted and
deliberated upon the Indian Constitution excluded the voice of most of
the people. The said Constituent Assembly was formed as per a 1946
election in British India that was based on property franchise.
In this light, the founding document of the country is based on nothing
but a historical lie. Given the provision of property franchise, the
Constituent Assembly included the representatives of a small segment of
enfranchised people of what was until then British India. Indeed, the
Preamble of the Constitution which begins with the words “We, the people
of India…” should actually read as “We the representatives of less than
10 per cent of the people impose our will on the majority”.
Yes,
my dear friends, many parts of the country were not even part of this
grand endeavor. These representatives of a fraction of ‘freed’ people
used their newfound power not to initiate a dialogue with the people of
princely states, but to negotiate with the leaders. In the process,
popular leaders were often sidelined. So the heads of the Constituent
Assembly negotiated
with the kings of the princely states – with the kingdoms and not with
the people who were oppressed as subjects of these kingdoms.
Our polity’s evolution was not based on a social contract between the people of India and the people of the princely states. It
has henceforth been based on a contract between the Indian state and
the ruling elite i.e. the kings of the princely states. No matter how
much the state perpetuates a collective amnesia, can we really forget
that our country’s founding moment and document has not been an act of people choosing their own destiny?
The
fact that the right to determine their own destiny eluded many people
of this country is well reflected in one of Irabot’s last communication
before his death. In a letter circulated in October 1948 to the members
of the Manipur Assembly, Irabot highlighted the façade of constitution
making by objecting to the fact that apart from the exclusion of elected
members from his party (the Manipur Praja Mandal), several communities
like the Mhow were not represented in the Assembly. Clearly, his effort
was to take everyone along. The question is whether we can do that
today? Do our strategies today further the aspirations of the people, of
the masses, to choose their destiny?
Are
we doing enough to return back to the people the right to choose their
own destiny? Should we, ladies and gentleman, be satisfied merely by
electing representatives every five years? In the present conjuncture
and in the present form of Assembly elections can elected
representatives alone be the repository of our efforts to carve out our
future? At
a time when representatives who are negotiating on behalf of the people
have increasingly begun to appear like the state itself, is it in our
best interest to throw in our lot with messiah-like leaders?
Friends,
I think you know the answer to this. We have to fight our own battles
for equality, for a life of dignity and for the right to decide our own
destiny rather than clinging on to the façade of democracy. Ours cannot
be a struggle merely to build/find leaders who will then ‘lead’ us. Our
struggle cannot be simply about the never-ending search for people to
represent us or sit on hunger strike for us. We must draw inspiration
from legacies like that of Irabot which speak of unity, solidarity and
strive to provide real power to all struggling, oppressed people. It is
in such united and egalitarian struggles that hope is still lurking.
Let
me end with drawing an analogy from a well-known fable – that of the
Emperor who wore no clothes. You may know of this story of a haughty
Emperor who liked to dress well for every public appearance he made.
Once, this Emperor engaged the services of a notorious tailor. The
tailor appeared in court on the day of the celebration with not a stitch
of cloth. He however proclaimed loudly that those who could see the
garment were alone true or legitimate sons. Although the Emperor himself
could not see the garment, he pretended to wear it and proceeded
outside to greet his subjects. No one spoke a word, fearing that he or
she would be derided for not being a true offspring. While praises were
being showered from all directions on the Emperor’s so-called grand
attire, it was a little boy who nudged his mother and loudly said “but
the Emperor is naked”. Friends, we must choose whether we want to be
like the little boy who drew on his autonomy from the power to be to
speak the truth.
Today
our sister, the Iron Lady of Manipur, Irom Sharmila, is speaking to us
about hope and what she believes is the way forward. She has been
inspiration for the democratic aspirations of Manipuri people ever since
she began her epic fast on 2nd
November 2000. Her fast began following the massacre of 10 civilians in
Malom town by paramilitary forces. She announced that apart from
fasting, she wouldn’t comb her hair or look in a mirror until the Armed
Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) was repealed in Manipur. The personal
hardship she undertook as a form of resistance to facilitate discussion
and appropriate action for the repeal of the draconian law of AFSPA
ignited much hope among the struggling people of Manipur. She became a
symbol of hope, a messenger of our voice. The self-punishment she took
upon herself became an important vehicle of our resistance and came to
represent our moral victory over an apathetic, aggressive state year
after year.
But
it is difficult to contest the fact that all this while the state has
postponed dialogue on AFSPA, and has succeeded to cloister Irom
Sharmila’s endeavor. The state’s measures have increasingly isolated her
from the people. She has been shuttled between court and hospital in an
extremely insensitive, non-humanitarian way; undercutting her moral
victory. It is a well-known fact that Irom Sharmila was regularly
re-arrested, produced before court and placed in judicial custody.
Friends,
today we are at a conjuncture where meaningful dialogue has
continuously been circumvented by the Indian state, militarization of
the region has persisted, and overall despair has drawn more and more
political actors to mainstream electoral politics. At this conjuncture,
Manipuri people have steadily gravitated towards electoral politics as a
formal solution to their angst. However, despite the periodic results
of elections and government formation, disappointment persists within
the masses. This in all probability has fueled the hostility within some
towards Irom Sharmila’s decision to discontinue her fast and contest
elections. But what we must remember is that our strategies have to
collectively evolve and we have to look for the silver lining – the hope
which alone can drive the movement for carving out our own destiny. It
is the hope that things can be different
which fuels our mixed response to Irom Sharmila’s recent decision. We
must cling to this hope, to the aspirations of the masses, so as to
build stronger endeavors to fight our oppression. It is the hope that
can help us overcome the dichotomy between leaders and the led, between
the people and their representatives. Let us rise together – let Irom,
the Iron Lady, become one amongst us. Let us together create an
unstoppable tide which successfully drowns prevailing oppression and
exploitation.
Friends,
with these thoughts and appeal I would like to conclude, and once again
thank the organizers for giving me this privileged opportunity to share
the dais with Irom Sharmila and Dr Nandini Sundar
No comments:
Post a Comment